PSNI rejects British Army version of 1988 shooting

TOMASJ

P.S. Any other links to that story that aren't on a website named "irishfreedomcommittee" ?

Im sure you are well aware of the circumstances I am talking about,-using the same old snide stalling tactics the brits used in the six county's for decades Try this one
( don't think you can accuse the Indo of republican slant) http://www.independent.ie/national-news/report-into-1974-dublin-and-monaghan-bombs-will-reveal-new-evidence-today-41552.html

TOMASJ

And as for the so-called "excuses"; you're questioning/disputing those, but you provide a link to a story on a republican-biased site as fact ?

google and you will find the same story on several- non republican sites let me know if those have been contaminated by a republican bias, or if they have it -to your satisfaction,

Plus you're throwing around the word "murders" there while questioning my right to use the same phrase for a similar scenario

On which post in this thread did I "question your right" to use the word "murders"

An "off-duty" WHAT, exactly ? I know the phrase applies to Gardai and Army personnel, but you hardly expect us to accept you extending it to "off-duty terrorists", do you ??

I used the term "off duty" to make the point that this IRA man was unarmed when he was shot in the back by the RUC/FRU does the fact that he was an IRA volunteer make it ok to kill him.

TOMASJ

LOL. You said he was a republican alright, but I presume (hope?) that there are lots of reasonable republicans that aren't members of illegal terrorist organisations ? We're always told that when we discuss things about the republican movement, and I'd hope that it's true.

And I presume you don't think it ok to shoot them in the back, "could have happened to Bertie Ahern by all accounts"

An "off-duty" WHAT, exactly ? I know the phrase applies to Gardai and Army personnel, but you hardly expect us to accept you extending it to "off-duty terrorists", do you ??

Difference here is this happened in the six countys -no Garda involved - and whether- you - us- accept it or not is irrelevant,
the only terrorists on this occasion wer the crown forces

Liam Byrne

TOMASJ wrote: »

the only terrorists on this occasion wer the crown forces

Excuse me ? I know you only said he was a republican, but you didn't deny it when someone else said he was a member of PIRA, in which case he was a terrorist. Or am I missing something ?

Also, if weapons were found in the car then it's an EXACT reversal of the Gda McCabe scenario, with the important difference that Gda McCabe was entitled to have a gun in his car. And yes, if a known terrorist or criminal has weapons in their car, I do think it's OK to shoot them.

If it were a loyalist that was stopped with arms and he was let pass, and went on to shoot someone, wouldn't you be on here screaming that the British Army were pathetic because they hadn't done their job, and asking for an enquiry into why they hadn't stopped or shot him ?

So which is it ? Is it OK to shoot an "unarmed" [debatable if that applies, if there were weapons in their car, but I'll leave that aspect lie for clarity] person or not ? You castigate the "crown forces" as terrorists and call it murder, but you seem to have a LOT less of an opinion of Gda McCabe's shooting; you say the dogs in the street know about one, saying the official story is wrong, but you dispute the dogs in the street's knowledge about the other, saying that the court only found manslaughter so I should take it up with them.

Please be consistent in your viewpoint - maybe then I'll take your opinions seriously. Let us know where you stand on the above - REGARDLESS OF WHO THE PERPETRATORS & VICTIMS MIGHT BE - and then we'll discuss it further.

TOMASJ

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Excuse me ? I know you only said he was a republican, but you didn't deny it when someone else said he was a member of PIRA, in which case he was a terrorist. Or am I missing something ?

Yes your missing a lot,
In your view Pearse Jordan was a terrorist, In mine a off duty IRA soldier, with more right to be in the six counties than the trash that marched trough Belfast on Sunday, or the occupying brit forces in the North of Ireland

Also, if weapons were found in the car then it's an EXACT reversal of the Gda McCabe scenario, with the important difference that Gda McCabe was entitled to have a gun in his car. And yes, if a known terrorist or criminal has weapons in their car, I do think it's OK to shoot them.

