Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

Profile for RepublicanStones

Not too bad thanks !

Latest comments from RepublicanStones (see all)

RepublicanStones has commented 1,921 times (0 in the last month).

  1. Comment on #Lethal Allies: this is not collusion.
    on 2 November 2013 at 5:42 pm

    SoS claiming that for some ‘collusion’ involved everyone (including Constable Uncle Tom Cobley I suppose) is what I wrote demonstrates again his need to narrow the definition.

    What I wrote was this….
    Any decent moral person should accept that collusion involves not just those who pulled triggers, planted bombs, passed on intelligence for targeting etc – but it also involves those tasked with carrying out investigations who then carried out the investigation in a manner designed to accommodate and camouflage the full extent of facts and collusion evident. Collusion also involves those in the many command roles who were cognizant of the facts of street-level collusion among their subordinates and either facilitated it or brushed it under the carpet. Collusion also involves those at the highest levels in London who were receiving reports of it and did nothing about it. There is street-level collusion where the badges met the balaclavas, but there was also administration and command level collusion, where it could have been nipped in the bud by those in senior positions and in Govt but either wasn’t or was actively facilitated. With all this in mind, Unionists who peddle the ‘few rotten apples’ myth are as laughable as Gerry claiming he wasn’t in the Provos.

    I would also add that whilst talking about the covert collusion many ignore the earlier more overt forms of collusion, that which see the ‘security’ forces actively facilitate and enable unionist/loyalist violence against the civil rights campaign. Furthermore as Ciaran MacAirt brilliantly documented in his book, appeasement of loyalism was official policy. This included disinformation campaigns that we know attempted to label loyalism terrorism as being republican. That in itself is also collusion.

    Now SoS i have not claimed ‘everyone’ as you sought to infer. Perhaps you could tell us all exactly which parts of my obviously too broad for you, definition of collusion you disagree with…

    Go to comment

  2. Comment on #Lethal Allies: this is not collusion.
    on 2 November 2013 at 4:49 pm

    Why did the PFC specifically wait until (Wednesday) 23rd October to deliver its verdict?

    Would the reception have been any different on any other date?

    Go to comment

  3. Comment on #Lethal Allies: this is not collusion.
    on 2 November 2013 at 4:28 pm

    she had found no evidence that pointed to an official policy of criminal activity by the police.

    But of course, i doubt we’ll ever find that kind of smoking gun document. Policy makers for the dirty war would hardly incriminate themselves with such naive record keeping. And as we’ve seen in its other colonial conflicts, Britain attempted to do away with the incriminating evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes

    As for ‘collusion’ the definition is so wide as it renders the word meaningless in the NI context.

    Afraid not. but your claim is a revealing insight into a certain mindset that would rather narrow the definition of collusion. Why? Well by narrowing the definition it exempts masses of personnel who would rather be guilty of it, thus such an attempt can be seen for the crude narrative re-enforcing exercise it clearly is. By narrowing the defintion of collusion you have a greater chance to sell the ‘few rotten apples’ myth. As i posted on the Glennane thread…
    Any decent moral person should accept that collusion involves not just those who pulled triggers, planted bombs, passed on intelligence for targeting etc – but it also involves those tasked with carrying out investigations who then carried out the investigation in a manner designed to accommodate and camouflage the full extent of facts and collusion evident. Collusion also involves those in the many command roles who were cognizant of the facts of street-level collusion among their subordinates and either facilitated it or brushed it under the carpet. Collusion also involves those at the highest levels in London who were receiving reports of it and did nothing about it. There is street-level collusion where the badges met the balaclavas, but there was also administration and command level collusion, where it could have been nipped in the bud by those in senior positions and in Govt but either wasn’t or was actively facilitated. With all this in mind, Unionists who peddle the ‘few rotten apples’ myth are as laughable as Gerry claiming he wasn’t in the Provos.

    I would also add that whilst talking about the covert collusion many ignore the earlier more overt forms of collusion, that which see the ‘security’ forces actively facilitate and enable unionist/loyalist violence against the civil rights campaign. Furthermore as Ciaran MacAirt brilliantly documented in his book, appeasement of loyalism was official policy. This included disinformation campaigns that we know attempted to label loyalism terrorism as being republican. That in itself is also collusion.

    As i said earlier, the ‘few bad apples’ myth is akin to Gerry’s ‘I wasn’t in the provos’ claim.

