British form new "anti-Islamic" regiment

by kebab Sun Jul 25, 2004 15:31

that they have evidence of a new training facility with over 400 recruits in Afghanistan.
This follows close co-operation between Morocco and the Spanish State in the aftermath of M11 and the election of ZP March 14.
Spanish troops are currently in preparation to be stationed as part of a new military presence in Afghanistan.

by Devil Dog Mon Jul 26, 2004 06:26

As your estate agent will tell you, it's all about location - on which planet are you located? - the one where the inhabitants believe the Mossad set up those poor Arabs by flying planes into the WTC?

Ahhh, Loughgall & Gib.....happy memories of the boys from Hereford doing their thing...Big boys' games, big boys' rules......

by moonwolf Tue Jul 27, 2004 00:49

The eight I.R.A Volunteers of North Monaghan/East Tyrone were on active service and i don't recall republicans complaining about this incident, thats what happens in war. This lot aren't that good or they wouldn't have let the Ninth man at Loughgall get away! Although what the actions of I.R.A a.s.u's during the national struggle has to do with Al Queida beats me.So go away Hillal and get your own cause and don't try to drag the heroic Oglaigh na h-Eireann into your Islamic bullshit.

In any event your community is well infiltrated as it is, or so it seems, along with the Peace movement and the leftie hangers on Parties. Sure you lot can hardly move for intelligence operatives or is it Black popes?

by Devil Dog Tue Jul 27, 2004 04:43

Really Moonwolf?

Then why did the families of the dead terrorists sue the Brits for breach of human rights and why did some Republican sack write that whiny ballad about martyrs of Loughgall?

There wasn't a ninth man, more Provo propaganda.

by moonwolf Tue Jul 27, 2004 08:05

First, there was a ninth man, I state that as a categorical fact from within my personal knowledge!
I would be happy to hear your "evidence" for suggesting that this is propoganda, whilst reminding you that the brits thought that they had killed the ninth man(alas it wasn't he but a poor unfortunate workman who happened to be driving by wearing the military uniform of blue overalls)The ninth man watched the scene unfold in the rear view mirror of the car he was sitting in waiting to take some of his comrades from the scene and back to North Monaghan.

Secondly the actions of the families is not necessarily representitive of the beliefs of either the dead volunteers or the republican movement.

As for that whiney ballad, sure paper never refused ink nor a musical score words!

I would contend that at least some of the volunteers who died that night, while carrying out an act of war, would have accepted their fate as any soldier in their situation should and further i am absolutely sure of that statement in regard to one of them.

What this has to do with the brits setting up an alleged counter islamist unit is beyond me, or indeed the need for mentioning republicans in the original article. It would seem to me the setting up of such a unit would be S.O.P for any military intelligence organisation who felt or percieved a threat from any given position. If there are Al Queida units operating on our soverign territory then it is my contention that we (never mind the brits) should treat them as an invading force and as we treated the many others who have come to this island to carry out acts of aggression and terrorism against our people.

by Kitten Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:00

More than likely set up by the boys in Connolly house. They would have been a thorn in the sides of the peaceniks. Wasn't one of them Tommy McKearneys brother? I wonder what they would have thought of Kelly doing steward for the paras?

by rooster Tue Jul 27, 2004 14:38

organised the massacre of three unarmed IRA members in Gibraltar in 1988 and was also behind the Loughgall massacre in County Tyrone, in 1987 where eight IRA members were ambushed and massacred.

IRA men on their way to kill soldiers get killed when the soldiers get wind of what there up to, where is the problem here?

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 15:28

Rooster there are a number of issues but first off a minor technical point. The Loughgall IRA attack was on what was meant to be an empty police station (one of those ones that only opened during the day) and the IRA unit in Gibraltar was what appeared to be a practice run (there was no bomb in the car). So neither unit were 'on their way to kill soldiers'. In Gibraltar it's also pretty clear that the 3 killed were unarmed and had attempted to surrender before being shot. So even under war time engagement rules this would probably qualify as a war crime.