You seem to take at face value inputs by third party posters "and have a laugh" while ignoring alternative views on the killing of IRA or nationalist victims by occupying crown forces

No weapons were found in the car as you buddie cherrypicker555 stated he was shot in the back three times and kicked in the face when dying by the british terrorist

If it were a loyalist that was stopped with arms and he was let pass, and went on to shoot someone, wouldn't you be on here screaming that the British Army were pathetic because they hadn't done their job, and asking for an enquiry into why they hadn't stopped or shot him ?

Goes to show your knowledge of what went on in the six county's,:rolleyes:
It was commonplace for Loyalist to be escorted through police or british army checkpoints to do just as you would accused me of screaming about,

Doing their job as you put entailed aiding and abetting in the murder of innocent unarmed nationalist,by these same british soldiers.

So which is it ? Is it OK to shoot an "unarmed" [debatable if that applies, if there were weapons in their car, but I'll leave that aspect lie for clarity] person or not ? You castigate the "crown forces" as terrorists and call it murder, but you seem to have a LOT less of an opinion of Garda McCabe's shooting; you say the dogs in the street know about one, saying the official story is wrong, but you dispute the dogs in the street's knowledge about the other, saying that the court only found manslaughter so I should take it up with them.

Please be consistent in your viewpoint - maybe then I'll take your opinions seriously. Let us know where you stand on the above - REGARDLESS OF WHO THE PERPETRATORS & VICTIMS MIGHT BE - and then we'll discuss it further.

Please read my earlier posts if this was not made clear to you, what I said was the court found for manslaughter, in the Garda McCabe case this was more than the justice afforded to the hundreds of nationalists shot by the brits in the six countys "or is this point lost on you"

TOMASJ

Liam Byrne

And as for the so-called "excuses"; you're questioning/disputing those, but you provide a link to a story on a republican-biased site as fact ?

P.S. have you read anything on the alternative site from the Irish Independent I sent you on the brit let go by the Irish special branch after the Dublin Bombing?

Liam Byrne

TOMASJ wrote: »

In your view Pearse Jordan was a terrorist

True. If he was a member of the IRA, then you're right.

You seem to take at face value inputs by third party posters "and have a laugh" while ignoring alternative views on the killing of IRA or nationalist victims by occupying crown forces

Haven't a notion where you got the "have a laugh" from. I've gone over and back between "face value" and "official stories", that's true, but only in an effort to see which you'd prefer to go by. If you consistently stick to one, then that's fine by me, but the reason I'm switching over and back is to determine if there is any chance of you treating like with like.

No weapons were found in the car as you buddie cherrypicker555 stated he was shot in the back three times and kicked in the face when dying by the british terrorist

Then it's a slightly different story. He was only guilty of being part of a prescribed terrorist organisation, and I apologise if there were indeed no weapons, as an arrest would have been in order rather than a shooting in that case.

By the way - for the record, I don't have a buddy called cherrypicker and I don't know the guy who posted earlier.

Goes to show your knowledge of what went on in the six county's,:rolleyes:
It was commonplace for Loyalist to be escorted through police or british army checkpoints to do just as you would accused me of screaming about,

Question nicely avoided. I didn't say they DID that, I asked whether you would have the same opinion as you currently do IF they did that. So less of the sarky rolleyes please, and more answering.....

IF the British let a loyalist terrorist or criminal through without arresting or shooting them, and they then killed someone belonging to you, would you complain when you found out ? Would you have expected them to prevent that killing ?

And if so, why should it different when it's a nationalist terrorist ?

Please read my earlier posts if this was not made clear to you, what I said was the court found for manslaughter, in the Garda McCabe case this was more than the justice afforded to the hundreds of nationalists shot by the brits in the six countys "or is this point lost on you"

No, the point isn't lost, and I am all for justice for ALL; I don't think justice was done in the above case, but you have a point in that at least the scum involved did some time, despite Gerry Adams' best efforts.

But that justice should apply to EVERYONE innocent; I don't give a **** where they're from or what religion they are or whatever other pathetic sectarian excuse is trotted out.

