Fury at tribute plan for IRA girl Farrell

LordSutch

We condem them & their actions full stop.

guinnessdrinker

IRLConor wrote: »

From what little I know about such operations (I'm not military or police) the standard practice in such situations is to continue shooting until your target is definitely dead. Shooting to incapacitate is, from what I know, a Hollywood invention.

Not a Hollywood invention Conor. Even in Ireland during the John Carthy seige, the ERU first shot him in the legs to try and incapacitate him by using non lethal force.

I don't know what the SAS's rules of engagement were at the time but like most army's I would imagine they would operate under the use of minimum force necessary in order to achieve their objectives. Also, there were eye witness reports of the SAS continuing to fire after she had fell to the ground, so their actions did seem excessive when they could have just arrested her.

It wasn't me!

Armed police or military operatives aim centre-mass, being the best target. The report on the inquest reads :

"The
physical welfare of a criminal armed with a firearm should
not be given greater consideration than that of a police
officer, and unnecessary risks must not be taken by the
police."

To aim for a smaller, less obviously presented target, such as a leg, is an unnecessary risk, and as such, is to be avoided. That the ASU were not in fact armed is immaterial of the fact that they're given as having been suspected of being armed and having made movements that aroused the suspicions of their pursuers to the extent that they were compelled to open fire.

murphaph

Much better three dead terrorists than a dead band and spectators. Good post Conor. Either the 'RA are an army or they aren't. If they are bnobody can complain when their members are killed by oponents. The SAS were more than a match for the trio that day.

Dinter

murphaph wrote: »

The SAS were more than a match for the trio that day.

Their opponents being unarmed and all that.

Fratton Fred

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Armed police or military operatives aim centre-mass, being the best target. The report on the inquest reads :

"The
physical welfare of a criminal armed with a firearm should
not be given greater consideration than that of a police
officer, and unnecessary risks must not be taken by the
police."

To aim for a smaller, less obviously presented target, such as a leg, is an unnecessary risk, and as such, is to be avoided. That the ASU were not in fact armed is immaterial of the fact that they're given as having been suspected of being armed and having made movements that aroused the suspicions of their pursuers to the extent that they were compelled to open fire.

Off topic, but this is what lead tot eh accusations of the Met police having a shoot to kill policy. Suspected suicide bombers cannot be shot "Centre Mass" so they are shot in the head. not strictly shoot to kill, but pretty much the same thing.

I think the three IRA suspects recognised one or more of the SAS guys, which lead to their execution, but hey, when was the last time any paramilitaries shot to wound. Live by the gun, die by the gun.

If the IRA considered all service personnel to be fair game then it is only fair the same applies both ways. I only have a problem when innocent people get caught up in it.

It wasn't me!

Yeah, I recognise that suicide bombers need immediate brain stem shots, but in the report it details that in all three cases, the first shots were to the torso, head shots being added as the victims fell. To be honest, the use of firearms indicates a pretty dangerous situation. I can't really conceive a situation dangerous enough to require the use of firearms, but not a decisive shot, except in extraordinary circumstances.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think you will find that is normally the people who celebrate IRA members getting killed are the ones condemning the IRA as terrorists for killing soldiers.

Some of us don't celebrate the killing of IRA terrorists, but given a choice between the deaths of several musicians and quite likely innocent bystanders, and the deaths of the terrorists who were prepared to cause those deaths, I know which I'd pick.

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I don't know what the SAS's rules of engagement were at the time but like most army's I would imagine they would operate under the use of minimum force necessary in order to achieve their objectives. Also, there were eye witness reports of the SAS continuing to fire after she had fell to the ground, so their actions did seem excessive when they could have just arrested her.

The soldiers were told the three were capable of remotely detonating a bomb. The goal was to make absolutely certain that they couldn't do that. That meant shooting them until they were confirmed dead.

Yes, I know they didn't have a radio trigger, but the soldiers were told they did.

IRLConor

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Not a Hollywood invention Conor. Even in Ireland during the John Carthy seige, the ERU first shot him in the legs to try and incapacitate him by using non lethal force.

Wasn't that the crappy compromise they got stuck with because they didn't have any less-than-lethal options available? He didn't present the same kind of threat as a terrorist with a finger on a radio detonator. Abbeylara was all round a s*** sandwich, it's not really comparable to the SAS in Gibraltar.

Shooting to incapacitate someone to the point at which they can't push a button yet not injuring them any further is pretty fancy shooting. I'm a pretty good shot with a rifle, but on a moving target under stressful conditions with a pistol? Too much left to chance.

