Operation Banner
While how to deal with the past continues to be discussed, the Army has produced its official analysis of its operation in Northern Ireland, Operation Banner (pdf file). The document does not claim victory rather that it had “shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence” “The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence.”. The document was released under an FoI request by the Pat Finucane Centre who have criticised the analysis.It seems the BBC NI is doing some rowing back/clarification from what it said earlier.
The original article said the following:
“The Army has admitted for the first time that it did not win the war against the IRA. ”
It now says:
“An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.”
The quote marks in the headline were also removed. Although they still make no mention that the document talks of the “defeat of the PIRA” and call the operation a “major achievement”, a “success” and a “unique” one at that.
UPDATE: You will note I have added a strikethrough in ” shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence”, this is because despite a number of searches I cannot find this phrase in the report, despite it appearing in quotation marks in the BBC report. I have lifted a direct quote from the report. If any of you find the original BBC quote in the document, please tell me and I will restore it.
MacSwiney: You are the one who should wake up form yourt slumber. You wrap yourself in a dead patriot’s name and think that gives you the right to make an idiot of yourself here.
Ed Moloney makes it plain the IRA’s top brass were in the pocket of MI5. Each new revelation backs that up. It is part of a process stretching long back to 1649 at least. The Brits got the leadership they wanted and they let the rest fall into place.
The waves of immigrants, all engineered, will ensure that the cause of Irish unity will not be furthered in our lifetimes. The concept of Irishness as we understand it will also vanish. Operation Banner was a success.
Macswiney is so desperate to justify to himself his support for Provisional IRA terrorism that he needs to believe that the Army inflicted “terror” on him.
MICKHALL
“I say again, ‘there morals or ours’.”
Ours – as in society’s. The shared morals of western society hold that murder is unacceptable and wrong.
In an earlier post I gave some rough figures(from memory) of those killed by the Army in the 30 years of the campaign. I have just checked them and the correct figures are 301 of whom 121 were republican terrorists, 10 Loyalist terrorists and the remaining 170 civilians. The source of this is “Lost Lives” by Mckittrick, the accepted unbiased work on the subject.
A total of 3600 people were killed of whom 2148 were killed by republican terrorists including 162 of their own men. An interesting fact therefore, is that republican terrorists killed more republican terrorists than the Army did by a factor of 30%!
MICKHALL
“I say again, ‘there morals or ours’.â€
Ours – as in society’s. The shared morals of western society hold that murder is unacceptable and wrong.
Posted by willowfield
I do not believe it is only western societies that regard murder as being wrong and thus a crime and I agree totally with this. My point was defining morals is a very complex business hence the questions I posed to turgon.
For example I believe for a Prime Minister to send youngsters to war, to kill and be killed on a lie, is both immoral and a crime against international law. Yet I accept as society stands I am in all probability in a minority on this. However I am confident given time, most people will come to agree with me and not the leading politicians, religious leaders and judiciary of today who failed to take a stand against such imorality. My point being society, thus moral values change and only the most small minded or bigoted people set them in Stone.
I find it very revealing that the advocates of bin Laden and many of the Neo- conservatives fall into this category.
Leaving aside the defeat of the IRA are we discussing the same report which describes the UDA as being the most respectable of the loyalist para military groups.
By inference the UVF/UFF are also respectable but not to the same extent.
If you believe this then take the rest of the report with a large pinch of salt.
“Macswiney is so desperate to justify to himself his support for Provisional IRA terrorism that he needs to believe that the Army inflicted “terror†on him.”
To be fair here, I think we have to remember that perception has it’s own reality – and that even if he wasn’t one of those few who had a genuine grievance against the security forces, if he was convinced by the nationalist propaganda machine that his community were terrorised, then as far as he was concerned it was real.
Cruimh, from what you wrote I am guessing that you believe the army never destroyed private property, threatened civillians. terrorised children, held communities at gunpoint or anything else that might sound like terror tactics. Strange because after living through the troubles I saw all of that . Didn’t need to hear about it from any nationalist propaganda machine.
confused: which describes the UDA as being the most respectable of the loyalist para military groups
As ever confused, you’re living up to your name. The report has a few contributors the contributor that claimed the British army didn’t win also claimed that all paramilitary groups with the exception of the IRA were nothing more than gangsters. Surely thats something that even you could agree with?