More to the point the British government never claimed to be at war. It portrayed the struggle as a question of 'law and order' against a criminal gang. They took this route for propaganda purposes but for the same reasons the British and Irish public expected that they were therefore following peacetime law (with some special powers). There can be very little doubt that international 'public opinion' would have taken a very different view of the conflict if the British government had honestly stated that this was a war in which units of their army had been ordered to implement a 'no quarter' policy. Or indeed that the same units had been given permission to torture, to run pseudo-gangs and to assassinate not only political figures of republicanism but also non-involved nationalists.

Further a public admission that the same units were running operations south of the border that included kidnappings, assassinations and almost certainly bombings would probably have started an international outcry ending up in the UN. The southern government turned a blind eye to most of this because it was consistently denied by the British army. Almost certainly they would not have been able to do this if the British army had been honest about what they were up to,

Devil dog all this talk of 'big boys rules' is very well coming from a regiment that specialises in political assassinations and spying on British workers as well as its better know military side. But it has to be noticed that the SAS has been far more reluctant to cite these 'big boys rules' when its operatives were killed on active service in the north. With a couple of non deniable exceptions these deaths have been transferred back to the parent regiments and sometimes then passed off as car accidents or drownings. The 'big boys' it appears didn't like it getting out that they were also vulnerable.

by Devil Dog Tue Jul 27, 2004 16:01

Slater and Westmacott were the only 2 22 SAS KIA's in NI - trying to add Nairac and a bunch of others to further Provo propaganda won't wash.

To go with your point a bit more - do you think all "unarmed" IRA KIA's were like that when killed? Or maybe the Provo Pixies took the weapons away to make it look like they were unarmed...as for admitting involvement - how about Carragher, sent on his merry way by some Marines - it was denied at the time that he was a Vol yet doesn't anyone want to bet their mortgage on that? Not to mention Obergruppenfuhrer Adams constant denials (it's a river in Egypt) that he was ever in the IRA....

War crimes? Give me a break...when did the IRA ever take EPW's?

Enniskillen/La Mon/Frizells/Mullaghmore/Warrington - are they war crimes too?

Moonwolf - care to produce evidence of your claim? As for location, what's yours? Methinks somewhere in the US....

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 16:50

My comments were simply on Gib. which is pretty clearly a case of 3 unarmed people being shot while trying to surrender, I don't think anyone bothers denying this now. (see for instance http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/68885.stm )Perhaps there are other cases where guns were removed, that's not really the point here. Mind you the 'guns were removed' argument suffers from the 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome as it was used by the British army every time they shot down civilians, Bloody Sunday being the best remembered today.

I was under the impression that Nirac has been claimed by the SAS as were at least two others beyond the two you mention. And the evidence for a good dozen or more beyond this seems quite strong. I personally remember an APRN 'War News' column from the late 1980's reporting the deaths of a 4 man team in south Armagh around 3 days before the army announced the deaths of 4 soldiers in a tragic car accident in West Germany! And is it not pretty much regiment policy to not claim many of those it has lost, well at least not in public. I guess in 90 years or so we'll know but its unlikely I'll be around to post any 'I told you so' messages.

This policy has probably also claimed its victims as with Howes and Wood, the two signals corporals who drove into a republican funeral after Gib. They were presumed at the time to be SAS and killed by the IRA as a result. Certainly SAS units in the north included many originally from Signals regiments so given the pattern of denial this still leaves open the possibility that Howes and Wood were SAS. A loyalist site at http://loyalulster.150m.com/Corporals.html has an interesting account of these deaths.

Your reply on 'shot to kill' is interesting as it seems to admit the murders but excuse it on the grounds that 'the IRA did the same'. FYI the European Court of Human Rights did find against the British government after Gib.

Anyway devildog not everyone who thinks the British army has questions to answer is a 'provo'. Nor do we all believe Adams denials as to his IRA membership, but most people don't see this a much of an issue, the war being over and all that. Irelands history is rather stuffed with gunmen become respectable politicians. When his royal jug ears visited Dublin a few years back he sat down and had dinner with politicians whose armed wing had blown up his regimental mess some 25 years previously! Thus the whiff of stale cordite can be more of a vote winner than loser.

