Fallen Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi funded dissident Republicans in Northern Ireland just before his regime collapsed.
A television documentary to be screened in Britain claims a Libyan government courier flew into London in June with $2million in cash destined for the Real IRA.
Gaddafi was a well known supporter of the Provisional IRA during the Troubles when he supplied the Republican paramilitary group with funds and arms.
This latest development marked a resumption after several years of Gaddafi’s involvement in Irish affairs.
The cash was destined for an Ulster businessman believed to be a supporter of the dissident Republican groups responsible for recent attacks on police in Northern Ireland.
--------------------
READ MORE:
Sister-in-law of IRA victim claims Martin McGuinness has ‘blood on his hands’
Gerry Adams defends Martin McGuinness and his IRA past
Martin McGuinness again refuses to apologize for his IRA past
--------------------
The documentary, entitled Exposure, says that Colonel Gaddafi sent large quantities of weapons to the IRA at the height of the Troubles in the 70s.
More recently he wanted to fund the Real IRA and their likes in retaliation for Britain’s support for efforts to overthrow his regime in Libya.
British security sources told the programme that Gaddafi sent the cash in June at a time when NATO was bombing Tripoli and half of Libya was under rebel control.
A suitcase was packed with dollar bills in Malta and the courier sent to London where he ‘went to ground’ in a property owned by the Gaddafi family in the suburb of Knightsbridge.
An MI6 source told the programme: “Security forces fear that the dissidents are growing and gaining support - and that new cash from Gaddafi would help them restock with more weapons.”
Gaddafi first shipped arms to Ireland in 1972 following visits from then IRA chief of staff Joe Cahill.
Hundreds of rocket-propelled grenades, rifles, explosives and heavy machine-guns were dispatched by Colonel Gaddafi who funded terrorist groups across the world.
25 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.donegalcali | Nov 04, 2011, 05:26 AM EDT
Google the real gaddafi
mamaginnty | Oct 22, 2011, 11:24 AM EDT
This is pure propaganda bullsh-t. The Real IRA are not wanted here in Ireland, we are in the middle of a peace process. R.IRA you could count them on one hand, as for the IRA if they had had all the arms supposedly sent by Gaddafi and all the millions of dollars, we would not have had our young men starve to death for Ireland, lest we forget hundreds of catholic men were picked of the streets and interned without trial for years, no french or american sent over then to " free the people " because...we had no bloody oil.
joycean | Sep 28, 2011, 09:19 AM EDT
Sorry: remove "not."
joycean | Sep 28, 2011, 09:18 AM EDT
Gaddafi was not a US enemy, which is why the US is not taking a minor role currently. the fighters are Libyans.
McSpartacus | Sep 28, 2011, 08:00 AM EDT
MI6 would know, and have every right to be ticked-off. Don't you hate it when people re-gift your presents?
merefalow | Sep 28, 2011, 07:32 AM EDT
ga daffi,saddam didnt dance to a western tune,saddam was trying to persuade arab nations to sell oil in euros,which would have seriously affected the dollar,.they gave him the go ahead to invade kuwait which then gave them the excuse to cream him.azerbyjan has all the oil,within two days of the invasion the oil pipeline was being built across afganistan and the pacification democratisation process began,how many deaths can you lay at the feet of the usa,brit,nato coaltion.how can they sleep at night,easy they have no concience,who the hell are the taliban any way to pose such a threat to usa brit etc etc,they havent even got a bloody country,no air force, navy,they got sandals and motor bikes,just like the little vietnamese,and those big john wayne brainwashed yanks couldnt beat them either.the death and destruction wreaked in the name of so called yankee democracy is so bloody evil,libya will probably end up the same as iraq,years of unending tribal warfare,but that wont bother the neocoms and the multi nationals and all the share holders,its a pity you cant quantify shares in tears,blood and suffering,they would be blue chip..if armies stayed in their own countries there wouldnt be half the conflict there is,you push some one.they usually push back..most arab countries view imperialism as wrong and reconise it when it is inflicted on them.stay in your own bloody countries..and let other countries work thier own destinys out,and amazingly they only seek to bring democracy to countries with oil.. .
mamaginnty | Sep 27, 2011, 01:53 PM EDT
If they knew about it why did they not stop it, bloody bull...t. Elections are drawing near so the muck flinging gets thicker.
DanOLoingsigh | Sep 27, 2011, 12:29 PM EDT
Sir P – It’s not surprising that countries try to maintain the lifestyle of their citizens; the first job of any government is to protect its citizens and ensure their welfare. The trouble I have with your views are that it’s so easy to stand on the sidelines and carp and criticise the nations that challenge dictators and terrorists. Whether we like it or not, we do enjoy our freedom thanks to the efforts of others. I didn’t say ‘slight’ excesses occur, but again is that not the human condition…to get things wrong, to make huge misjudgements, to pick the wrong war? The roadmap for peace in NI was drawn in 1974, and with little change that’s what we have now, after wasted years and wasted lives…..
joycean | Sep 27, 2011, 12:03 PM EDT
Sirpeter: After World War II, Russia did not return to its Pre-War borders. From 1945 until the USSR imploded economically in 1989, the US and Russia engaged in an Arms Race. Part of the Cold War statergy was to have as many allies as possible. Words like "Democracy" were code words for American self-preservation. Of course, not all our allies were democracies. What mattered was that they weren't our enemies.
joycean | Sep 27, 2011, 10:49 AM EDT
Sirpeter: "Lucky" is probably the wrong word; perhaps "militant" is better. A body count fails to distinguish how and by whom. Many Iraqis (and US) have been killed or maimed by IUD's, car bombs, mortar attacks, insurgent sniper attacks, etc, not tactics emploed by the US.