“Cruimh, from what you wrote I am guessing that you believe the army never destroyed private property, threatened civillians. terrorised children, held communities at gunpoint or anything else that might sound like terror tactics.”
Read what I wrote again then ciaran
” those few who had a genuine grievance against the security forces ”
Now, if you want to read about terror tactics, I suggest you read about events in Cambodia, Chechnya and the Balkans.
I did read your post cruimh and there were more than a few. And just because the tactics used here by the british were not the same as those in the countries you mentioned , does that make them any less terrible for those who had to endure them? Or were they acceptable.
“I did read your post cruimh and there were more than a few.”
so what was with this crap ciaran ?
“Cruimh, from what you wrote I am guessing that you believe the army never destroyed private property, threatened civillians. terrorised children, held communities at gunpoint or anything else that might sound like terror tactics.â€
Point is that the broad nationalist community were not terrorised by the British Army – who behaved admirably compared to any other force in the world. And that is my point – the propaganda machine that has Paul Butler comparing Long Kesh to Auschwicz, the attempt to portray to the world – and thereby atempt to justify La Mon, the Abercorn etc etc – that the whole 600,000 plus nationalist community were uniquely and viciously discriminated against, oppressed and abused is …. bollix.
Same era – France and the algerian crisis, UK and the republican terrorists – no question as to which behaved brutally and barbarically – the French. But that rather destroys the MOPEfest, eh ciaran ?
go look at that link for army terror tactics
Andersontown News????
ROFL!
When de Valera went to America in 1920 it was because he knew that was where Irish freedom would be won. When Hume went to Washington and built up his contacts it was because he knew which government had the last word on British Army involvement.
When Sinn Fein won the propaganda war in Washington that WAS the endgame.
It may take another few years for the political consequences to work themselves out on the ground but with a friendly American administration due in two years and Irish-American influence at it’s height the British government won’t be long in releiving itself of an embarrassing hangover from the Empire.
Civil unionism in the form of the UUP is no more and the centrality of Protestantism to the British identity is headed the same way with the largest single group of church attenders on the average Sunday being the Catholics.
“When de Valera went to America in 1920 it was because he knew that was where Irish freedom would be won.”
he went for the $$$$$
The British Army has done it’s usual job of holding the ring while the politicals negotiate their exit. No more, no less.
Remember that Collins was criticised because he saw the way ahead too clearly. There always had to be an ‘exit strategy’ and the GFA is it. Not what the Irish side wanted but acceptable to them, not what Irish unionism wanted but giving them nothing to unite around.
cruimh the point is the broad broad nationalist community were terrorised by the army. Maybe not the whole 600,000 as you say but then again I do not accuse the whole protestant population of supporting the bigitory that the catholics had to endure.I saw it on a daily basis. Just because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it did not happen. Why send in a military force to do what is basicaly a policing job. The military as has been seen are not able to do the job and end up getting out of control. And does the army behaving admirably include the torture of SUSPECTED terrorists or was that ok.Something like what has gone on in guantanemo.
Maybe I am picking you up wrong but it still looks as if you get to be the judge of what is terror to people and what is not.
Lib2016: Collins was the Stakenife/Adams of his day. It was a great day for Ireland when that badtard got his just deserts. Read Ernie O’Malley on thsi asshole and how, Adams like, the Brits built him up.
McAlliskey summed it up some years ago. The war is over; the god guys lost.
Ciaran
Torturing suspected terrorists went on in the maze you do not have to reach out as far as guantanemo
and crunby, Newsletter ha ha ha
From today’s Irish News:
BBC defends reports after Robinson ‘pro-IRA’ claims
By Alana Fearon
The BBC has hit back at DUP deputy leader Peter Robinson’s claim that a report on the British army’s assessment of its operations in Northern Ireland was a “piece of undiluted republican propagandaâ€.
Mr Robinson said a BBC report on Friday had been deliberately phrased to sound like an admission by the army that it had been in-capable of defeating the IRA.
The Stormont finance minister demanded an inquiry into what he has described as the “An Phoblacht-style reporting of the BBCâ€.
In its assessment the army describes its campaign in the north as “one of the very few ever brought to a successful conclusion by the armed forces of a developed nation against an irregular forceâ€.
A spokesperson said the BBC had had a detailed conversation with the army press office regarding the 100-page assessment.