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:06

The linked article from just two days ago illustrates how the cover up in relation to the SAS role in the north is ongoing

by Archivist Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:13

I wasn't particulary interested in the bile in this thread but became interested in what you were saying about deaths being passed off as accidents.

I kept this account of a Repubican's memory of the bombing of Aldershot:

"The British Media -- a personal experience

Exactly a week after British paratroopers shot dead 14 unarmed demonstrators in Derry on Bloody Sunday on 30 January 1972 I heard on the BBC 8 a.m. news that the paratrooper barracks at Aldershot had been blown up and three paratroopers killed. At nine o'clock it was six, at 10 eight, at 11 ten, at 12 thirteen... but at 1 p.m. (and here I feel like Leporello chronicling the conquests of Don Juan)... BUT AT 1 P.M. ... the paratrooper barracks at Aldershot had been blown up, and the fatalities were five cleaning ladies and a padre.

Several years later I read in the London Times that 13 paratroopers had the previous day dived into the Kiel Canal and been drowned. There was no inquiry into their amazing group incompetence. (By the way, it was frequently reported at that time that British soldiers had walked into railway tunnels and been killed by oncoming trains)."

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:20

That is interesting but do you have any sources for it. While its part and parcel of SAS culture to cover up deaths that is not the case for the Paras so I'd be amazed if 13 deaths could have been covered up for so long. So it may just be a republican urban legend (and not one with a wide circulation, anyone else ever heard it?). An actual date for the Times report would provide something that could be checked up on.

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:23

Just found the email you are quoting from via google. Doesn't really add anything though and the authors email is mostly blanked out. It's at the link below

by Archivist Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:27

The name of the author is there.
It wasn't the first time that I had this story but it was the first time that I had seen it written down.
Can't help any more than that.

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:31

I've started googling it and it appears that in 1974 there were a number of drownings in the Kiel Canal of the parachute regiment. The first confirmation I found is actually on some sort of 'Official Flirting Thread' where a German woman writes "pf, you¢¥re from Scottland, aren¢¥t you?
My little home village Sehestedt on the Kiel Kanal has a partnership with some Scotsmen. It¢¥s a sad story because in 1974 7 memebers of the 15th parachute regiment drowned in the Kiel Kanal. " See the link below

No date for when it happened though

by Archivist Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:41

...is very informative

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:49

Yeah the MoD page doesn't even mention the north. However I found another reference to the Kiel drownings, this time with 5 names. Still no date though

by Joe Tue Jul 27, 2004 17:58

This is a good example of not seeing the wood for the trees. Several searches later I realise that the drownings happened in 1974 but of course the Aldershot bombing was 1972!

by devil dog Tue Jul 27, 2004 18:20

Devil dog , since you ask my location:
location then: North Monagan/border area.
location now: South of Ireland.
Most of what you say I happen to agree with, however on the point of the ninth man you are wrong.As for me producing evidence, not across this medium.However i suggest you carefully re read my previous post.
Sorry to disappoint you devil dog but i'm not some crank american/uninformed gombeen relying on outside info for my assertions, what i state i state as facts from WITHIN my own knowledge, are you getting the picture?
Big boys rules?I suspect devil dog that you are neither a former or serving soldier of any army, and wouldn't have the first idea about "big boys rules".
Finally to all the other posts: Ambush is a legitimate military tactic, the Loughgall Ambush was not a massacre it was a military engagement which the I.R.A asu lost, in war you win some and you lose some. Ask the Para's they know all about ambush tactics , remember Narrowwater?

by moonwolf Tue Jul 27, 2004 18:28

The comment below regarding location is by me, not devil dog! obviously i put the name in the wrong place!apologies.

by Nordie Tue Jul 27, 2004 18:41

...when the IRA abmushed and killed brit soldiers it was looked upon as just a simple crime but when the Brit soldiers ambushed the IRA and killed them, it, even though it was illegal in British law( I'm talking about unarmed IRA men here or IRA who could have been arrested) was ignored and the soldiers given medals. So I think Sinn Fein supporting the families who want to take this to the EU are just doing a good job of exposing Brit double standards. Because no one else on this poxy island seems to give a fuck.