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I don't know what the SAS's rules of engagement were at the time but like most army's I would imagine they would operate under the use of minimum force necessary in order to achieve their objectives.

The rules of engagement are in the link I posted earlier.

The bit you're looking for is:

You and your men are not then to use more force than is necessary in order to protect life

which is pretty much leaving the judgment of how much force to use up to the individual soldiers.

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Also, there were eye witness reports of the SAS continuing to fire after she had fell to the ground, so their actions did seem excessive when they could have just arrested her.

If she was still capable of pressing the button which they believed was on her person then of course they would continue firing to prevent that from happening.

[EDIT]From further down in the report:

At the inquest, both soldiers stated under cross-examination that once it became necessary to open fire they would continue shooting until the person was no longer a threat. C agreed that the best way to ensure this result was to kill. D stated that he was firing at Savage to kill him and that this was the way that all soldiers were trained.
...
Soldier E (the attack commander) stated that the intention at the moment of opening fire was to kill since this was the only way to remove the threat. He added that this was followed by any soldier in the army who opens fire.

[/EDIT]

IRLConor

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think you will find that is normally the people who celebrate IRA members getting killed are the ones condemning the IRA as terrorists for killing soldiers.

I neither celebrate nor mourn the death of IRA members.

It wasn't me!

Admittedly read the report pretty quickly, but there was only one person claiming they shot someone on the ground, and the person concerned was Sean Savage, and that claim was contradicted by several others. That's just what I got from a quick read, mind you.

guinnessdrinker

IRLConor wrote: »

Wasn't that the crappy compromise they got stuck with because they didn't have any less-than-lethal options available? He didn't present the same kind of threat as a terrorist with a finger on a radio detonator. Abbeylara was all round a s*** sandwich, it's not really comparable to the SAS in Gibraltar.

I agree with you that Abbylara was not the Gardai's best day out but I was trying to make the point that using non lethal methods to incapacitate someone was not invented in Hollywood.

IRLConor wrote: »

Shooting to incapacitate someone to the point at which they can't push a button yet not injuring them any further is pretty fancy shooting. I'm a pretty good shot with a rifle, but on a moving target under stressful conditions with a pistol? Too much left to chance.

Again, I agree that shooting a moving target under pressure with a pistol is not easy but the forensics showed that Farrell received her bullet wounds from a distance of only 3 feet. Remember, this is the SAS we're talking about, among the worlds best trained special forces.

Also one of witnesses, a Mrs Carmen Proetta is qouted in the ECHR report as saying that she:

"saw a man and a woman raise their hands over their shoulders with open palms."

She then says they were shot and when the bodies were on the ground she heard further shots. So if Farrell was trying to surender why wasn't she just arressted?

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Summary execution then?

TBH, summary execution is too good for scum like that. Slow, drawn out, and exacted would seem more appropriate. After all, they had killed innocent civilians before. So quite frankly; fvck them.

I'm not a particularly big fan of the SAS, but they served up some poetic justice in Gibraltar.

alastair

No fan of the shinners, this particular planned nonsense, nor the murder of military band members dressed up as 'freedom fighting' but…

The ECHR (the court, not the convention) did indeed find the UK govt to be in violation of the ECHR (the convention, not the court) - the right to life bit - which is (an admittedly tame way of saying) a verdict of unlawful killing. That they didn't award any damages (and that it was a split decision) speaks volumes of where they saw the contextual culpability, but the illegal nature of what the SAS did is a matter of fact legally speaking.

The ECHR's report of findings.

Rossibaby

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, summary execution is too good for scum like that. Slow, drawn out, and exacted would seem more appropriate. After all, they had killed innocent civilians before. So quite frankly; fvck them.

I'm not a particularly big fan of the SAS, but they served up some poetic justice in Gibraltar.

great point,well said:rolleyes:

to those asking were the ira an army,the clue is in the name:)

so is anyone going to answer me...is nelson mandela a terrorist? if not why? and whats different from the violence,the bombings,the assinations,the loss of civilians of his armed group and the IRA?i'll tell you as i probably wont get a decent answer,not a lot...alot of hypocrital sheep about:Dbaa

alastair

Rossibaby wrote: »

g

to those asking were the ira an army,the clue is in the name:)

The same crowd who didn't recognise the Irish Republic (though that didn't stop them taking up it's passports), and were an Army in the same way as the Lord's Resistance Army might be considered one (or any other self-proclaimed militia)? The clue's in the hypocrisy, not the title.