The spokesperson said the broadcaster was confident that its coverage had been fair and balanced and had “captured the essence of a major argument in the reportâ€.
Mr Robinson, however, said the BBC lacked credibility and objectivity.
“The BBC must publicly demonstrate it has taken steps to deal with the flagrant republican bias of its broadcast and inform the licence-paying public what action has been taken against those involved,†he said.
“The BBC can have no credibility, nor can it be seen as an independent source of news and information, unless and until it provides an explanation of this pro-IRA reporting.â€
The spooks went easy on the Provos in their report. Why bother being parked on Crossmaglen GAA pitch when the Royal Ulster Provos will keep Bandit Country in line for you?
The Provos shot people for doing 1/1000000th the damage McGuinness and Adams did. And what of Denis Donaldson? He was cut down in cold blood but few cared. Who covered for Donaldson all those years? Who guaranteed his safety in Donegal? Who got Stakeknife away?
Adams or McGuinness, 50/50, ask the audience or phone a friend. (Cheap calls to Italy on now).
http://breaking.tcm.ie/ireland/mhkfidcwmhcw/
This today
MICKHALL
I do not believe it is only western societies that regard murder as being wrong and thus a crime and I agree totally with this. My point was defining morals is a very complex business hence the questions I posed to turgon.
But when it comes to murder it is not complex at all.
For example I believe for a Prime Minister to send youngsters to war, to kill and be killed on a lie, is both immoral and a crime against international law. Yet I accept as society stands I am in all probability in a minority on this. However I am confident given time, most people will come to agree with me and not the leading politicians, religious leaders and judiciary of today who failed to take a stand against such imorality. My point being society, thus moral values change and only the most small minded or bigoted people set them in Stone.
I personally agree with you about Iraq, but it is a poor example because there was moral confusion surrounding Iraq: the decision to go to war was authorised by our democratically-elected parliament, therefore there was a degree of legitimacy about the decision; also there was a confusion of information surrounding the decision which led many to support war who otherwise would not; and uncertainty about whether an earlier UN resolution authorised force.
In the case of the Provisional IRA, no such confusion existed, since the Provisional IRA was not a legitimate body by any democratic or moral standards of western society, and no-one applying our moral standards could make a case in support of a small self-chosen group engaging in the murder and injury of innocents, torture, destruction of property, etc., against the wishes of the people whom they purported to represent.
CIARAN
cruimh the point is the broad broad nationalist community were terrorised by the army.
Nice bit of MOPEry.
No sane person would claim that “the broad nationalist community” was “terrorised” by the Army!
The army’s job was to maintain the status quo and the that meant confrontation with the Provos who were trying to change the status quo and with the community from which they drew their support. The IRA were not defeated but the fact is the British did not really want to ‘win’. Most educated mainland British (Tory or Labour ) view their involvment in Ireland at least partly as an imperialist adventure and do not consider Belfast as British as Bath – they wanted an accomodation with Republicanism to put the age old enmity Between the 2 island to bed. To achieve this Unionists were forced to accept de facto constitutional change in GFA/STA.
‘I disagree (violently) that we inflicted “terror†in any areas of Northern Ireland, this is a ludicrous sugestion. I served a totla of 9 tours and saw or heard of nothing which would support that comment’
Wonder what the family of young Julie Livingstone would have to say to that Paul or was that just another one of those breakdowns in discipline?
willow,”No sane person would claim that “the broad nationalist community†was “terrorised†by the Army!” Why not, it was true.No sane person could believe otherwise.
Yes, yes, all very interesting but the real story here is the frantic back-pedalling by the BBC as the boul’ Peter Robinson tackles them for pumping out the Pat Finucane Centre’s spin on this report practically verbatim.
Not great journalism, especially given the huge amount of real and highly relevant news in the army document. Not shameless about making comparisons to Iraq, are they? This could easily have been a national story if certain people hadn’t been running around the BBC newsroom with their “IRA – Undefeated Army” t-shirts on. Now BBC-NI will actually have to bury the story or risk inviting a management bollocking.
Individuals, and even individual communities on occasion may have been but the broad nationalist community was not terrorised by the British Army. Annoyed yes, humiliated perhaps. Terrorised no.
The whole of society was to some extent terrorised by the paramilitaries.
To what degree the British top brass were pulling the strings of the paramilitaries remains to be seen but even if they made some very bad errors of judgement their ultimate goal was a peaceful 6 counties inside or outside the UK.
