David Burke Archives - Page 2 of 5

Posted in:

Bloody Sunday: Brigadier Frank Kitson and MI5 denounced in Dail Eireann

by admin 1 February, 2022 0 Comments

This brings me to the appalling and unilateral decision by the British Government to bring forward legislation to prohibit future prosecutions of military veterans and ex-paramilitaries for crimes related to the Troubles and to impose a statute of limitations on Troubles-era prosecutions. Deputy Sean Haughey tonight denounced the activities of General Sir Frank Kitson in Dail Eireann. The full text of his speech is set out below: The 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday was marked on 30 January last. As we know, a march for civil rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry that day. The participants marched for basic civil rights and equality, to be treated equally in a society where the minority were seen as second-class citizens by the government. The first battalion of the British army’s parachute regiment opened fire on innocent civilians, killing 13 people on the day. This followed the killing of other innocent victims by the parachute regiment in Ballymurphy the previous August. These events cast a long shadow over politics in Northern Ireland and this remains evident to the present day. The hastily established Widgery inquiry found the soldiers had started firing only after they had come under attack, among other adverse findings. This was deeply offensive to the families of those killed or injured, but it demonstrates what the establishment in a so-called democratic state can do, if so minded, to arrive at a false and predetermined outcome. The barrister David Burke, in his book published last year entitled Kitson’s Irish War: Mastermind of the Dirty War in Ireland, outlines how Bloody Sunday and other killings of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland by British soldiers were part of a ruthless, dirty war that commenced in 1970, when brigadier Frank Kitson, a counterinsurgency veteran, was sent to Northern Ireland. Burke further outlines how Kitson organised a clandestine war against nationalists and ignored loyalist paramilitaries. How shocking is that? The families of those who were murdered have campaigned for justice ever since. They have three basic demands, namely, a rejection of the Widgery report, an official acknowledgment of the victims’ innocence and the prosecution of the soldiers involved on the day. They campaign tirelessly and have to date been successful in achieving two of their three objectives. The then British Prime Minister Tony Blair established the Saville inquiry in 1998. It totally exonerated the victims and placed the blame firmly on the British army. Subsequently, the then British Prime Minister David Cameron issued a state apology and expressed his deep sorrow for what had happened. As we all know, however, the prosecution of the soldiers has, unfortunately, run into difficulty. The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland announced in 2019 that only one soldier, Soldier F, would be prosecuted, but this was dropped and the matter is now before the courts. This brings me to the appalling and unilateral decision by the British Government to bring forward legislation to prohibit future prosecutions of military veterans and ex-paramilitaries for crimes related to the Troubles and to impose a statute of limitations on Troubles-era prosecutions. This has been widely condemned, rightly so. It was condemned by the Taoiseach in Derry at the weekend, when he said the soldiers involved should face prosecution. It has been condemned by the political parties in Northern Ireland, by victims groups and their families, by several international human rights organisations, including the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights and the United Nations special rapporteur, by Michael Posner, US Assistant Secretary of State, and by the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland – the list goes on. This move essentially overturns a crucial part of the 2014 Stormont House Agreement, which was agreed by the British and Irish Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland. For example, a commitment was given to establish an independent historical investigations unit as part of this agreement. In July of last year, talks were initiated between the parties in Northern Ireland and all of the relevant stakeholders on dealing with the legacy of the past and implementing the provisions of the Stormont House Agreement. These talks should be ongoing and the Irish Government must continue to make known to the British Government its total opposition to these proposals. I would also like to raise another issue in this context. A range of rights-based commitments have been made in Northern Ireland, starting with the Good Friday Agreement and right up to New Decade, New Approach. This is not happening fully. For example, there has been a failure to progress a bill of rights in Northern Ireland. These objectives would give human rights protections to the people of Northern Ireland. In New Decade, New Approach, a commitment was given to establish an ad hoc committee on a bill of rights in Stormont but this has run into difficulty. Various proposals in this area are being obstructed in the Executive and the Assembly, using different veto mechanisms. This is very regrettable. What all of this clearly indicates is that we need full implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements. All of us need to work at that – the British and Irish Governments, the parties in Northern Ireland and Ministers and parliamentarians in these islands, using the bodies established under the Good Friday Agreement, and civic society. We must rededicate ourselves to implementing all of the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. The role of MI5 was raised by Deputy Patrick Costello of the Green Party We can talk about the Cory inquiry’s hard drives being seized by MI5 and arson at the Stevens inquiry – all these deliberate attempts to cover up the truth.. His contribution in full was as follows: One of the recurring themes when we talk about the legacy issues is the responsibility of the British Government to act. It does have a responsibility and I will get to it in a minute. However, we also have a responsibility here in Dublin. We are co-guarantors of

Posted in:

