85 of 109 people found the following review helpful
Incontrovertible evidence of British State Murder,
This review is from: Lethal Allies: British Collusion in Ireland (Paperback)
Even though I am well aware of the history of collusion, reading this book forced me to draw breath and recall just how subversive, murderous and immoral was the British state and its cheer leaders in unionism and its apologists in the media. Anne Cadwallader is a good writer, forensic in her approach. Like her last book, Holy Cross, she cuts through the propaganda, the excuses, the pretexts, and lays bare the incontrovertible evidence of the British state's involvement in murdering and in condoning the murders of its own citizens.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 11 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Oct 2013, 16:32:47 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 20 Mar 2014, 17:19:40 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Oct 2013, 11:03:55 GMT
So you are saying it was ok for RUC and UDR and others to kill because all nationalist are members or support the IRA. Stop making excuses for the RUC and UDR they murdered people because they were CATHOLICS it was as simple as that.....
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Nov 2013, 19:16:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 7 Nov 2013, 19:18:06 GMT
Jerome Mallon says:
typically blinkered nonsense that reverts to 'it was the IRAs fault', shocking collusion by a shocking 'police' force and Govt. They used the means and apparatus of the state to murder and sustain the conflict as it lined their pockets with gold.
Posted on 22 Jan 2014, 12:57:32 GMT
If this Danny Morrison is the Danny Morrison referred to by W.R.Fawcett below, then i can understand why he give it full marks. I stick by my review, and as i said in it, i couldn't understand why the book was so ...leading...until i looked into the author. One of the first reports i read on her, was by Danny Morrison speaking about how he was on his way to her house for dinner. So that is meant to be an impartial report eh? The only people that could give this book 5+, are Republicans who want to believe it or at least want to use it to beat the British Government with, or, those who know know better, read the book as a novel, and get taken in by the authors professionalism. Again i emphasize my sympathy to the innocent victims, and again i state that this book does you no favors at all, and i hope a real author, with the real facts, sometime in the future, does you justice, but this is not that book, and that is why the marks this book is getting are either 5 or 1. It appeals to the bigoted, where as others who know the truth see it for what it really is, and that's a shame for then the true victims are tethered to the same bigoted brush and ignored as fantasists. Again i ask 2 simple questions, with so many renown Republicans as friends, why hasn't the author been writing factual books on the murder and slayings of innocents during the troubles, and unsolved murders, from the first hand account of her friends. Secondly, with the British Government behind the Secret services, behind the police, behind the Loyalist paramilitaries, all with a free hand, encouragement even, and lets not forget we are talking about the best soldiers in the world here, how come Republicans, especially the IRA whom the author is very friendly with, murdered more innocent Catholics than anyone else. They out gunned the British army, police, UDA, UVF or any other organisation, State, Paramilitary, or even State run Paramilitary, to murder more innocent Catholics than any of them? So with all this great first hand accounts of so many murders to talk and write about, and facts at hand, why has the author decided to spend 15 years writing a book on fiction. Understand that, and you will understand the book. Check her out for your selves before you buy then book. Then ask your self where your money could end up if you do.......Tommy
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jan 2014, 02:12:00 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Feb 2014, 00:11:54 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jan 2014, 18:32:23 GMT
I wrote my review on the content within the book. If i made a mistake, it was to not include loyalists,right wingers, or bigots in the list of those who would give it a rating of 1 on my comments section. But it makes no difference to my point of view, because it was written with bigotry, one side will love it, the other hate it, and that is unfair to the victims as they are then labeled Republicans for endorsing the book, and their suffering ignored or ridiculed, neither of which they deserve. I understand what the book is on about, i was looking forward to reading it as soon as i heard of it. However, as i was reading it, as an impartial outsider wanting to know the facts on just how dirty the war in Ulster got, by all sides, i was stunned at just how leading the author was. THIS is what brought me to look her up, and the rest as they say is history. To read the book knowing that she is a Republican.....and i say that because i see no mention of her anywhere writing or talking in a pro British way, yet i couldn't count the number of Republican clubs/organisations she is a member of or linked to, Republican fundraisers/dinners she has attended or spoke at, or the number of Pro Republican books/speeches she has done.....then the book makes sense. It is a pro Republican book, written to beat the British with