[i]“Surly the real question is, to use the title of a book about morals, ‘There morals or ours’ You wish me to abide by the morals which have been set by this societies ruling elite, sorry to disappoint you, but not in this life.” – Mick Hall[/i]
I didn’t mention which system you should adhere to. I made the point that psychopaths are, by definition, moral degenerates. So, there can’t be a choice offered by them to society as to whether “their [non-existent] morals” are superior actual ethical systems or personal morals, can there? They don’t have any valid ethical system or personal morals. It is their lack of conscience that makes them unable to feel guilt or remorse and makes them pathologically unstable. This is why all they can offer are self-serving rationalisations for their abnormal behaviour, and it is why society has rejected their self-justifation spiels. Moral degenerates, my friend, make very poor moral tutors.
[i]“For example you mentioned the way Israel punishes Palestinians, yet the society we life in, often brands those Palestinians who refuse to live by the standards their oppressors set as terrorist and in some cases Psychotic killers, but never use the same language to describe the IDF there oppressors. now why is that?” – Mick Hall[/i]
Ah, you walked right into that bear trap, Mick. I purposefully contrasted PIRA’s “collective punishment upon the innocents” with Israel’s “collective punishment upon the innocents” in order to show the duplicity of PIRA supporters who happily condemn others for doing what they point blank refuse to condemn PIRA for doing, with no obfuscation or equivocation about the propriety of moral systems or self-serving subversive attempts to undermine moral condemnation. You may now attempt to climb out of that hole by stating that a government is different from a private group, but the principle of punishing innocents for the crimes of others is legitimately applicable in both examples.
[i]“The media, which our ‘betters’ get to set many of the standards and moral standards within this society, along with leading politicians happily rejoiced and cried ‘Got you’ when hundreds of young Argentinean sailors went to their watery grave. Nothing was said by these guardians of moral values when 75 plus worshipers were killed when a US missile struck an Iraqi mosque in 2003, pray tell what is the difference between that outrage and Enniskillen. Is the US President who ordered it a psychopath, are the US seamen who launched the weapon psychopaths?” – Mick Hall[/i]
It’s like this: is a man rapes your wife, will you refuse to condemn him and demand justice from the state because it is the state which has declared his act a crime and declared it a crime because it has decreed that it morally wrong to have sex with another person against that person’s will, or will you rant on about unrelated actions, declaring the state to be corrupt, an unfit judge of behaviour, no guide for morals, etc? We both know the answer to that question: you will see that moral systems (and the laws that derive from them) are an essential function of society.
[i]“I say again ‘there morals or ours’. As to your study of incarcerated US criminals I spit on it as in my eyes it is worthless, as no honest study can be done by asking questions of and analyzing men who do not have free will etc, to claim such a study as accurate is nonsensical. The who purpose of these studies is to reinforce the US penal system and frighten the plebs.” – Mick Hall [/i]
Such a dilemma: should I yield to the authority of experts who have undertaken the research or someone who has no knowledge of it but doesn’t feel he needs to have knowledge of it if he rants in a sub Noam Chomsky manner in place of an actual refutation? Gee, I’ll have to ponder that one.
[i]“I say again ‘there morals or ours’. ” – Mick Hall [/i]
And that’s three times you have said nothing. In the matter of ethical systems, as Willowfield said, “Ours.”
Sorry exile, I have to disagree. The actions of the british army against the broad nationalist community constituted terror. Beatings, killings theft,preventing movement within a community, threats. If I was talking about the ira you would agree completely. So why can you not agree that the british army was as bad, considering they were supposed to be enforcing the law not ignoring it?
Ciaran wrote:
” The actions of the british army against the broad nationalist community constituted terror. Beatings, killings theft,preventing movement within a community, threats. If I was talking about the ira you would agree completely. So why can you not agree that the british army was as bad, considering they were supposed to be enforcing the law not ignoring it?”
What utter rubbish! Are you seriously suggesting that all of the above were the day-to-day experiences of the nationalist community over 30 years of the campaign? Are you completely barking mad? According to the report at the centre of this thread 250,000 British soldiers served (at least one tour)in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Were we all murderers, thieves, bullies etc?. I’m not saying for a moment that individual soldiers didn’t misbehave or disgrace themselves on occasion, it would be extraordinary (if not actually unprecedented in any army in history!) were it to be otherwise. I have no doubt we were a nuisance and an inconvenience a lot of the time but given the situation and the nature of our duties we could not have been otherwise. The undeniable fact is that were it not for us a great many more innocent people would have died and suffered injury.To accuse the British Army of inflicting terror on the nationalist population is outrageous, slanderous and just plain wrong.
