Legal battle in Ireland over IRA tapes

11/10/2012 3:44:13 a.m.

More secrets wrote:

IRA splinter groups became proxy death squads for the USA during the troubles. Some fighters within the IRA thought their American aids were returned patriotic Irish brothers, descended from poor Irish working class folk who had migrated to America in search of better lives during the Irish potato famine - and who had decided to come back to Ireland and fight with their brethren for a noble independence. Consequently some IRA fighters accepted American orders to target certain folk without question. Other IRA fighters refused to carry out some orders, knowing the targets to be harmless and claiming so openly. Some refusing fighters became targets themselves while others were shot on the spot. American agents exploited the fact that some Irish-American patriots really did return to Ireland out of a sense of duty. It was a dreadful, confusing, dangerous time and worst of all the violence was unnecessary for many of the reasons stated in former replies to Duncan.

11/10/2012 3:24:43 a.m.

More for Duncan wrote:

Left to its devices Britain was reluctant to be seen as an aggressor or occupying force in Ireland, just as it was reluctant to step into New Zealand in a Crown role in the early 1800's before the Treaty of Waitangi was introduced. Documents relevant to New Zealand dating from that time show Britain was unenthusiastic about the idea of playing the role of a global police force by asserting British governance in New Zealand for many of the same reasons it would have been happy for Ireland to operate independently. A trade lobby actually pushed for official British colonisation of New Zealand, in one of their incarnations they called themselves The New Zealand Company and co-opted support from some Maori residents involved in trade. This lobby wanted Crown protection of their interests from other empires at large in the region (chiefly France). Much of this information can be found on and off-line, if you’re interested. From India to Ireland and throughout the Pacific, Britain often preferred to be perceived as a benign distant influence and tended only to become involved in clashes for independence when competing foreign power-brokers drove dissent and insurrection among local populations or when significant political factions demanded British protection.

11/10/2012 3:22:54 a.m.

For Duncan wrote:

Duncan. Nationalism wasn't welcomed during the years stated in your comment because anything nationalistic was associated with national socialism. The same was true almost all over the world. The concept of independence is different from perceptions of nationalism. Ireland effectively developed independently from Britain throughout the middle ages with few complaints from Britain, including during the formation of the British parliament when Ireland also developed a parliament of its own. But, just as the US later funded sectarian violence between Ireland and Britain in an effort to reduce any perceived power the British empire possessed, so did France (at an earlier time) when French capitalists sought to reduce the influence and power of the British empire. French intrusions in Ireland created many of the clashes between Irish and British factions that the US later resuscitated for its own ends.

7/10/2012 1:22:02 p.m.

Duncan wrote:

I strongly disagree..."Britain gladly endorsed independence" When and by whom? The only British Prime Minister that I am aware, to even come close to proposing independence was Gladstone, he wanted home rule in Ireland. Queen Victoria certainly didn't, and as such nor did the British people, the Ulster protestants definitely didn't and it was they who helped to ensure Ireland never did. From 1921-72 the Stormont Govt in Nortern Ireland made absolutely certain that Nationalism was not welcomeed and was countered by violence and discrimination. After the troubles, yes, there is a peace, but still no talk of independence. I ask again, who gladly endorsed independence? Please correct me if I am wrong.

7/10/2012 2:09:01 a.m.

US secrets at issue, not IRA's wrote:

The IRA was secretly supported and funded by American agencies. American strategists wanted to partition and prevent Ireland from re-unifying with the United Kingdom. A unified British empire posed a formidable threat to aspiring US domination of world markets. The first tragedy of the IRA's often bloody battles for independence is that Britain gladly endorsed independence and relations could have proceeded smoothly had not external forces exerted pressures that resulted in chaotic confusion among British and Irish political groups. The second tragedy is that Irish armed groups very nearly accepted unity with the rest of the United Kingdom with the assurance Ireland could maintain an Irish identity. Essentially the USA infiltrated and manipulated the IRA with splinter groups, which the IRA accepted to a point with the pay-off of arms and believing they were being provided cover of a sort. Similar patterns have been playing out across the East in recent years with the added complication of hind-sight from some folk. The IRA tapes themselves are a red-herring, their contents are re-collections only and prone to inaccuracies inherited from a war riddled with misunderstanding.