The covert plan to smash the IRA in Derry on Bloody Sunday by David Burke

by admin 17 December, 2021 0 Comments

Introduction. The 50th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday massacre falls next month. The official position of the British Government is based on the 2010 report of Lord Saville of Newdigate, i.e., that a group of paratroopers engaged in the massacre of thirteen innocent people in Derry with a fourteenth dying later, for no reason. Unfortunately, Saville ignored or discounted much evidence that indicates that the soldiers were acting on orders. He paid scant attention to the crucial role played by a deceitful agent run by Military Intelligence and MI5 called ‘Observer B’. He was unduly harsh on Byron Lewis, a paratrooper who blew the whistle on his colleagues. The two companies of paratroopers of 1 Para that went to Derry on Bloody Sunday were meant to be on the same mission, following the same orders. Yet, they behaved as if they were on different operations. The orders followed by Support Company, also known as ‘Kitson’s Private Army’, indicates that a secret mission was assigned to them, or some designated number of them. The ‘Kitson’ referred to here was Brigadier Frank Kitson, the counter-insurgency specialist who ran Belfast and its environs. 1. Chain of Command The senior British officers present in Derry on Bloody Sunday and mentioned in this article in order of their seniority were: General Robert Ford, Commander Land Forces Northern Ireland. Brigadier Patrick MacLellan of 8 Brigade, which ran Derry. Colonel Derek Wilford, who commanded 1 Para. Major Edward Loden who commanded Support Company of 1 Para. No criticism is made of Brigadier MacLellan in this article. If there was a hidden plan that unfolded on Bloody Sunday, it was conceived and executed behind his back. 2. General Ford foists 1 Para on Brigadier MacLellan In the run up to Bloody Sunday, the Brigadier of 8 Brigade in Derry, Patrick MacLellan, was ordered by his immediate superior, General Robert Ford, to make preparations to prevent a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) march from reaching the Guildhall in Derry on 30 January 1972. Ford was based at HQNI at Lisburn. MacLellan was lent troops from 1 Para to assist him on Bloody Sunday, or so he was led to believe. 1 Para was based at Palace Barracks, Hollywood, outside Belfast. They normally conducted their operations in that city. 3. ‘Corking the bottle’ Ostensibly, the plan for 30 January was to prevent the NICRA march from reaching the Guildhall and, if appropriate, arrest likely rioters. The rioters were to be caught by putting “a cork in the bottle”, as Captain (later General Sir) Michael Jackson of 1 Para has described it. This meant encircling and trapping the rioters before arresting them. This operation was to take place at the end of William Street. Please look at the map which accompanies this article. The rioters were to be captured between Barrier 14 (shaded yellow) and the junction of Little James Street and William Street. The Support Company troops who were meant to be behind Barrier 12 (shaded red) could have swung around from Little James Street (red arrow) and blocked an escape route back along William Street or up Rossville Street. The peaceful NICRA marchers followed the line shaded in purple from William Street to Rossville Street. A group of rioters did present on the day. 4. Two Companies which were meant to – but didn’t – perform the same task Two different companies from 1 Para were sent to Derry on Bloody Sunday: C Company and Support Company. In theory, they fell under the temporary command of Brig. MacLellan. (Their brigadier in Belfast was Brigadier Frank Kitson). Although both groups were allegedly assigned the same task by their commander, Col Wilford, Support Company behaved in a completely different manner to C Company. C Company was put behind Barrier 14. Support Company was sent to a yard at a Presbyterian Church on Great James Street which was much further away from the area where the rioting was expected to take place. 5. Differences in preparation and deployment There were a number of differences in the deployment of the two companies [C company and Support Company], which include the following: Location of Forming Up Points (FUPs) Use of rifles instead of batons; Application of war paint; Use of vehicles; Discharge of shots. {i} Location of Forming Up Points (FUPs) C Company’s FUP was behind Barrier 14 which is shown on the map that accompanies this article. This makes sense in terms of MacLellan’s plan. They were well positioned to block the march should an attempt have been made to break through to the Guildhall. It also left them strategically placed to rush forward and encircle any potential rioters. Support Company would have been well advised to have formed up as close to the junction between William Street and Little James Street as possible. Barrier 12 should have been moved up much closer to the junction. They should have been behind it in light clothes ready to swing around to ‘cork the bottle’. The two companies could have infiltrated the side roads as well and thereby blocked any attempts to escape through them. Yet, Support Company – based at the churchyard – were not within running distance from the likely rioters whom the army termed the ‘DYH’ [the Derry Young Hooligans]. There was little chance that Support Company could ‘cork the bottle’ from a starting point at the Presbyterian Church on Great James Street. The rioters would have seen soldiers running at them from Little James Street in plenty of time to make an escape by sprinting up Rossville Street. The deployment of Support Company at the church was guaranteed to defeat the purpose of MacLellan’s arrest plan. {ii} Primary use of rifles instead of batons; C Company wielded batons or kept their arms free to grab, wrestle and tackle the rioters when they went into action. Some may have used the butts of rifles strapped over their shoulders to strike the rioters. Crucially, they did not deploy with fingers on

Posted in:

A loathsome dirty trick. 4 December was the 50th anniversary of the infamous bombing of McGurk's Bar. The families have made a complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman Against the Cabinet Office. By David Burke.