and give the Republican movement some good PR. AS such, it is written to get as much sympathy as possible from the reader, so it details each Catholic death with a description of the injuries on the victim, plus a family background, plus a note from the family, all in the attempt to personalize each Catholic victim and draw as much sympathy as possible. Each Protestant death is given name and date of birth. No personalizing, no feeling, and THAT is misleading. The links and assumptions she makes are too numerous to mention,.......but for example, when 1 gun gets used in numerous murders, she states that even if its not the same person using it each time, the people to use it must know each other. But in Ulster, all paramilitaries would swap their guns around so the police never knew who was doing the shooting, so a gun was just a gun, and few knew of the guns history before they themselves used it., .....though like i said, this is just one small example of many in the book, all leading the reader to see things how the writer wants you to... from a Republican point of view. I am not saying that collusion didn't go on, or that the British didn't set people up to be murdered, by both sides, on both sides. That`s why it was the Dirty War, and its now time for everyone to hear the truth, no matter how painful and especially those most affected, but this book does not come anywhere near doing that. I don't even say that the book is totally wrong, as you can see in my review i said that if another author had written it, the book would only have been a quarter the size, the part that contains actual facts. It is easier to tell a lie, when you integrate it with facts the listener knows to be true. So the author has littered this book with assumptions and skeptical links, in between some facts, and hopes the reader sees it her way. As a factual read, this book is the equivalent of the Da Vinci code, but with malice, as it is written with bigotry. The time, period and area the book covers, is an area seldom talked about, and little known about, so it was of great interest to me, but i felt used by the author, which in turn im sorry to say, made me lose feeling for those involved. So its not the message i don't like, for as i have said, i want to know the truth as much as anyone. What i don't like is being used, or lied to. I would have more respect for her if she said it was a republican book, with her take on how people and organisations came together to cause murder. HER TAKE.....not the truth. This then makes me ask why she should spend 15 years putting this together, with so much hard work and time, getting as many facts as she can, then linking them together the best way she can, in a story that runs well on paper, when.......As a wife of a top Republican, who has renown Republican friends to lunch, dinner, drinks, socials etc etc etc, why didn't she use these contacts and links to write a factual book on murders and unsolved crimes in Ulster. She didn't even need to get out of bed to get her facts. It would have taken half the time, effort and money, plus it could have been written first hand, by those who ordered, or who actually carried out those murders and crimes. Obviously she didn't want to write this book, and as an author with a an abundance of facts and stories on her doorstep this in its self is strange, unless you understand that she is a Republican who wouldn't want to upset fellow Republicans, or show them in a bad light, so she spent 15 years struggling over this one instead, to promote Republican PR and whip the British with. As i said, the Da Vinci code with bigotry, but not a book of fact, and that is what i wanted, paid for, and didn't get, hence, my review..,.LOST CHANCE. I also understand she was trying to detail what she saw as a loyalist hit squad, run by the army, run by intelligence, run by the British Government, operating with the freedom of each organisation, with one aim, to murder innocent Catholics. You are talking about the some of the best intelligence/soldiers/paramilitaries in the world, and such a combination working together, with the freedom of the law behind them as she tries to make out, would not have killed 120 innocent Catholics during the time stated, they would have rid the whole country of Catholics with time to spare. So when you say that...You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that the IRA killed more people than any other participant in the conflict....i agree. BUT that`s not what i was saying. Forget about the Protestants, soldiers, police etc they murdered, the IRA put themselves out as the only people who would protect the Catholic people, yet it was the IRA who murdered more CATHOLICS during the troubles than any State, Loyalist paramilitary group, or even State run Loyalist paramilitary group. The way Cadwallder has written this book, that would seem impossible, but is fact. So again i ask, with so many more victims, easy access to first hand accounts of the truth by the perpetrators, open access to unlimited sources, why would she spend 15years putting this book together with part truth and part assumption,. except through bigotry. The bigotry in this book is palatable, you have to search hard for the facts, and by the time you pick these out of the innuendos, assumptions and authors leading, you loose interest. A novel with some facts, written to promote Republican PR, and create another stick to whip the bad British with it may be, but a factual book it is not, and that's a fact...........Tommy