    Go to comment

  4. Comment on The Glenanne story proves the time for frank admissions is overdue: further prevarication over collusion implies Briitsh government cover-up
    on 27 October 2013 at 12:50 pm

    I have yet to read the book, but listening to William Crawley’s interviews on Sunday Sequence this morning whats clear is that the ‘few bad apples’ myth is just that. According to this book, reports of collusion were crossing the desks of the highest levels in Downing St and Whitehall, yet nothing was done. If collusion was known by the most senior levels of Govt and it was not nipped in the bud then it merely reflects a tacit acceptance of it – ergo policy by default…as it were.
    The attempt by the leadership of Unionism to portray collusion as being perpetrated by a few rogue officers is also patent nonsense and just as obscene as the attempt to narrow the definition of collusion in order to exempt as many of those culpable as possible (thus attempting to lend credence to the ‘few rotten apples’ myth).
    Any decent moral person should accept that collusion involves not just those who pulled triggers, planted bombs, passed on intelligence for targeting etc – but it also involves those tasked with carrying out investigations who then carried out the investigation in a manner designed to accommodate and camouflage the full extent of facts and collusion evident. Collusion also involves those in the many command roles who were cognizant of the facts of street-level collusion among their subordinates and either facilitated it or brushed it under the carpet. Collusion also involves those at the highest levels in London who were receiving reports of it and did nothing about it. There is street-level collusion where the badges met the balaclavas, but there was also administration and command level collusion, where it could have been nipped in the bud by those in senior positions and in Govt but either wasn’t or was actively facilitated. With all this in mind, Unionists who peddle the ‘few rotten apples’ myth are as laughable as Gerry claiming he wasn’t in the Provos.

    Go to comment

  5. Comment on Lord Mayor Attack: A Tale of Two Parks
    on 9 August 2013 at 10:30 am

    BluesJazz thanks for that, I had no idea it was the job of British Foreign Minister to represent just Belfast. Why isn’t he called “Minister for Belfast’ then?

    BTW, I’m asking this rhetorically as I don’t really want to take a second shower this morning, cheers.

    Go to comment

  6. Comment on Republican Castlederg parade: the insensitivity of the impotent
    on 8 August 2013 at 9:13 pm

    Serious question. What is the need for this commemoration to involve a parade through the town? What is the need for any commemoration to involve a parade? I’d suggest they could just gather at the football pitch, but I don’t think sporting premises should be associated with (para)militaristic events.

    Go to comment

  7. Comment on Lord Mayor Attack: A Tale of Two Parks
    on 8 August 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Those advocating that the Lord Mayor should have stayed away, do you really think that’s a healthy precedent to be advocating?

    Its the fact that we’re not just talking about a Shinner here, that’s actually secondary to real issue which is that the first citizen of this city, the guy who will represent us internationally for the next year, was met with violence by an unwelcoming mob.

    Where is the leadership within unionism/loyalism? What kind of leadership is it to pen a letter advising the city’s first citizen to stay out of an area of his own city because he’s not welcome? Surely real leadership would have attempted to ensure the Mayor wasn’t met with violence.

    Go to comment

  8. Comment on Two new minority language community radio stations on either side of the Bann
    on 13 June 2013 at 11:42 am

    If there’s a constituency or listener-ship (is this a word?) for either radio station, who cares?

    One thing i would like to know from Ulster-Scots ppl, in Pomeroy when the residents were getting a fancy monument at either end of the village with the name Cabhan an Chaorthainn (townland) and Pomeroy there appeared a third name in what is presumably Ulster-Scots – ‘Appleschaw’. Up until this point nobody (at least nobody i knew) in the village was aware of this name and am I correct in thinking they got the apple bit from the Pom (Pomme being apple in french) in Pomeroy?

    Go to comment

  9. Comment on For all Obama’s problems, can communication in the ‘social’ era now ever mean ‘private’?
    on 13 June 2013 at 11:11 am

    This is one of those ‘known unknowns’ (to steal from Rumsfeld) – given the completely kneejerk reaction of the US to the horrific events of 9/11 i don’t think the scope of this snooping should come as a surprise to anyone. Particularly given the fact that the original Patriot act was rushed through Congress without anywhere near a sufficient amount of time to read it.
    You throw in it’s several reauthorizations since and the fact that no politician in the US wants to be seen to be ‘soft on terrorism’ – (which should be a consideration when we hear that there is oversight on these surveillance programs through closed committees) and you got yourself a recipe for an Orwellian nightmare.
    How these revelations go up against the Fourth Amendment will be very interesting, esp since the ACLU has now brought a case against the Govt over this very issue.

    Go to comment

  10. Comment on A clumsy law is a small price to pay to remind us what the Troubles were really about
    on 9 June 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Unionist Over Reaction – does that include the first killings and (false flag) bombings of what we euphemistically call ‘the troubles’ or are the loyalists responsible somehow detached from this U.O.R?

    Go to comment

Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
45 queries. 4.612 seconds.