by admin 2 December, 2021 0 Comments

Saturday the 4th of December was the 50th anniversary of the infamous bombing of McGurk’s bar in Belfast by the UVF. 15 people were killed in the massacre. The bomb reduced the building to rubble. The attack was the most devastating atrocity suffered by Belfast since the bombing of the city during the Second World War. Brigadier Frank Kitson, the counterinsurgency specialist in charge of Belfast, knew that the bar had been attacked by Loyalist paramilitaries, yet participated in a black propaganda operation to blame the atrocity on the occupants of the premises. He and others portrayed the explosion as an IRA own goal, i.e. that McGurk’s was an IRA pub and the bomb had been left there for collection by Republican terrorists, but had gone off prematurely. This was a lie. Kitson is alive. He has never been asked why he covered up for the actions of the Loyalist murder gang. Kitson is alive. He has never been asked why he covered up for the actions of the Loyalist murder gang. Kitson’s lies were used by Tory politicians to mislead the House of Commons. The record has never been corrected. The British government is refusing to investigate what really happened. The most likely explanation for the deception is that it was designed to avoid calls for the internment of Loyalist terror groups. At the time Ted Heath and NI PM Brian Faulkner had decided not to intern the UDA, UVF and Red Hand Commando. Furthermore, Brigadier Kitson had entered into a conspiracy with Tommy Herron of the UDA’s Inner Council. It amounted to nothing less than an agreement for mass murder. Herron ran the UDA’s assassination squads in Belfast. They killed Catholics whether they were connected to the IRA or not. Herron was aided by Kitson’s allies in the RUC. Some of these RUC men were stationed at Mountpottinger RUC station in Belfast. They supplied murder weapons to Herron’s killers. This was how British State collusion with Loyalist murder gangs began in Northern Ireland. Herron maintained contact with Kitson through a Captain Bundy. Bundy later ran the notorious UDA killer and sadist, Albert ‘Ginger’ Baker’. His codename was ‘Broccoli’. Herron, Baker and others participated in the ghastly ‘Romper Room’ kidnap, torture and murder programme of Catholics they abducted on the streets of Belfast. If the truth about the UVF’s responsibility for the McGurk bombing had surfaced, Kitson’s strategy of collusion with the UDA would have been severely jeopardised while still in its infancy. Members of both organisations might have been rendered subject to internment. Instead, Kitson chose to vilify the innocent victims of the bombing as patrons of an IRA meeting place. Ciarán MacAirt is the grandson of two of the McGurk’s Bar victims. His grandmother, Kathleen Irvine was one of the fifteen civilians killed; his grandfather, John Irvine, was badly injured but survived. He has written a book which exposes the scandal in forensic detail. He has also produced an addendum which can be read here: The McGurk’s Bar Bombing Post-Script: https://mcgurksbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/McGurks-Bar-Post-Script-Final-Redux.pdf See also, the McGurk’s Bar Bombing and the Plot to Deceive Two Parliaments https://mcgurksbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-McGurks-Bar-Bombing-and-the-Plot-to-Deceive-Two-Parliaments-Report-Redux.pdf The scandal ranks among the most repellent dirty tricks of the Troubles and is part of a pattern of criminal wrongdoing perpetrated by Kitson that can be discerned in the Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacre outrages. The scandal ranks among the most repellent dirty tricks of the Troubles and is part of a pattern of criminal wrongdoing perpetrated by Kitson that can be discerned in the Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacre outrages. Yesterday, the Chief Constable of the PSNI refused to talk to a delegation representing the relatives of the families who mounted a dignified protest outside his office. The families of those killed and injured are still trying to find out the full truth about what happened to their relatives. Last month they made a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) in London against the British Cabinet Office. As far as the families are aware, this is the first complaint of its kind to the PHSO regarding a conflict legacy case and the Cabinet Office. The complaint concerns: The Cabinet Office’s decision not to investigate a serious complaint regarding a high-level, coordinated and sustained plot by senior members of the Civil Service, British Army and RUC to deceive both Stormont and Westminster governments about the true circumstances of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre; The Cabinet Office’s handling of the original complaint which was first raised in December 2020. The original complaint to the Cabinet Office on 11th December 2020 also included a request to the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, for an investigation following the publication of a report by Ciarán MacAirt. See pages 24-25 of The McGurk’s Bar Bombing and the Plot to Deceive Two Parliaments. The report also includes new evidence from secret British military and governmental archives proving that there was a high-level, coordinated and sustained plot to deceive both Parliaments at Stormont and Westminster. The plot and disinformation involved both Prime Ministers, Brian Faulkner and Edward Heath; the General Officer Commanding Lt. General Sir Harry Tuzo; Brigadier Frank Kitson; RUC Chief Constable Graham Shillington and his head of Special Branch; and leading Civil Servants across a number of government departments. The disinformation included blaming the victims of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre for the bombing following a secret agreement between the British Army and RUC hours after the explosion, and before all victims had even been identified; and burying evidence which proved that the British Army and RUC knew that the victims were innocent, and the bar had been attacked. Colum Eastwood MP, leader of the SDLP, counter-signed and submitted the complaint to the PHSO on behalf of the families on Wednesday 4 November 2021. Ciarán MacAirt has said: After undue delay, the Cabinet Office denied us access to an investigation despite new evidence of a high-level, coordinated and sustained plot by public servants and Government Departments to mislead Stormont and Westminster about the McGurk’s Bar Massacre,

Posted in:

Politics

Soldier F’s Bloody Sunday secrets. David Cleary knows enough to blackmail the British government.