My exception is ANY terrorist or criminal, who if they can live by the sword that they dish out to others can die by it - it's called poetic justice or karma.

Since any member of a terrorist organisation that targetted innocents didn't give a crap about the human rights of their victims, why should we care about theirs ? Give me one good reason.

I've a feeling we're going to have to agree to differ on the example above, but I'll assume we can agree for any non-IRA members, plus any non-loyalist unionists, and any other innocents deserve 100% justice.

But - as I pointed out above, you accept that "official" decision and ignore the "dogs in the street" for that event, but you accept the "dogs in the street" word for the event that you referred to when you used the phrase a few pages ago.

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

...the court found for manslaughter, in the Garda McCabe case this was more than the justice afforded to the hundreds of nationalists shot by the brits in the six countys "or is this point lost on you"

Why do you only focus on nationalist civlians killed by British forces? What about all the civilian victims of paramilitary organisations? Why can't there be justice for everyone (in an ideal world)?

Fratton Fred

TOMASJ wrote: »

I used the term "off duty" to make the point that this IRA man was unarmed when he was shot in the back by the RUC/FRU does the fact that he was an IRA volunteer make it ok to kill him.

Then he was either not a civilian, or a valid target, which is it? either way it is completely irrelevant to this thread.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

Why do you only focus on nationalist civlians killed by British forces? What about all the civilian victims of paramilitary organisations? Why can't there be justice for everyone (in an ideal world)?

British forces are supposed to uphold the law and abide by it and are so called 'legitimate' yet they have not been held accountable for their wrongs of killing unarmed kids.

Paramilitaries are outside the law and rightly so demonised by those that abide by the law.(most posters here i suppose)

By your logic and other posters that keep bringing up killings by paramilitaries, the paramilitaries are equal to British forces, now that would not be right would it?

Liam Byrne wrote:

I've a feeling we're going to have to agree to differ on the example above, but I'll assume we can agree for any non-IRA members, plus any non-loyalist unionists, and any other innocents deserve 100% justice.

Point of this thread, there has been 0% justice for victims of British forces.

See above answer as well. Same applies.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

By your logic and other posters that keep bringing up killings by paramilitaries, the paramilitaries are equal to British forces, now that would not be right would it?

No, the civilians killed by paramilitaries are equal to those killed by British forces.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

No, the civilians killed by paramilitaries are equal to those killed by British forces.

Hence, they rightly deserve justice from both.

As British forces uphold the law, they should deliver justice to the victims of its own forces, thats their duty if they cherish the law.

getz

if you are a 19 year old soldier on the street protecting area of belfast from loyalist killers-the people you are soppose to be protecting are hiding ira killers waiting to shoot you in the back-dosent it supprise you when accidents happen?--as i said before both sides loyalists and nationalists are run by gangsters , all the average person wants is to get on with there lifes-now maybe idiots can stop trying to stir up trouble --and then maybe all irishmen can live in peace and become a united ireland

Liam Byrne

gurramok wrote: »

Hence, they rightly deserve justice from both.

As British forces uphold the law, they should deliver justice to the victims of its own forces, thats their duty if they cherish the law.

This is precisely my point; Yes, we need to expect law enforcement to deliver the required standards, but the people who demand those standards gloss over the reverse scenario claiming "collateral damage" and "there was a war on".

If people gloss over IRA atrocities, then they should gloss over the Army ones; if they gloss over the Army ones, then they should gloss over the terrorist ones. If they demand full disclosure and justice for one "side" (mind you, innocent people don't have "sides", they'd just prefer not to be killed), then they should demand it for both.

If a terrorist or member of a known organisation is shot then fair enough; if enough of the scum on both sides had been shot then lots of innocent people would still be alive.

As I asked TOMASJ above (and got no answer), if we completely ignore what "side" the terrorist was supposedly on and that terrorist went on to kill someone, then people would rightly be screaming as to how come they let them go on their merry way.

Remember the film "A Time To Kill", about a little black girl being attacked ? The lawyer asked the white jury to "close their eyes and imagine a little girl being beaten and raped...." and then says "now imagine that the little girl is white".