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2014, 15:00:35 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Feb 2014, 00:11:37 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jan 2014, 12:40:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jan 2014, 16:44:58 GMT
Eamon, now your speaking in a more understanding way, let me explain a few things. I like to speak honestly, and straight. I don't mud sling or call names, unless those names are accurate, and even then, only if i think they are relevant. I have no doubt the Army and Loyalists did collude during the troubles. I would go further and say we will have many more books in the future where this will be explained/confessed to/written about. I believe much more than we have heard up to now actually took place. I also believe that the area/time covered in the book contains one almighty story of such collusion, and it was THAT story i was hoping to read when i bought the book. I cant tell you how disappointed i was as i was reading it. I tried so much to blank the assumptions and leading, just to weed out the facts, and in the end it was an effort to finish it. Unlike the books Stakeknife or 10.33, where the authors just state the facts, right or wrong, coldly even, and those facts alone are enough for both sides to use as whipping sticks. Both sides were used during the troubles, on each other, and even on their own, but im just fed up with books either written from afar.........authors who get their info from books/informants/police/newspapers/rumors
One thing i forgot to say, was about the repetition in the book. I believe both sides in Ulster are ready to hear the facts, and most moderates will accept them for what they are, and move on. This book could....should.... have been part of that process, but because of the way it is written, it is just thrown into the Republican list, there to be shot at, and that does no one any favors, especially the victims. The murder of a fully developed baby is nightmare stuff, but after you write about it once, human nature means it starts to lose its horror, and then the anger sets in, and the mudslinging starts. Once is understandable, but she must have described this event at least 3 times, and in doing so, not only lessens the impact of the event, but opens herself up to claims of bias because the reader feels they are being force fed the event, especially when i vividly remember the horror of the pictures that appeared on lamp posts after LaMon house, or watching human remains being brushed up onto shovels, and thrown into bags at Belfast Bus Station, etc etc etc. The book is a lost chance to tell the truth and reach the moderates, and just helps those moderates jump ship back into their respective trenches.
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2014, 00:25:06 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Feb 2014, 00:11:18 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Feb 2014, 10:15:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2014, 13:16:03 BST
As far as the book goes, we agree on the following............she is not a v.good author, there`s too much repetition, she is pro republican and uses the book to beat the British with,the book is not totally accurate, and most if not all the actual facts within the book have all been heard before, or at least been available to the public, so nothing new within its contents. On these points alone, in my eyes, the book is worth no more than 1 star, and i definitely wouldn't recommend it as a good read, factual book, or even a novel. I personally would go further though, and say it has been written by a republican, as pr stick for the republican movement, with the full approval of the republican leaders, hence, we are now having a conversation on Danny Morrisons comments page. Putting her political bias and association to the side, i would also say that because of her personal bias, it makes the book hard reading, and any Loyalist who does read it will automatically throw it into a republican pile, and dismiss its contents. This might make her a hero in republican circles, but it doesn't help the victims. I would also say that many of the links and assumptions she uses are thin at best, with no real evidence to support them, so all in all, in every way,.....apart from being a stick for republicans to beat the British with..... the book fails in all its objectives. As a book alone, I would have given it minus marks if i could have. As for the pictures i was talking about, what i was trying to say was, to explain the terrible death of an unborn child in the book was understandable,.....the first time. To keep repeating the same gory details, as if enjoying the horror knowing your enemy is to blame, with the thought of constantly pushing their faces into the bloody picture and wallowing in their shame is palatable. It is when this happens, loyalists return with their own horror stories, La Mon, Belfast Bus station etc etc etc, and no one gets anywhere. I read Stakeknife and 10.33. Not nice reading, but written by people with no axe to grind or side to take. People involved in the operations spoke of within their books. First hand facts. Most of all, people will read these books without feeling lambasted. They are hard to argue with on any scale or point, and are written as matter of fact, not as a republican or loyalist pr stick. Maybe not the best authors in the world, but definitely the way factual books should be put across, and when people cant argue with the facts, then they just have to accept them.