by admin 6 November, 2021 0 Comments

By David Burke, author of ‘Kitson’s Irish War: Mastermind of the Dirty War in Ireland’. 1. Kitson’s Private Army. Lance Corporal David Cleary was a member of the elite Support Company of the 1st Parachute Regiment which was commanded by Colonel Derek Wilford. Wilford reported upwards to Brigadier Frank Kitson. All were assigned to 39 Brigade area which operated in Belfast and its environs. Support Company of 1 Para was known as ‘Kitson’s Private Army’ and was infamous for its brutal behaviour in Belfast. Kitson reported upwards to General Ford at British Army HQNI at Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn. Lance Corporal Cleary was ‘gazetted’ or ‘mentioned in dispatches’ for his “gallant” behaviour during the internment swoops of August 1971. Cleary could not have received that minor honour without the full support of his superiors. Clearly, he was one of the more important soldiers in Kitson’s Private Army. 2. Kitson’s Private Army is sent ‘on loan’ to Derry. Brigadier Patrick MacLellan of 8 Brigade in Derry also reported to General Ford. 1 Para was sent on loan to Brigadier MacLellan to assist him block a NICRA march from reaching the centre of Derry city on 30 January 1972. The troops of 1 Para were merely meant to man a few barriers and be on standby to conduct a possible snatch and arrest operation if rioting by youths got out of hand. On the afternoon of 30 January 1972, Cleary perpetrated his infamous murder spree. There are a number of indications that his behaviour was part of a ruthless counter-insurgency strategy formulated in Belfast behind the back of 8 Brigade. The plan was to wipe out the IRA in the Bogside and Creggan and put an end to the ‘no-go’ area that had become known around the world as “Free Derry”. The official British narrative is that of Lord Saville. His inquiry concluded in 2010 that Cleary and his colleagues span out of control at the same time, disobeyed orders in unison and murdered unarmed civilians as a pack for some utterly inexplicable reason. 3. Military Intelligence and MI5. A clue as to what happened on Bloody Sunday can be gleaned from the fact British military intelligence and MI5 were in receipt of information that 40 Republican gunmen were going to be present in the vicinity of the Rossville Flats (shown on the map below). The information, however, was fallacious. What is crucial to appreciate is that the spy’s handlers believed the information was true. On Bloody Sunday the troops of Support Company raced up Rossville Street in a convoy of military personnel carriers (‘pigs’) which fanned out into an attack formation as if to confront a salvo of bullets from IRA gunmen. Instead, they encountered the harmless occupants of a nearby barricade and then proceeded to murder them before killing other unarmed civilians in the vicinity. The overwhelming majority of their victime were male and young. Typical, IRA volunteers were young men. Cleary was one of the most violent of the killers. He shot a number of people in the back. One of them was lying on the ground. He aimed at his anus so the bullet would travel up and demolish his spine. He blew apart the skull of another man who was walking towards a fallen victim while waving a piece of cloth. 4. Secret Orders. Aside from two or three Official IRA members who fired a few shots on Bloody Sunday, there were no armed and active Republicans in the Bogside. The Official IRA discharges did not spark the massacre. The Provisional IRA did not take up any arms at all that day. Support Company ended up murdering unarmed civilians, none of whom presented them with any danger. Shortly before the massacre, Cleary (Soldier F) received a visit from his commander, Colonel Derek Wilford at the yard which the company was using as its temporary HQ beside a church. As Cleary let slip in a statement he made nearly 50 years ago to the Widgery tribunal, the visit was an ‘unusual’ development. For the avoidance of any doubt the word he – Cleary – used in that statement was ‘unusual’. Cleary and his Widgery tribunal minders must have included the reference to Wilford’s visit in the statement as there were multiple witnesses to it. Furthermore, Wilford was scheduled to testify at the Widgery tribunal where he was likely to describe his movements anyway. Cleary, however, did not reveal what orders Wilford gave him during their discussion. Soldier G, another of the Bloody Sunday killers, was present for the meeting. Wilford probably gave them orders – or confirmed earlier instructions – to open fire as soon as they got out of their ‘pig’ at the 40 IRA gunmen the dubious intelligence source has said would be waiting for them. 5. C Company, the fig leaf for the assassins of Support Company. Wilford had taken C Company and Support Company to Derry. The soldiers of C Company dressed in the type of outfits they wore when arresting rioters in Belfast. Their clothing was light. They were unencumbered by equipment. All of this enabled them to run at speed to catch fleeing rioters. They formed up behind Barrier 14 (which can be seen on the left of the illustration with this article). MacLellan’s plan was to divert the NICRA march around the corner between William Street and Rossville Street up towards the Rossville Flats. Officially, C Company was under the command of Brigadier MacLellan of Derry’s 8 Brigade for the day. He had instructed all of the troops of 1 Para to remain on foot and confine their actions to the vicinity of William Street where the rioting was expected to take place. Unlike Support Company which disregarded most of MacLellan’s orders, C Company paid them some heed. 6. General Ford. Bloody Sunday would not have happened if C Company and Support Company had not been ordered into action. MacLellan had not wanted to release them but was told so to

Posted in:

Learning to Kill, an exclusive extract from the new book on General Sir Frank Kitson, mastermind of the Dirty War in Ireland.