The only way to truly see whether something is right or wrong is to reverse the scenario and see whether your conclusion would change; if it would, then your prejudices and double-standards are in play.

Justice for all or justice for no-one; but at least be consistent.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is precisely my point; Yes, we need to expect law enforcement to deliver the required standards, but the people who demand those standards gloss over the reverse scenario claiming "collateral damage" and "there was a war on".

If people gloss over IRA atrocities, then they should gloss over the Army ones; if they gloss over the Army ones, then they should gloss over the terrorist ones. If they demand full disclosure and justice for one "side" (mind you, innocent people don't have "sides", they'd just prefer not to be killed), then they should demand it for both.

If a terrorist or member of a known organisation is shot then fair enough; if enough of the scum on both sides had been shot then lots of innocent people would still be alive.

As I asked TOMASJ above (and got no answer), if we completely ignore what "side" the terrorist was supposedly on and that terrorist went on to kill someone, then people would rightly be screaming as to how come they let them go on their merry way.

Remember the film "A Time To Kill", about a little black girl being attacked ? The lawyer asked the white jury to "close their eyes and imagine a little girl being beaten and raped...." and then says "now imagine that the little girl is white".

The only way to truly see whether something is right or wrong is to reverse the scenario and see whether your conclusion would change; if it would, then your prejudices and double-standards are in play.

Justice for all or justice for no-one; but at least be consistent.

Victim's families have not glossed over paramilitary killings.

Thats where your getting mixed up. You're reacting to Republicans who highlight the killings issue. It's not only Republicans who highlight it, moderate Nationalists do too as well as lawyers.
Step back and react as a neutral on the subject, think of the victims families who have no say and have had no justice from those who uphold the law. Assuming it was not a 'war', the paramilitary victims and soldiers/police victims at least had investigations and convictions as a result of their deaths, the victims of the security forces largely did not.

Secondly, there has been justice for alot of victims of paramilitary violence over the years, with hundreds if not thousands locked up for their crimes. Obviously some killers were never caught, it's the detection rate which counts.

Thirdly, maybe only 3 people max have been held accountable for security force killings and even they were allowed to resume their jobs in the security forces.
About 300 were killed by the security forces, strip out the paramilitary members and one still has 194 of that total(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sutton.htm) who were entirely innocent, including school kids as young as 10 shot for no reason. (see the sad list of all children who died http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/dyndeaths.pl )

Detection rates for paramilitary killings has been Okish, it has been near zero for security force killings.

Liam Byrne

Now we're talking logically; I'll fully admit that I get sidetracked when anyone does the double-standards or complains about the treatment of terrorists or members of illegal organisations.

But what you've said above is completely in line with my general feeling of justice for ALL, and it seems like you are perfectly capable of having a discussion about it without the usual "whataboutery", as it is called.

If people were capable of looking at all cases where an innocent person was killed and ignoring their background or the background of the person that did it (imagine for a second what it would be like if the investigators weren't told those things and investigated properly without prejudice) - then THAT would be the ideal scenario.

I remember - even as a kid - wondering why the news used to say "A Catholic was shot in Belfast" or "A Protestant was shot in Derry"; their religion shouldn't have come into it (just as their colour, sex or anything else shouldn't), and all that only served to increase the tit-for-tat.

Maybe we'll get to that stage someday.

madden1

..............
Originally Posted by Liam Byrne
In your view Pearse Jordan was a terrorist, In mine a off duty IRA soldier, with more right to be in the six counties than the trash that marched trough Belfast on Sunday, or the occupying brit forces in the North of Ireland[/quote]

True. If he was a member of the IRA, then you're right.

Ok thanks thats that cleared up then
Liam Byrne

Haven't a notion where you got the "have a laugh" from. .

Your post on 301 concerning the shooting of Pearse Jordan "you wrote"
LOL. You said he was a republican alrigh

Question nicely avoided. I didn't say they DID that, I asked whether you would have the same opinion as you currently do IF they did that. So less of the sarky rolleyes please, and more answering.....

is this not what the thread is about? the killing of an innocent man by british terrorists, and the absence of justice for his family, zero convictions in hundreds of other killings done by the brits,

Hence the first post on this thread, that maybe at last nationalist could look froward to what others "take for granted" justice of some description.