Soldiers are the very last people you would want performing such a role as we did, but there is nobody else capable of doing it and I believe, no other Army on earth which could have done it better!
You’re talking nonsense!
To accuse the British Army of inflicting terror on the nationalist population is outrageous, slanderous and just plain wrong. ,
Paul
I find this debate interesting as it shows just how short memories are, like many English people, [im presuming] you seem to have an inability to place yourself in others shoes. You say that it is plain wrong to say the British army inflicted terror on members of the nationalist population. But there is enough evidence to confirm they did not least judgments of the European court.
You might well say that some of those who took their complaints to that court were members of the PIRA, and so they were, but they were also members of the nationalist community.
I personally accept the majority of squadies were not psychos etc but ordinary decent men and women, never the less you were asked to do a job which in my view is beyond an army of war, thus you were bound to shall I say, tread on more than a few toes in the process.
Try to put a young volunteers shoe on your foot by considering what you might have done, if you had been old enough, if the Nazi army had crossed the channel and occupied England. [before you say it I am not comparing the British army with Hitler’s although that to was filled with ordinary lads bar the SS etc. Yet they did some dreadful things.
Truthfully I am not judging, just asking that you consider how many nationalist who felt the sharp end of your army feel.
all the best
dubliner,
Your reply took my breath away it was filled with such energy, i will have to consider it before replying.
Paul
I will accept that the army was not deployed as a terror weapon
Its just too bad it was allowed to turn itself into one
Paul
Cheerio.
MICKHALL
Paul You say that it is plain wrong to say the British army inflicted terror on members of the nationalist population. But there is enough evidence to confirm they did not least judgments of the European court.
That’s poor, Mick and beneath your usual honest debating style. Paul specifically did NOT say that it was wrong to say that the Army inflicted terror on members of the nationalist population. On the contrary, he acknowledged that such “terror” took place against members – his specific point was that such “terror” was not the experience of the “broad nationalist population”.
Willowfield,
Then I have clearly misunderstood what Paul has written, I was not trying to pull a fast one to make my point I simply failed to read back through the entire thread, a mistake I will make ever attempt not to repeat.
Paul
I apologies.
willowfield
How could any nationalist feel safe and not be terrorized by the army? Were there cousins, neighbours, sons and fathers not shot in the back in Derry. Were their neighborhoods not patroled by men with machine guns, who aimed them repeatedly at them. Was ther sleep not rourinely interupted by helicopters hovering over head for seemingly the sole purpose of harrasing the local. Were their houses and vehicles not routinely subject to humiliating searches, with out merit or warrant. Were they not called derogatory names and had their lives threatened. I doubt their are any but the most hardened of volunteers that could say they were not routinely terrorized by the supposed forces of law and order and for what? To support a disfunctional and bigoted state bent on the oppresion of the minority.
MICKHALL
No worries – appreciate your clarification.
SEAN
How could any nationalist feel safe and not be terrorized by the army?
I guess by not feeling in danger and not being “terrorised” by the Army!
Were there cousins, neighbours, sons and fathers not shot in the back in Derry.
Yes. Hundreds of thousands of them.
Were their neighborhoods not patroled [sic] by men with machine guns, who aimed them repeatedly at them.
Whose neighbourhoods? Yes, of course, neighbourhoods in which terrorists operated were patrolled by the Army!
Was ther [sic] sleep not rourinely interupted by helicopters hovering over head for seemingly the sole purpose of harrasing the local.
I’m sure that was the case for some, including myself. Ever wondered why it was necessary to have helicopters? Ever think that if there wasn’t a terror campaign ongoing there wouldn’t be such need?
Were their houses and vehicles not routinely subject to humiliating searches, with out merit or warrant. Were they not called derogatory names and had their lives threatened. I doubt their are any but the most hardened of volunteers that could say they were not routinely terrorized by the supposed forces of law and order and for what?
If they were “volunteers” then they deserve to have been subject to harassment and searches.
For what? To protect society from murderers and terrorists.