sirpeter | Sep 27, 2011, 05:52 AM EDT
Dano - The trouble I have trying to rationalize your way of thinking is it seems to me all the lucky countries always try and maintain the status quo.It's there the ones who decide the norms of national and international law.The lucky countries are also willing to break their own international law when it suits them.As in the Geneva convention forbidding the bombing of cities in WW2.When the lucky countries feel their interests are at risk.They push aside even their own laws.Northern Ireland is a prime example where there was genuine injustice and again the status quo was maintained by force tooth and nail for years even when the peaceful route was taken first.Most groups of people who take up arms do so as a last resort and against international law.Most end up been heroes too in history.What use is the the norms of national and international law if the most powerful country in the world can say before the bombing of Iraq "If you are not with us,you are against us" That was an open threat.A 100,000 Iraqi men/women/children who were innocent payed the price for 3000 American life's.That's not slight excesses when they do occur.That's a massacre.That makes the conflict in NI over 30 years look like a playground fight.
JamesDempsey | Sep 27, 2011, 05:12 AM EDT
@Rebelforce Well said ! The western world is full of sheep who just cant get their feeble minds around the propaganda and accept that the governments they support influence people around the world using terror
DanOLoingsigh | Sep 26, 2011, 07:10 PM EDT
Sir P - I don’t pretend that many countries are driven solely by altruistic reasons in deciding who they deal with and who they oppose. Of course self-interest is a major factor. Having worked in a number of ‘in-conflict’ and ‘post-conflict’ countries, I fully understand what destruction and misery is caused to many, especially those that count for little to their masters. Each time I get back home, I thank God that I can jump on a plane and leave these places. I can’t make things much easier for most of these unfortunate people, but I help where I can…but better to try and mostly fail, than do nothing. Having seen what I have seen, I just can’t go along with the argument that every country is as bad as every other…we in he west are very lucky. The others know it, we sometimes don’t.
DanOLoingsigh | Sep 26, 2011, 06:52 PM EDT
Sorry RebF…That’s your logic, not mine…NATO, along with the fighting forces in many conflicts, when tasked by democratic governments, have a duty to keep or enforce the norms of national and international law. Self-appointed groups do not have this legitimacy. That’s not to excuse excesses that do occur, when military discipline breaks down. You can’t vote a secret cabal out of office. If you can’t or won’t recognise this profound difference, you’re not applying logic at all.
sirpeter | Sep 26, 2011, 06:11 PM EDT
Dano.The whole world is full of causes and they all believe in their own cause.Some causes are justified as in bombing in defense or fighting to change political oppression.You seem to think the USA and NATO is in the business of spreading democracies and freedom and are justified in their bombing and killing.I could list 20 countries where the USA put military dictators into power who went on to kill thousands of their own people who wanted freedom.The USA likes countries with no democracy provided they are compliant with US foreign policy.Friendly dictators are easy to do business with.Also you don't have as much freedom as you think.Pull against that leash you ware to much and they will take you away for a little chat or worse.Your own logic is flawed if you think it's about democracy and freedom.It's about power and grabbing countries resources and the USA and Nato kill millions and millions to get those resources so you can actually buy a computer to actually post.Most of the world is capitalist and most of the world is poor.When you examine each country you will find Europe and the USA are killing these people wholesale.Even in the USA if you were dirt poor how much freedom would you have then?Take away medicaid on top of it and maybe watch your kids die.You might even start planting bombs yourself then.
Rebelforce | Sep 26, 2011, 05:50 PM EDT
So using DannyO'Loins logic, if an IRA commando was ordered to take out a military target and in doing so kills some nearby civilians, that would be "colateral damage" and justifiable in war. Both NATO and the IRA would no doubt offer "sincere" apologies for any of the unfortunate civilians who died.
DanOLoingsigh | Sep 26, 2011, 05:10 PM EDT
Rebelforce – the logic goes as follows; If a NATO pilot is ordered to take out a military target, and in doing so kills some nearby civilians, that is very different to a terrorist planting a bomb, or flying a plane into a building, to promote his cause…in your world you criminalise all the fighting men of the democracies in the twentieth century, who laid their lives on the line so miserable effers like you have the freedom to post your crap!!
canadianirish | Sep 26, 2011, 04:50 PM EDT
Rebelforce - I truly enjoy reading your posts..always thought-provoking.
Trealach | Sep 26, 2011, 02:47 PM EDT
@JohnKinMD - "Intelligent actions" and MI6 do not sit comfortably in the same sentence.
Rebelforce | Sep 26, 2011, 01:49 PM EDT
So it's "terrorism" when paramilitary groups use bombs to kill people, but it's "collateral damage" when NATO drops bombs from 10,000 feet to kill people? I get it. The dead and dismembered victims of NATO bombs in Libya will be happy to know they died from "legitimate" bombs, not terrorist bombs.
citizen69 | Sep 26, 2011, 01:38 PM EDT
Not content with murdering innocent people in his own country, he now wants to re-involve himself in the murder of innocent people in Ireland.
Bailey2000 | Sep 26, 2011, 12:41 PM EDT
Maybe the money could be siphoned to Sinead OConnor with the balance going to fund Martin McGuinness's Presidential bid :)
JohnKinMD | Sep 26, 2011, 12:16 PM EDT
Ok, They knew about the money, the amount, and how it got into the country, why didn't they stop it at the airport?
joycean | Sep 26, 2011, 10:59 AM EDT
I've read that the USSR (before its demise in 1989)and Gaddafi were the two largest funders of the IRA during the Troubles, not Irish-Americans, as some like to believe.
Springfield9 | Sep 26, 2011, 10:31 AM EDT
He's operating on the theory that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" ..... I hate to see him go ..... the "funding stuff isn't funny, but he was the only real comedy routine in North Africa.