And, yes, of course Republicans are guilty of gross double standards too.

by Devil Dog Tue Jul 27, 2004 18:59

Sorry to disapoint you, you should have googled my user name - serving officer in the US Marine Corps, served in an infantry battalion in OIF...why spell "humor" the American way?

So you're trying to tell me you're a Provo.....from the same area as the Lynagh murder gang....is that it?

BTW, you seem to be implying that the civvie who was killed at Loughgall was mistaken for a 9th man - his brother Oliver Hughes was also shot, does that mean there was a 10th man....your 9th man (wasn't you, was it???) must have been pretty good to get away as I'm sure the area was cordoned tighter than a gnat's arse...

by moonwolf Tue Jul 27, 2004 21:01

There was no tenth man, but both brothers had the misfortune of wearing boiler suits and were thus mistaken for members of the I.R.A asu. The area was not cordened other than the close operational area covered by the Brit unit. There were no roadblocks/checkpoints, obviously this was to allow the asu to get into Loughgall with the JCB digger and van. The vehicle in which the ninth man was sitting waiting to take Jim Lynagh back across the border was outside of the opearatinal area of the Brit unit, however the driver had a clear view of events in the rear view mirror. The fact that the driver was not wearing a boiler suit and that there was not immediate backup from support units of the Brits/R.U.C allowed his escape and his safe return to North Monaghan. The action was a victory for the Brits, they succeeded in liquidating an asu that had caused considerable damage and losses over the preceeding couple of years. However in the final analysis the I.R.A won thw war, largely thanks to it's change of strategy in the '90's which involved the concentration on causing massive infrastructural/economic damage in Great Britian.

In regard to your reference to "murder gangs" that is an interesting interpretation of warfare.
Yes, I am a former professional soldier, however I am thankfully not of the mindset of yourself. Your need to diminish the military ability of irregulars and to use non military terms when describing them merely show an ignorance of martial studies. You perhaps would like to believe that men like Jim Lynagh were ignorant thugs, when a military analysis of the operations carried out by such men shows them to quite substantially more than that.

It appears, not surprisingly, that you are incapable of an honest and open debate of these issues. This is possibly accounted for by your own personal prejudices, or even by the military training you have recieved, either way it leaves you with a blind spot as to the reality. The U.S military or indeed any military organisation is always ill served by fools who, because of these prejudices, underestimate the enemy and in doing so place their own lives and the lives of the men they command in danger. The military history of the U.S is littered with examples of this. End of debate.

by moonwolf Tue Jul 27, 2004 21:13

Just to help you with your googling!!

by Devil Dog Tue Jul 27, 2004 21:26

I think our fundamental divergence is that you attach some kind of legitimacy to the IRA - I don't.

I never heard a Provo describe himself as a "professional soldier" - interesting...

Lynagh and his bunch (gang??) committed murders - hence, "murder gang"...I fail to see how you can extrapolate any view on my part from that description as regards their military prowess .....I think it was Lynagh who was described by a British officer as" he wd have been in the SAS if he'd been in the Army"....Some of their ops did display significant prowess and even courage...then again, how hard is it to whack some retired UDR guy who's in his fifties in front of his family?

IRA won the war? Hmmm, maybe it's me, but I still think NI is part of the UK.....they're being allowed to win, I'll grant you that, as neither government has had the balls to call their bluff.

I'm always up for an open debate...e-mail me at [email protected]

by Devil Dog Tue Jul 27, 2004 21:28

I think you'll find that was in 1986, not a year later.

by Nordie Tue Jul 27, 2004 21:43

Just interested Devil Dog:

When 'professional' soldiers commit murder or when someone in their regiment commits murder does that act of murder mean that these professionals cease to be soldiers?

by moonwolf Wed Jul 28, 2004 01:35

Good question Nordie. It seems that the only time professional soldiers commit murder is when they are on the losing side and a war crimes tribunal follows. This will not apply to U.S military serving in current conflicts since their government refuses to accept the jurisdiction of international treaties over their forces.