Zombrex

Rossibaby wrote: »

come on mate that won't fly

What won't fly? I said I don't know, I said that because (shock horror) I don't know.

I have not studied Mandela's involvement in any close detail. If you think Mandela was involved in organizing the terrorism I have no problem with the idea of Mandela being a terrorist.

You seem to be really missing the point here. A terrorist is someone who uses or orders terrorist tactics. If Mandela used or ordered terrorism then he is a terrorist. If the IRA used terrorism they are terrorist.

TBH I still don't think you understand what that actually means. They only person being hypocritical here is you.

Rossibaby wrote: »

..because the media paint him as a hero now,people believe it....however if these things were going on in south africa today,people here would no doubt be labelling him blood thristy scum...i feel this is true

I'm not quite sure what you point is. I've no problem with Mandela the terrorist, if that is what happened. As I said I haven't studied it in great detail.

Given that you seem to know a lot more about it than me, Do you think Mandela is a terrorist?

duggie-89

Wicknight wrote: »

And blowing up a marching band on a public street while they parade through Gibraltar (which is beside Spain BTW) achieves Irish freedom how exactly .... ?

but hold on did she????? no and again where is this proganda....... o wait sorry you call it "news", where is this "news" comming from???? the same forces who said iraq had WMD and could strike within 45 mins. also the same forces who said collusion never occured..... lol shall i continue

duggie-89

Sand wrote: »

DUP should hold a simulataneous commemoration of Jean McConville, and invite Sinn Fein to come along and join with them in remembering all the women, mothers, sisters and daughters murdered by terrorism in the northern irish conflict. Possibly Adams can give a speech on the murder of this innocent mother, condemn her brutal torture and murder, and the destruction of the family she left behind. Surely she would make a fitting individual to commemorate on International Womens Day?

Ah, but then theyd be told to "move on" - SF is only interested in revising the past, not commemorating it.

Oh and another thing, the European courts never said the three were murdered. The Gibraltar courts said the killings were lawful, the European Commission of Human Rights said the killings were lawful and referred it to the European Court. The higher court, by a narrow margin, merely stated that it was not convinced the killings were a result of force employed that was proportionate and necessary. Thats all, never said the UK murdered them, just that they went in too heavy.

Personally, Mairead and her buddies were quite willing to murder musicians, so they should roll with the punches and accept the other side shoots back. After all, isnt it SFIRA theology that they were fighting a war? In war enemies can shoot you when you are not under their control, so either SFIRAs view that it was murder gets a little wobbly when you try to reconcile it to their dogma of being a guerilla army.

well to be honest if you ask me i think we need to "revise history" because your take on history is clearly full of propaganda.

and again you highlighted the point excatly a british court said it was ok..... where is your logical??? you seem to think that the british courts can be respected. also the point is if britain wishes to keep calling it a conflict and not a war then there actions were wrong.

but they still refuse to accept their actions were wrong.

IE gunning down unarmed combatants in a WAR that they claim never took place.

thats not a logical stance to be and i wouldn't be to suprised that you sallow it up and ask for seconds.

and yes why not remember jean mc conville i would have no prob with that but then again if it would have no prob with SF then you wouldn't because all your intersted in is sligging mud.

Lemming

duggie-89 wrote: »

well to be honest if you ask me i think we need to "revise history" because your take on history is clearly full of propaganda.

....

and yes why not remember jean mc conville i would have no prob with that but then again if it would have no prob with SF then you wouldn't because all your intersted in is sligging mud.

Oh the irony .... Hello Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle.

but they still refuse to accept their actions were wrong.

So do SF/IRA, INLA, RIRA, UDR, LVF, UFF, etc. etc. etc. So what's your point?

IE gunning down unarmed combatants in a WAR that they claim never took place.

Considering the IRA gunned down plenty of people (innocent or not) who were unarmed, and summarily excuted many more ... I really don't see how you can complain. I believe the response "Boo F*cking Hoo" is appropriate given the smell of sh*t and hypocrasy coming from the SF/IRA apologist camp.

thats not a logical stance to be and i wouldn't be to suprised that you sallow it up and ask for seconds.

This of course ignores the point that nothing about the events within Northern Ireland are logical to begin with ...

duggie-89

Lemming wrote: »

So do SF/IRA, INLA, RIRA, UDR, LVF, UFF, etc. etc. etc. So what's your point?