by admin 30 October, 2021 0 Comments

Kitson’s first overseas assignment was to Germany in 1946 with the rank of second lieutenant. He remained there for seven years. He found plenty of sport to occupy his spare time such as racing horses in Rhine Army competitions, trout fishing and ‘many wonderful opportunities for shooting … and by shooting I don’t mean plugging holes in targets’, he wrote.’ Playing bridge and attending the opera also helped to pass the time. By 13 September 1949, he had found his vocation and was appointed as an intelligence officer at the HQ of the Armoured Brigade in Germany. Half a world away, in October 1952, the Kenya Land and Freedom Army (KLFA) launched a rebellion against the white European colonist-settlers in their homeland. The British army and the local Kenya Regiment resisted them. The latter included British colonists, local auxiliary militia and some pro-British Kenyans. Later, MI5 was deployed to help suppress the rebellion. The KLFA, also known as the Mau-Mau, consisted of rebel tribesmen from the Kikuyu, Meru, Embu and other Kenyan communities. In July 1953, Kitson was transferred to Kenya ‘to do a job connected with Intelligence’. After seven years, he was glad to be leaving Germany. He was twenty-six. The Mau-Mau rebellion was inspired by a desire on the part of the Kikuyu and other Kenyans to reclaim by armed insurrection land taken from them by the British. Kitson, however, seemed to think that opposition to Britain was inspired in large part through the intercession of witchcraft. He had a rose-tinted view of Britain’s presence in the country: During the half century in which the British had ruled Kenya they had dispelled the fears which had formerly come from raiders, slavers and disease, but the fear of magic was still a powerful force. As I sat at home reading about the witch-doctors and their ways, I too felt that fear, flickering faintly across the four thousand miles which separated me from the Kikuyu. He did not see the Kikuyu as civilised people. Instead, he described how they: relied mainly on magic and therein lay the greatest of all the horrors which beset them. Most witch-doctors were not malign in the sense of wishing harm to their clients. On the contrary, they doubtless did their best. On the other hand they sat in the middle of a web of superstition which bound the whole tribe in thrall to an unseen world of spirits, omens, curses and blood. At this time in his life, Kitson kept a Bible by his bedside. A clue as to the type of Christian he was can be gauged by the fact that on his first Sunday in Nairobi he attended a service in the local Anglican cathedral and wrote later: ‘I sat next to an African woman who had bad halitosis and I was surprised to find that there was no segregation of races into separate parts of the building’. The British campaign against the Mau-Mau was merciless. In 1953, Gen. George Erskine, commander-in-chief of British armed forces in Kenya reported to the secretary of state for war, Anthony Head, that in the early days there had been a ‘great deal of indiscriminate shooting by the Army and Police’ and he was ‘quite certain’ that prisoners had been: beaten to extract information. It is a short step from beating to torture, and I am now sure, although it has taken me some time to realise it, that torture was a feature of many police posts. The method of deployment of the Army in the early days in small detachments working closely with the police … had evil results. … I very much hope it will not be necessary for [Her Majesty’s government] to send out any independent enquiry. If they did so they would have to investigate everything from the beginning of the Emergency and I think the revelation would be shattering. What were these ‘evil results’, the revelation of which would have been ‘shattering’? In Cruel Britannia, A Secret History of Torture, Ian Cobain summarises some of the atrocities in Kenya: Men were whipped, clubbed, subjected to electric shocks, mauled by dogs and chained to vehicles before being dragged around. Some were castrated. The same instruments used to crush testicles were used to remove fingers. It was far from uncommon for men to be beaten to death. Women were sexually violated with bottles, rodents and hot eggs. This all took place against a background of curfews, internment and capital punishment. Over 1,200 Kenyans died dangling at the end of a noose. One of the torture victims was Hussein Onyango Obama who had served with the British army during the Second World War in Burma. When released after six months in detention, he was emaciated, suffering from a lice infestation of his hair and had difficulty walking. He died in 1979. His wife informed journalists that he had told her that the British had ‘sometimes squeezed [his] testicles with parallel metallic rods’. They had also ‘pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his face facing down’. Hussein Onyango Obama was the grandfather of Barak Obama. One British officer quoted by David Anderson in ‘Histories of the Hanged’ revealed just how brutal the campaign became. He described how a police officer was interviewing three suspects: … one of them, a tall coal-black bastard, kept grinning at me, real insolent. I slapped him hard, but he kept on grinning at me, so I kicked him in the balls as hard as I could … when he finally got up on his feet he grinned at me again and I snapped. I really did. I stuck my revolver right in his grinning mouth … and I pulled the trigger. His brains went all over the side of the police station. The other two [suspects] were standing there looking blank … so I shot them both … when the sub-inspector drove up, I told him the [suspects]

Posted in:

The British ‘Traitor King’ who contemplated settling in Ireland.