IF the British let a loyalist terrorist or criminal through without arresting or shooting them, and they then killed someone belonging to you, would you complain when you found out ? Would you have expected them to prevent that killing ?

What you say has already happened to friends of mine ,the brits did nothing about it, other than threatening the same fiat by there Loylist pals to those who complained,

No, the point isn't lost, and I am all for justice for ALL; I don't think justice was done in the above case, but you have a point in that at least the scum involved did some time, despite Gerry Adams' best efforts.

must repeat, that no scum on the brit side did any time for equivalent killings of nationalists.

Since any member of a terrorist or occupying organisation that targetted innocents didn't give a crap about the human rights of their victims, why should we care about theirs ? Give me one good reason.

cant disagree what above.

But - as I pointed out above, you accept that "official" decision and ignore the "dogs in the street" for that event, but you accept the "dogs in the street" word for the event that you referred to when you used the phrase a few pages ago.

You are aware that the official decision in the Aidian McAnespie case is being challenged by the HET inquiry team, who will find out in the end what "the dogs in the streets" already know,

djpbarry

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If people were capable of looking at all cases where an innocent person was killed and ignoring their background or the background of the person that did it (imagine for a second what it would be like if the investigators weren't told those things and investigated properly without prejudice) - then THAT would be the ideal scenario.

The thing is though that, for better or worse, the GFA has rendered most of these discussions moot. While it sickens me that murderers of innocent people are walking free, thems the terms of the agreement that were signed up to by the parties involved. While I can fully understand why families of victims want to see justice done, or at the very least, an admission of guilt or some form of closure, there is little point in the rest of us trawling through the history books and pointing fingers. It's time to draw a line under this particular chapter in this island's history, move forward and make damn sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Liam Byrne

Please don't quite me out of context, madden1.

The LOL was where TOMASJ replied to "He was a member of the IRA" by saying "he was a republican alright"; the LOL was at TOMASJ's inferring that the two were equivalent, not at the circumstances of any innocent individuals.

must repeat, that no scum on the brit side did any time for equivalent killings of nationalists

Fair play to you for recognising that many of them were indeed equivalent; most apologists don't even acknowledge this, and if they did we'd be in a better place.

Again, I'll repeat; in an ideal world the words "equivalent" and "nationalists" would be replaced with "any" and "anybody", and the "on the brit side" would be irrelevant. But until apologists stop wanting it both ways - their scum released and us expected to forgive & forget the past - and other scum jailed, the above is unfortunately inevitable.

What you say has already happened to friends of mine ,the brits did nothing about it, other than threatening the same fiat by there Loylist pals to those who complained,

So you're saying that you'd prefer if they had stopped or shot those Loyalists ? I agree completely; if those loyalists were stopped or shot then innocent people wouldn't have died at the hands of violent terrorists.

But my point is that in order to have the high moral ground on that scenario, people have to accept that stopping and/or shooting a known IRA member is also acceptable.

You are aware that the official decision in the Aidian McAnespie case is being challenged by the HET inquiry team, who will find out in the end what "the dogs in the streets" already know

In the interests of justice, if the dogs on the street are right, I sincerely hope that does turn out to be the case. Don't hold your breath, however, because like I said earlier, what the "dogs on the street" knew in relation to McCabe's murder didn't translate into the proper conviction.

TOMASJ

Sorry to all concerned post #318 was from myself Tomasj and not from my friend madden1.
I used his computer and did not realise he was already logged in on his password.

TOMASJ

The LOL was where TOMASJ replied to "He was a member of the IRA" by saying "he was a republican alright"; the LOL was at TOMASJ's inferring that the two were equivalent, not at the circumstances of any innocent individuals.

your well aware that those of a anti republican/IRA persuasion insist that (Sinn Fein/IRA ) are one, follows that republicans "at that time" were (how was it phrased ) inextricably linked.(that's how I read your LOL but if that's not what you meant fair enough)

So you're saying that you'd prefer if they had stopped or shot those Loyalists ? I agree completely; if those loyalists were stopped or shot then innocent people wouldn't have died at the hands of violent terrorists.