Considering the IRA gunned down plenty of people (innocent or not) who were unarmed, and summarily excuted many more ... I really don't see how you can complain. I believe the response "Boo F*cking Hoo" is appropriate given the smell of sh*t and hypocrasy coming from the SF/IRA apologist camp.

This of course ignores the point that nothing about the events within Northern Ireland are logical to begin with ...

my point is if your going to lambast one then lambast them all. dont have double standards fror the same actions. i will have plenty of time for people who are fair, even if their views differ alot from mine but people who use the excuse " ah but the sas/british army were only stopping terrorist" really get up my nerve.

if you dont agree with the actionsthe ira used then dont agree with the british army!!!! its that simple.

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

but hold on did she?????

She was trying to. At least that was the conclusion of those biased bastards the European Court of Human Rights. They refused to award damages against the British Government because Farrell and her comrades were there to engage in terrorist activity.

duggie-89 wrote: »

no and again where is this proganda....... o wait sorry you call it "news", where is this "news" comming from????

The ECHR. You know, the same people who said her death was unlawful (as Sands points out that is the same as murder. It would have been murder if Farrell hadn't have been there as a terrorist trying to blow people up).

Are you saying she wasn't in Gibraltar to carry out an IRA bombing attack with plastic explosives on the British Military Band stationed there?

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

my point is if your going to lambast one then lambast them all.

Ok, off you go. Lambast them all.

Tell us that what the IRA did was completely wrong and unjustified. Tell us that what Farrell was going in Gibraltar was completely wrong and immoral. Tell us that the IRA "war" was immoral and unjustified.

Or tell us that none of the above is true, but that the British were also justified in what they did in response to the IRA. Tell us that the shooting of innocent civilians in Derry by the British Army was perfectly fine (it was fine for the IRA after all wasn't it). Tell us that the killing of Farrell was justified (the IRA after all shot enemies without trail or due process).

You are in fact doing the very thing you are giving out about everyone else doing. :rolleyes:

djpbarry

duggie-89 wrote: »

if you dont agree with the actionsthe ira used then dont agree with the british army!!!! its that simple.

Yes it is that simple - the irony is obviously lost...

El Stuntman

Wicknight wrote: »

You are in fact doing the very thing you are giving out about everyone else doing. :rolleyes:

mmm, having cake and eating it...mmmmm, cake

if nothing else, this thread provides a fine justification for the case of us Southern Unionists who believe that NI should stay within the UK until such time as the population there can carry on a civilised relationship with itself

Irish reunification - no thanks, we're fine down here!

It wasn't me!

Yeah, got to say, prices and such are bad enough here without having to deal with that economic whirlpool across the border. Britain are better able to deal with the financing of it. I seriously doubt the IRA want a six-county slum, but I seriously doubt any of them have half a brain to put together the economic consequences of a unification.

GuanYin

murphaph wrote: »

No court judged the killings unlawful.

You want to source that please?

Lemming

El Stuntman wrote: »

mmm, having cake and eating it...mmmmm, cake

if nothing else, this thread provides a fine justification for the case of us Southern Unionists who believe that NI should stay within the UK until such time as the population there can carry on a civilised relationship with itself

Irish reunification - no thanks, we're fine down here!

Whilst I'm not a southern Unionist (I owe my allegiance to the anti-bullsh*t camp), +1 to the above quote concerning reunification at this time given the mindsets prevalant in the north between both camps. They are incapable of affording each other a modicum of either common sense or respect. So why do people think they'd give any to anyone in the Republic? Considering the added irony that so many of the "republicans" in the North hate the Republic (oh the irony just gets more and more delicious ... )

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yeah, got to say, prices and such are bad enough here without having to deal with that economic whirlpool across the border. Britain are better able to deal with the financing of it. I seriously doubt the IRA want a six-county slum, but I seriously doubt any of them have half a brain to put together the economic consequences of a unification.

Weren't there similar Chicken Little prattling about the economic conditions when the Republic was formed? Seems as if they've done ok for themselves.

Fratton Fred

BostonFenian wrote: »

Weren't there similar Chicken Little prattling about the economic conditions when the Republic was formed? Seems as if they've done ok for themselves.

it did take 80 years though, I'm not sure the people of the south want to go back to the 80s.

Try living over here for a while and maybe you will change your view a bit. the people of Ireland are tired of violence and want a peaceful resolution. it is easy to have romantic notions of a united Ireland when you don't live here.

There are a lot of realities to face, for example a disproportionate number of people in the north work in the civil service and also get free health care under the NHS would they give up their jobs and health service for the sake of being able to be governed by Dublin rather than London? it's a big question.