by admin 1 October, 2021 0 Comments

By David Burke. Andrew Lownie will be known to many Village readers for the depth of his research into the life of Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife, especially the former’s abuse of boys in the Republic of Ireland. During his research into Mountbatten, Lownie tried, and failed, to gain access to Garda logs showing who had visited Mountbatten at Classiebawn Castle in Sligo. Lownie had more success earlier this year when he forced the British government to disclose some of Mountbatten’s diaries. The documents had been purchased by the British government and given to Southampton University but at some stage Whitehall had intervened to keep them under wraps. NO TRIAL FOR TREACHERY. In his captivating new book, Traitor King: The Scandalous Exile of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Lownie shreds the reputation of the Duke of Windsor, the former Edward VIII, who abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson. The author confirms and elaborates on long-held suspicions that the Duke played fast and loose with the Nazi regime both before and during the Second World War. Lownie’s book describes grounds upon which the Duke could have been put on trial for treachery, so much so that the Nazis had come to view him as a potential puppet monarch, a British version of France’s Marshal Pétain. Lownie highlights a telegram sent on 15 August 1940 from Portugal while the Duke was on his way to the Bahamas. In it the Duke asked his Portuguese host, a Nazi sympathiser, to send “a communication” as soon as his action was required. The conclusion Lownie draws is that he was complicit in a plot to instal him as a puppet ruler in Britain after a negotiated peace with Hitler. Yet, somehow, the Duke never had to face the music. Churchill was one of a number of influential figures who prevented the post-war publication of captured German documents which detailed the Duke’s Nazi intrigues. Others were not so lucky. William Joyce, better known as Lord Haw Haw, sided with the Nazis in a very public way during the Second World War by becoming the voice of Nazi propaganda radio broadcasts to England. Despite the fact Joyce hailed from Galway, he was hauled back to England and executed for treason. John Amery was also executed. His father Leo was a Tory MP and minister. His brother Julian would marry the daughter of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and go on to hold a number of government ministerial positions. None of these connections were sufficient to save the life of John Amery. THE MI5 TRAITOR WITH LINKS TO IRELAND WHO KNEW ABOUT THE DUKE’S TREACHERY. The Duke’s treachery had ramifications for Ireland. After the war ended, an MI5 officer called Anthony Blunt was sent to Germany to retrieve some of the embarrassing correspondence that had passed between the Duke and the Nazis. Blunt remained in MI5 while also serving as the Keeper of the King’s Pictures at Buckingham Palace. When it belatedly emerged that he had been working for the Russians while in MI5, his knowledge about the Nazi correspondence played a part in saving him from prosecution. By then he was the Keeper of the Queen’s pictures, a job he was able to retain notwithstanding his treachery. As part of a secret immunity deal he struck in 1964 with the Government, Blunt was granted an amnesty for all the crimes he had committed. These included the abuse of children ensnared by the Anglo-Irish vice ring of which the Duke’s relative Mountbatten was a leading member. Had Blunt been prosecuted, it is conceivable that his role in the abuse of children in Ireland might have emerged much earlier and the activities of the vice ring shut down. Part of the passage in Lownie’s book relating to Blunt’s mission to Germany reads as follows: In 1979, Blunt was publicly revealed to have been a Russian spy since the 1930s, though he had privately confessed to the intelligence services in 1964. The MI5 officer Peter Wright, who interrogated him, was informed by the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Michael Adeane, that Blunt had undertaken an “assignment … on behalf of the Palace – a visit to Germany”. Wright was told not to “pursue the matter…Strictly speaking it is not relevant to considerations of national security”, It looks like the trip [by Blunt] to Kronberg [in Germany] was a cover for a fishing expedition, which suggests that there was something else the Royal Family was worried about. “George VI had every reason to believe that the Hesse archives might contain a “Windsor file”, because Prince Philip of Hesse had been an intermediary, via the Duke of Kent, between Hitler and the Duke of Windsor”, claimed Prince Wolfgang of Hesse to the Sunday Times. It was a belief supported by the wartime intelligence officer Hugh Trevor-Roper, later Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University. It is confirmed by Andrew Sinclair, who spent eighteen months researching a biography of Vicky, The Other Victoria, who wrote that Blunt had retrieved “the Duke of Windsor’s correspondence with his German princely cousins, some of whom held high office in the Nazi party”. John Loftus, a lawyer with the US Justice Department, interviewed two former US military intelligence officers .. attached to General Patton’s forces, who confirmed that they had seen references to communications between the Duke of Windsor and Hitler. The documents had been found in a “villa that was owned by a close relative of the Duke which was occupied as an American officer’s club.” There can be little doubt that Blunt provided a report about – if not copies of – the Royal correspondence to Moscow. Ironically, Vladimir Putin and his circle would have ready access to them whereas British politicians would be turned away from Buckingham Palace if they made inquiries about the fate of the originals. A HOME IN IRELAND. There is an intriguing Irish angle to the book. After the war the Duke and Duchess

Posted in:

The shooting of Marian Brown. A near 50-year cover-up is blown apart.

by admin 15 September, 2021 0 Comments

By David Burke. Marian Brown, a 17-year old teenager, was shot dead in Belfast in June of 1972. For nearly half a century the British Government has denied that she was killed by British soldiers. Her family campaigned for the truth for five decades with the aid of researchers and lawyers. Armed with new information from the Historical Enquiries Team report into the case, Ó Muirigh Solicitors, who acted for the Brown family, petitioned the Attorney General for a new inquest in 2018. The petition was successful. After the inquest, Ó Muirigh Solicitors initiated civil proceedings against the British Ministry of Defence (MoD). Back in 2017, the Coroner’s Office had asked Ciaran MacAirt of Paper Trail to help target archival evidence. This he did and concluded that same year that Ms. Brown had been shot by British soldiers. Paper Trail did not publish its conclusions until this morning lest it interfere with the legal action against the MoD. The MoD has now settled the action with the victim’s family. The settlement vindicates the effort of all of those involved in this pursuit of justice. Significantly, the case highlights the injustice of Boris Johnson’s attempts to thwart similar cases through legislation. If Johnson succeeds, relatives of other victims will be denied justice and closure. MacAirt’s foray into Britain’s archives allowed him to conclude in 2017 “that British Army soldiers poured fire into the area” where Ms. Brown and three other teenagers had been shot. MacAirt’s also concluded that “either the British Army believed it was firing at gunmen … and the teenagers were in the line of fire; or the British Army patrols and sanger [fortification] were responding to each other’s firing and either shot the teenagers by mistake or targeted them deliberately”. Paper Trail also felt that the “British Army did not follow its own so-called Yellow Card Rules as the soldier(s) who fired the fatal shots had no clear target, no clear line of sight, and called no warnings”. A detailed article on the shooting can now be found on the Paper Trail website at: https://www.papertrail.pro/the-killing-of-marian-brown/ The report brings to light one particularly distressing aspect of the tragedy: What makes the killing of Marian Brown more poignant is not only that the British armed forces covered up the circumstances of her death and that her family have fought for two generations for the truth, but also because Marian’s family did not know that she was pregnant at the time. Her family only discovered that she was carrying a baby when they were both killed when the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) reviewed her post-mortem files 40 years later. In a heart-breaking interview with Maurice Fitzmaurice in the Mirror, Marian’s brother, Richard, said: “It’s two people I lost that day… Our mother passed away and she never knew about the grandchild she never had.”