They the brits would have had to turn the guns on themselves to prevent what you say from happening,
they and the numerous Loyalist groups and the british army were the "borg" (identical)
nine times out of ten the brits were in the car with the Loyalists at that hypothetical checkpoint,
try and understand this is how it was

But my point is that in order to have the high moral ground on that scenario, people have to accept that stopping and/or shooting a known IRA member is also acceptable.

Even if he/she is unarmed,

Liam Byrne

Bear in mind the caveat that I put on that :

in order to have the high moral ground on that scenario

dlofnep

Look, here's the thing. Liam and the lads are all for justice. I actually think they are good guys. They just feel we are biased with what issues we want justice with. I think it's a fair argument.

Any mass bombings by ANY republians which resulted in civilian death, I condemn it. I think that the rest of the Republicans on here should too. There are no excuses. War does no excuse the death of civilians. I spend countless hours arguing with Americans who argue over civilian deaths in Afghanistan/Iraq by claiming it's apart of war.. If I'm willing to debate with them about that, then I should take onboard the many unionist (and nationalist) civilians killed by republicans.

I am a humanist, first and foremost. Tar ais sin, I'm a republican. I believe firmly in Irish Unity. I believe that Ireland has suffered terrible and unspeakable attacks by the British system. They have never claimed responsibility for their slaughter of civilian life, let alone apologise for it. It fires me up. And I dare say, IF I had lived through bloody sunday - I think I would have been willing to kill/maim/slaughter the first ****ing thing that moved.

I now understand the most important thing is peace, understanding and compromise. There are many unionists, the majority of which are good people who want to remain apart of the UK. There are also many nationalists who want Irish Unity and who have been subject to unequality. The Irish media might not report these unequalities, but I see them with every visit I have made to Derry and Belfast. Housing, cultural, linguistical, and vetos on very basic issues.

I get irritated however when those who use their personal agenda to skip the topic of civilian death by mandated British soldiers and turn the discussion into an attack on Republicanism. I am a Republican. I am proud of that fact and dedicate alot of hours every week to prove it. It's very easy for those who sit on the comfort of their computer to criticise a movement... But they don't see the countless hours marched, nor the 6 hour trips to belfast I make.. I am a passionate Republican and I love all 32 counties of my country. I will outline the MANY atrocities by mandated British soldiers towards the Irish people, and will continue to do so until this issue is rectified.

If anyone has a problem, question or issue with any issues within Irish republicanism - I will answer them honestly and fairly. I have the balls to do so. But at the same respect, I expect those people to grow up and acknowledge the atrocities in Ireland as a result of British soldiers, the collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the failure to accept responsbility for the countless murders of Irish civilians.

Le meas,
Seán.

Liam Byrne

Well put, dlofnep, and while I mightn't agree with absolutely everything (who does, eh ?) at least post like that make me feel that my "LOL" at the earlier equating of republican with terrorist / IRA member is justified.

What annoys me is that I'm actually one of the people who - uncomfortable as I might be with it - can see how a soldier who's "signed up" could be seen as a "legitimate target"; if we transpose to Iraq for a moment, I couldn't really condemn anyone for shooting a U.S. soldier following that invasion, even though those guys are just following orders and it's their leaders that are wrong.

Likewise, it's really odd when people who are happy to live by the sword and take the lives of innocents (not the aforementioned "legitimate targets", but innocents) complain.....

If they kept the high moral ground and only targetted "legitimate targets", then like I said they could have the high moral ground to some extent, but killing innocents and then saying "the authorities killed innocents or people who were 'only' members of an illegal organisation and weren't actually doing any killing/bombing AT THE TIME" is VERY blinkered.

