Firstly, I skipped the intro and went straight to the section where the author lists their attacks on "Britain"

The section is called "the Jesuits in Britain" and starts

In Britain, prior to the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558,

How ridiculous, and it doesn't make more sense as we move forward.

The first item of evidence is that someone called Garnet was involved in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (still about a century before union of even one of the islands of Britain)

Just for example, if you were a Catholic in England in 1605, in civilised western England, you had to pay recusancy of 1 shilling for every Sunday you insisted on being catholic. That was a weekly fine for you to pay in enlightened 1605 England. And obviously if the catholics of Derry were spitting mad in 1960 about being excluded from public life then you can imagine how it was in England in 1605.

So I am not surprised that ordinary catholics were restoring to violence and I don't think you would need Jesuit interference to make violence happen.

The OP link doesn't address that fact, or provide the reader with any context.

One of the many people who were rounded up after the gunpowder plot was, according to the article, a Jesuit and ipso facto the whole operation was. It's not sensible logic and the article doesn't try to flesh their argument out.

One of their next examples

Example 4 The Jesuits as instigators of the Irish Rebellions

Are you kidding me. Tell me you don't know anything about Ireland without telling me you don't know anything about Ireland.

If you think that the Irish would not have rebelled against the British occupation without Jesuit instigation, then you're completely loony