Posted in:

Another bloody mess. Frank Kitson’s contribution to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 300,000 have died in Afghanistan since 1979.

by admin 21 August, 2021 0 Comments

By David Burke. 1. The counter-insurgency gurus. During the period 1970-72 Brigadier (later General Sir) Frank Kitson served as Brigadier of 39 Brigade in Belfast. It is arguable that he caused more damage to relations between the British government and the Nationalist community than any other individual in the British Army. There are many stories about Kitson on this website, and readers are invited to visit them. Despite the hornets’ nest he kicked over in Ireland, Kitson rose up the ranks of the British Army and was hailed as a counterinsurgency expert around the globe. He even served as Queen Elizabeth’s aide de camp. Unfortunately, Kitson did not learn much from his mistakes in Ireland. Nor did the American counterinsurgency specialist, General David Petraeus. The latter served as commander of the United States Central Command and Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Petraeus viewed Kitson as some sort of guru. In 2006 when Petraeus was planning the so-called military ‘surge’ in Iraq, he visited Kitson for guidance and advice. Kitson was in retirement at the time but was happy to share his views with the American. The ‘surge’ involved an increase in the number of American troops to provide security to Baghdad and Al Anbar Governorate. It served as the template for the 2009 ‘surge’ of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan which was meant to stabilise the country and defeat the Taliban. 2. Petraeus supports Kitson in his defence of Mary Heenan’s action against him. On 27 April 2015, Kitson was cited as a co-defendant along with the British Ministry of Defence in an action taken by Mary Heenan. She is the widow of Eugene ‘Paddy’ Heenan. Her husband was murdered by Albert ‘Ginger’ Baker’s UDA gang. Baker was commanded by Tommy Herron, a senior UDA figure. Herron oversaw UDA assassination teams in the early 1970s. Herron and Baker were allies of British military intelligence. Herron entered into his alliance with British army counter-insurgents during Kitson’s tour of duty in Belfast. It is to be hoped that more details will emerge during the forthcoming trial. Baker did not join the UDA until sometime in the second half of 1972, by which time Kitson had left Northern Ireland. What is crucial, however, is that Baker was put in contact with British military intelligence by Herron. Baker is still alive. Although Baker has said little in recent decades, back in the 1980s he spoke at length about his connections to British military intelligence and explained how the UDA conducted operations with guns supplied by the RUC. Petraeus undoubtedly kept in contact with his hero during the rest of his military career. He was appointed as Director of the CIA by President Barack Obama and served in that role between 2011 and 2012. At the very least, Petraeus monitored how his British hero was faring. In November 2019, he came out in defence of Kitson by attacking the type of legal action Heenan had initiated. Petraeus did so in the forward to a paper he wrote, ‘Lawfare – the Judicialisation of War’. He argued that this development was “as much of a threat to Britain’s fighting capacity as would be a failure to meet NATO budgetary targets, and it risks putting the special relationship under increasing strain … The extent to which those who served decades ago in Northern Ireland, including the highly distinguished soldier-scholar General Sir Frank Kitson, remain exposed to legal risk is striking and appalling”. Mary Heenan’s action against Kitson and the Ministry of Defence has not yet received a trial date. No doubt every trick will be used to delay it as long as possible. Kitson is participating in the defence of the action. It is important to note that it is a civil action, not a state prosecution and Mary Heenan is in control of whether or not it will proceed. If it is not derailed by Northern Ireland Office and MoD dirty tricks, the Heenan prosecution could prove to be one of the most important legal actions to arise out of the Troubles. If it is not derailed by Northern Ireland Office and MoD dirty tricks, the Heenan prosecution could prove one of the most important legal actions to arise out of the Troubles. One person who will await the trial with concern for the ‘highly distinguished soldier-scholar’ Frank Kitson is his great admirer, David Petraeus. 3.The Man who boasted about starting the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in July of 1978. 300,000 have died since then. The tragedy in Afghanistan was started in July of 1978 by American intelligence dirty tricks. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, admitted during an interview that he instigated the turmoil. He confessed this to a French reporter – on the record. The Americans, he boasted, were plotting against Afghanistan even before the country was invaded by the Soviets. See Obit(ch)uary: Zbigniew Brzezinski It is inconceivable that Brzezinski and his subordinates did not consult the British about their intentions in 1978. The Americans held their British partners in very high esteem in those days. The role of MI6 (Britain’s overseas intelligence service) and the British Army’s special forces in the plotting against Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion in 1979, has yet to emerge. All told about 212,000 people died during the Afghanistan war waged by the US, UK and their allies. At least 70,000 died during the earlier conflict involving the Soviets. The real overall figure probably exceeds 300,000. Many more were maimed and injured.