Yes, authorities did wrong too; but how many times did the IRA call it a "war" ? Wars shouldn't be started but in wars innocent people get killed. I don't like or agree with it, but it happens; however the apologists only trot out that excuse when the IRA killed innocents, and ignore it in examples like the above.

But what I would like to see is for people who follow a question from me like "fair enough on [whatever soldier], but what about Gerry McCabe ?" with something like "well, what about [whatever republican] and all the crap the Brits did" to start looking at situations where the situation is reversed, and if they'd be screaming for justice in the reverse scenario they they should AT LEAST be able to see where "neutrals" are coming from.

Like I said, I don't even agree with some of the suggestions I've posted here; what I've been doing in this thread is trying to find a level where other people who've posted might show some consistency and if they do - even though I mightn't agree with their level - I can then understand and accept it.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

I get irritated however when those who use their personal agenda to skip the topic of civilian death by mandated British soldiers and turn the discussion into an attack on Republicanism.

While acknowledging your points (respect!) I'll just take you up on this: by far and away the hardest part of the GFA for me to swallow - the only provision therein that made me hesitate briefly before voting in favour of it - was the release of murdering scum on both sides of the political divide. We were told that it was a necessary part of healing the wounds; that we had to put the past behind us and move on.

So I took a deep breath, put the past behind me, and voted for peace.

Ten years later, some people want to keep dragging up that past, demanding justice for the wrongs that were inflicted. I say we have a choice: we can continue in the spirit of the Agreement, and put the past behind us; or we can seek justice for all.

To those who seek to re-open the wounds, I ask this: would you be prepared to see all the murderers put back behind bars where they belong?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

To those who seek to re-open the wounds, I ask this: would you be prepared to see all the murderers put back behind bars where they belong?

No, we want the GFA to continue and flourish.

We want acknowledgement of the hurt caused by those who are supposed to uphold the law. We want to know what exactly happened to the loved ones as there has been hardly any convictions of the perpetrators involved that caused the hurt.

If soldiers\police end up being convicted as a result of investigations, let them out free as it would be fair as per GFA rules for all.

The HET should investigate all deaths that are unsolved as it is wrong to bury what happened as if no-one cared.

If it was buried, it will fester injustice inside the next generation that is growing up and we do not want that.

TOMASJ

The nationalist people in the six county's from the conception of the rouge statlet of Northern Ireland- have had the treatment of the blacks of south Africa,what do people all the world over do when oppressed they fight back, -there are those that would tell us that an IRAQ who would kill a british soldier is a terrorists,
I would equate the actions of that IRAQ person who took up arms with that of an Irish citizen who was under occupation in the six countys,
An IRA man/woman 'had more right' to be armed in the six county's than a foreign british soldier, hundreds of incidents where the cases of people killed by the british under dubious circumstances have as good as been ignored.


no one held the high moral ground in the north those day, IRA or brits- they all killed innocent people, but some killings were more acceptable than other and didn't even have a serious investigation let alone a court sitting,
being accused of being blinkered for highlighting that soldiers\police after they killed innocents and held sham investigations isn't a fair assessment of my views on the situation, -they by and large brushed their crimes under the carpet, and by stalling tactics 'up to 20 years in some cases' prevented even a inquest from taking place,

funny how people are judged by others for having the view that if an nationalist is killed by the british and you voice your disgust ,that it follows that your view is that you agree with all IRA killings,
from the start of this post responses have varied from 'move on' - 'less innocent civilians died at the hands of the imperial British army' than at the hands of the IRA, type reply,

I do believe that the IRA were involved in murder,and I do not support a lot of what they did, thousands of IRA members have been held to account for their actions over the period of the troubles, and as was said before less than half a dozen british army inc RIR/UDR have had anything more than a slap on the wrist, and were more likely to be promoted to a higher rank, - goes to show the high regard they (the british) had for the Irish.

Allah Hu Akbar

oscarBravo wrote: »

While acknowledging your points (respect!) I'll just take you up on this: by far and away the hardest part of the GFA for me to swallow - the only provision therein that made me hesitate briefly before voting in favour of it - was the release of murdering scum on both sides of the political divide. We were told that it was a necessary part of healing the wounds; that we had to put the past behind us and move on.