Devil Dog, thanks for the correction, it was of course at the 86 Ard Fheis in Dublins' Mansion house that abstentionism was abolished and "the Northern Leadership took over", O'Bradaigh walked out to form R.S.F/C.I.R.A.
By professional soldier I meant professional soldier not Volunteer. I am a former enlisted soldier in the service of a democratically elected government.Had i meant i was a former volunteer i would have said so. I imagine killing 50 year old men in ulster is not quite as difficult as butchering old men, women and children in Mai Lai or any of the other places that your proud army has done so.the term people in glasshouses comes to mind.
Perhaps you could explain to me the difference between the "illegitimate" actions of the I.R.A at the time we are talking about and the current actions of U.S/Brit forces in Iraq?Are you suggesting that the current action is "legitimate"? perhaps your understanding of legitimate differs from mine. My sole aim here is to search for the truth, I believe my postings to be relitavely well balanced and acknowledging of the truth.As to winning the war, are you seriously suggesting that the I.R.A were militarily defeated?if you are then all i can say is o.k your right Devil Dog, your probably always right about everything, which makes it quite difficult to learn anything. Maybe you should read up a little about the founding fathers of the U.S.A and their vision for the country they gave birth to, maybe you should also read a little of some of the great military minds that the U.S.A has produced in the past , men whose ideals have been sold down the river by a bunch of Fascists who care only for corporate profit at the expense of the ordinary citizenry of that once great nation. Meanwhile no doubt U.S.A will continue to send national guardsmen and part time soldiers to war. Professional Soldiers, you gotta be kiddin D.D, that they aint!!!

by Devil Dog Wed Jul 28, 2004 02:55

Calley was convicted and punished, admittedly not nearly severely enough. Are you seriously trying to tell me US/UK forces in Iraq/Afghanistan are deliberately targetting civilians a la My Lai?

The US quite correctly refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the "world court" - a little different from saying forces aren't bound by international treaties. When the Belgians indict your Sec Def, I think this policy is justified.

I think the northern leadership had effectively taken over SF/IRA some time before 1986, that AF was the final nail in the coffin.

I can only surmise you're trying to tell me you were a soldier in the real Oglaigh na hEireann i.e. the Irish army - cd be wrong of course. What did you think of the IRA's claim that this army is a puppet/sham and that they were the legitimate government and army of Ireland?

US/UK forces are legitimate armed services of democratic states which provide several freedoms for their citizens and which practise the rule of law. The IRA was/is a self-appoined and annointed cabal which had minimal backing for its campaign of murder, robberies, proxy bombings (what a wonderful contribution to "warfare" that was, suitably adapted and improvised by Palestinians!), which all too often degenerated into sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing.

Re the IRA winning the war - I think it's pretty well accepted that IRA ops in NI in the early 90's had been generally contained - no, they haven't been militarily defeated because serious efforts at doing so were never attempted (although the Brits did come close - 1975, early 80's until HS) - by this I mean internment on both sides of the border, something the Irish state didn't do because of its unspoken bargain with the IRA - no violence down here = no security crackdown. Witness the security crackdown after Omagh to defeat RIRA.

The IRA hasn't been beaten, but their campaign hasn't won them victory either - again, NI remains part of the UK and SF implicitly accepts reqmnt of consent for constitutional change.

I'm afraid I don't recognize the USA which you describe - as for the competence of US forces in Iraq, I'm more than happy with the performance of 1st MARDIV units in sending insurgents to Paradise.

by moonwolf Wed Jul 28, 2004 20:03

Devil dog, my point is simple: War crimes have been committed by almost every army at some time, therefore to adopt a high moral stance in regard to I.R.A atrocities just dosen't wash. The only people who are in a position to do that are those in the peace movement who can claim to have harmed no one. Both U.S and U.K forces have committed atrocities in terms of civilian deaths over a long period, to deny this is to lie and protect those who hide behind the label "soldier" and denigrade that title.