Posted in:

General

Lying like a trooper. Internment, murder and vilification. Did Brigadier Kitson instigate the Ballymurphy massacre smear campaign? Where was Soldier F and his ‘gallant’ death squad during it?

by admin 6 August, 2021 0 Comments

By David Burke. 1. Where was the ‘EFGH’ Unit of Support Company of 1 Para during the Ballymurphy Massacre? Next week marks the 50th anniversary of the introduction of internment. It began on 9 August 1971. By the 11th, ten people had been murdered by paratroopers in Ballymurphy. Earlier this year, the coroner who oversaw the inquest for the victims of the Ballymurphy massacre confirmed that none of them had been involved in violence . Put simply, they were killed in cold blood by soldiers of the Parachute Regiment and others working alongside them. One of the victims was a mother who was shot in the head while out looking for her children. It has also emerged that Lance Corporal David James Cleary – better known as Soldier F – was involved in activity deemed “gallantry” by his superiors on 9-11 August. He was ‘mentioned in despatches’ as a result. Those in command of Cleary included Major Edward Loden, Colonel Derek Wilford and Brigadier Frank Kitson. At a minimum, this means Cleary was involved in some sort of military action, probably an operation involving the discharge of his weapon. Bearing in mind the appalling murders he perpetrated in Derry the following January, it is legitimate to ask what he and others in the Support Company of the 1st Parachute Regiment (1 Para) were doing during the various shootings, incidents that are collectively referred to as the Ballymurphy massacre? During the Ballymurphy massacre innocent unarmed civilians were shot dead. They posed no threat to the paratroopers. Some were shot in the back. None had paramilitary connections. This is exactly the type of murderous behaviour in which Cleary engaged when he went to Derry a few months later. The conduct of the paratroopers in Ballymurphy was callous. Joan Connolly was forty years old. She was shot at 7:15 p.m. on 9 August while she scoured the streets for her children. She came across another victim, Noel Phillips, who was lying on the ground. She went to help him. The first bullet threw her to the ground. According to witnesses, after she was hit, she managed to get up again only to be struck by a second round, this one penetrating her head. She had eight children ranging between three and twenty-two. When she was found, half of her skull was missing. Bullets had also penetrated her shoulder, hand and thigh. Her children were taken to Waterford in the Republic of Ireland. They missed her funeral which they saw reported on the television. The victims of the massacre were vilified as rioters and paramilitaries. Cleary was not the only paratrooper ‘mentioned in despatches’ for gallantry in Belfast during 9-11 August who subsequently went to Derry on Bloody Sunday. 2. Support Company Death Squads. 1 and 2 Para had various ‘companies’ including those called ‘support companies’. In normal warfare they carried mortars and provided ‘support’ for the actions of their colleagues. Clearly, there was no need for mortars and the like in Belfast or Derry. Soldiers attached to 1 Para were deployed in Belfast during the August 1971 internment sweeps. 2 Para was also active. It is clear that Support Company of 2 Para was involved in some of the murders in Ballymurphy. Did paratroopers from 2 Para’s Support Company ever transfer to 1 Para or visa versa? If Cleary and the likes of soldiers E, G and H (as they were designated at the Bloody Sunday tribunals) did not transfer from 2 Para to 1 Para, it means that ruthless and callous murderers were assigned to both support companies. Overall, it is probable that Kitson assigned his most ruthless paratroopers to the various support companies under his command, the men willing to shoot unarmed civilians if so ordered. The fact that harmless people were shot in the back, head and whilst crawling along the ground in both Ballymurphy and the Bogside cannot have happened out of the blue. Cleary and his comrades must have been dehumanised and conditioned to do this. That process may have begun in places such as Kenya, Malaya and Aden where the locals were seen as vermin by the troops. If Kitson and his commanders did not order, permit or somehow encourage these elite troops to murder civilians on the street during the Ballymurphy massacre; and they proceeded to do so on their own volition, why did those in command not stop their murderous escapades? Why did the top brass allow them to continue to serve in the ranks? Kitson in particular was a stickler for discipline. One did not step out of line on his watch. Instead, Cleary and his ilk went to the Bogside and Bloody Sunday took place. The Support Company killers active during the Ballymurphy massacre were probably acting on orders from their superiors to provoke the IRA in the hope they would engage in open street fighting with them. The usual tactic of the IRA was to snipe at troops from the shadows and disappear. In addition, the terror unleashed by Kitson’s paratroopers has all the appearance of a punishment administered to the general Nationalist community for harbouring – as Kitson perceived it – the Official and Provisional IRA in their midst. The latter motive was in line with the sinister – albeit orthodox – counterinsurgency methodology of the time. Indeed, Kitson outlined the tactic in his book, ‘Low Intensity Operations’ (1971). See Brigadier Kitson’s motive for murdering unarmed civilians in Ballymurphy. 3. Brigadier Kitson’s direct personal involvement in the vilification of civilians killed by his troops in Belfast. An equally important question is: who instigated the vilification process of the Ballymurphy murder victims? The overwhelming odds are that it was Brigadier Frank Kitson. Simon Winchester, then a young Guardian journalist, has revealed how Kitson manipulated the media. In a Guardian article in May 2001 he described how, after shooting incidents in Belfast, he would often call Kitson who was his “principal contact at army headquarters”. Frank and I liked each