So I took a deep breath, put the past behind me, and voted for peace.

Ten years later, some people want to keep dragging up that past, demanding justice for the wrongs that were inflicted. I say we have a choice: we can continue in the spirit of the Agreement, and put the past behind us; or we can seek justice for all.

To those who seek to re-open the wounds, I ask this: would you be prepared to see all the murderers put back behind bars where they belong?

Don't forget you also voted in favour of ALL sides loyalists/republicans to decommision, only one side have done that the PIRA.

If the justice is been told the truth whats wrong with wanting that? I'm sure you'd like to see let's say the Omagh bombers brought to justice or should we just let that rest too?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

While acknowledging your points (respect!) I'll just take you up on this: by far and away the hardest part of the GFA for me to swallow - the only provision therein that made me hesitate briefly before voting in favour of it - was the release of murdering scum on both sides of the political divide. We were told that it was a necessary part of healing the wounds; that we had to put the past behind us and move on.

So I took a deep breath, put the past behind me, and voted for peace.

Ten years later, some people want to keep dragging up that past, demanding justice for the wrongs that were inflicted. I say we have a choice: we can continue in the spirit of the Agreement, and put the past behind us; or we can seek justice for all.

To those who seek to re-open the wounds, I ask this: would you be prepared to see all the murderers put back behind bars where they belong?

I do not think the GFA was about absolving the state from facing up to it's actions. The prisoners you refer to were convicted by due process (flawed and all). The killers from the state have never been investigated, never mind charged or convicted. The families are seeking justice (even if the perpetrators are immediately released if convicted) and you want to sweep it under the carpet. This is exactly the kind of thing the state has done.

Liam Byrne

TOMASJ wrote:

there are those that would tell us that an IRAQ who would kill a british soldier is a terrorists,
I would equate the actions of that IRAQ person who took up arms with that of an Irish citizen

There's a required differential there, and you've overlooked it; the comparision is, in my mind, only valid IF the "Irish citizen" targetted ONLY the british soldier; your example specifically says that the person in Iraq kills a british soldier, but describes the "Irish citizen" as someone who "took up arms". Why word the two differently ?

The issue isn't "taking up arms", it's what they did with those arms. If the "Irish citizen" targetted ONLY the soldier, then the comparision would be valid, but please make the comparison 100%. I defended the rights of the Iraqis to fight the invading forces above, but if the Iraqi guy "took up arms" and used them blew up people in a market or shot some innocents, then my defence of them would disappear immediately.

Let's clarify matters; no-one is arguing the rights of families of innocent, non-IRA people and non-loyalist terrorist people, to seek and hopefully get, justice.

My main points were
1) It shouldn't matter who the hell they were, or who did it; the guy mentioned at the start of this thread or the victims of Omagh - there should be justice for all innocents and their families

2) That said, having an investigation and an attempt at conviction doesn't always see justice done; regardless of what people know and believe, it doesn't always work, and that's not an "if they're a nationalist" bias; McCabe's killers got off lightly too, while there's a mentality that "those brit soldiers got off lightly", there's equally numerous examples of people "from the other side" who got off very lightly too

3) Anyone involved in crime, terrorism and killing innocent people should never have had the safety net of making the issue "political"; a political prisoner is someone who's jailed for their beliefs and for voicing those - not for robbing cash or killing innocent people.

I'll accept there's an uncomfortable grey area for anyone targetting members of illegal organisations that killed innocents, or anyone specifically targetting the "occupying forces", but (a) that should work both ways and (b) anyone who ever killed an innocent person, or got into bed with an organisation that did that, deserved all they got

And if anyone here can describe something that needs to be investigated without resorting to mentioning sides or "but look what the other crowd did", then I'll fully accept that their mindset is justice for all.

A ten-year-old, or a 21-year-old, or whoever, who's never been a member of an army or a terrorist organisation should be able to get justice; but in looking for justice there should be no reason to mention their religion or background - an innocent life is an innocent life.