Secondly, from a purely military point of view and admittedly taking a "neutral" stance, the I.R.A carried out many militarily well planned and executed actions. Certaintly it is easy to brand them "thugs" "murderers" etc but this serves no purpose other than making the user of these terms feel better.

Thirdly, The unprofessionality of some of the forces currently serving in Iraq is clear from events at Abu Gharib. To believe that Abu Gharib was the only instance of criminal behaviour is naieve to say the least.

Fourthly, i question the legitimacy of the war, it is not sanctioned by the U.N and nobody with a modicum of intelligence believes that Iraq presented any threat (direct or otherwise) to the U.S.A. It certaintly had no part in the Al Queida attacks on the U.S.A, a limited knowledge of both systems make it obvious that they are incompatible and that Al Queida hated Saddam as much as the west did.

I genuinely believe that it does a disservice to professional soldiers anywhere to cover up the actions of criminals whether from ones own unit or not. I also believe it is only the most foolish who underestimate an enemy of the type of the I.R.A. which is what faces those forces currently in Iraq.

by rooster Tue Aug 24, 2004 15:45

Dis - associatin!
by moonwolf Monday, Jul 26 2004, 11:49pm


The eight I.R.A Volunteers of North Monaghan/East Tyrone were on active service and i don't recall republicans complaining about this incident,


MAYBE YOU SHOPULD HAVE A LOOK AT THE NEWS TODAY!! THE SISTER OF ONE OF THE TERRORISTS HAS BEEN WINGING TO HUGH ORDE!

by ROOSTER Tue Aug 24, 2004 15:51

Technical stuff and beyond
by Joe Tuesday, Jul 27 2004, 2:28pm

"Rooster there are a number of issues but first off a minor technical point. The Loughgall IRA attack was on what was meant to be an empty police station (one of those ones that only opened during the day) and the IRA unit in Gibraltar was what appeared to be a practice run (there was no bomb in the car). So neither unit were 'on their way to kill soldiers'. In Gibraltar it's also pretty clear that the 3 killed were unarmed and had attempted to surrender before being shot. So even under war time engagement rules this would probably qualify as a war crime."


Joey, that is completely wrong, Loughgall was indeed a part time station but at night two policemen were always present, why else would the ira have brought 8 Heckler and koch G3A3's as well as hundreds of rounds of ammunition?

And your admission that the provos in gib were on a practice run is hardly a legitimate defence! What practice runs don't count?
War time engagement rules? What rules have the ira ever followed? They gave the ira the same chance the ira were giving the ruc!

by Ronald Mc Donald Tue Sep 21, 2004 17:31

Go for it ! It's about time someone took the initative to deal with these radical nut cakes. If I had my choice I would pull all troops out of the middle east and flatten the whole dam place. Then and only then can we have peace of mind.

by Mr Mann - Ulster Loyalist Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:09

What the hell are you lot on?
3 'unarmed' IRA volunteers?
Masaccare at Loughall?
Every IRA member or anyone connected to them should be severely punished.

What about La Mons, Bloody Friday, Omagh, Coleraine, Birmingham, Guilford need i go on, u aer nothing more that IRA sympathisers.

by Barry Mon Jan 03, 2005 19:04

What about Bombay Street, the Lower Falls pogroms,the burning of Ardoyne, the McGurks pub bombing, the New Lodge Massacre, the Springhill massacre, the Rose and Crown massacre, the murder triangle massacres, the Dublin Monahan massacres, the Shankill Butchers (simply one of a number of the romper-room butcher gangs operating in the 70s), Loughinisland massacre, the Greysteel massacre etc. In virtually every single one of these cases the Ulster Loyalists were co-operating with the British forces of law and order. Very few of the perpetrators were ever punished. Zey vere only following orders.