PSNI rejects British Army version of 1988 shooting

TOMASJ

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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

when has there ever been a war where civilians were not killed,- wrong as that is it occurs in all wars,

I am of the opinion that those who invade a country and enslave its people cannot be held in the same regard as those who defend there country, britian being the agitator in both Ireland and IRAQ and should be held responsible for all loss of life combatant and civilian.

When does a terrorist become a hero' the war that founded the 26 county's was Im sure in the eyes of the majority at that time seen as illegal and those who participated referred to as scum and thugs and the IRA then classed as terrorist, they were involved in the killing of many civilians, and are now celebrated and given state funerals as champions and freedom fighters,
one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter- you takes you choices.

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

when has there ever been a war where civilians were not killed

That's a complete cop-out. Sure what does it matter if we blow up these people in the shopping centre; people have been killed by bombs before, it's nothing new, eh?

TOMASJ wrote: »

I am of the opinion that those who invade a country and enslave its people cannot be held in the same regard as those who defend there country, britian being the agitator in both Ireland and IRAQ and should be held responsible for all loss of life combatant and civilian.

Absolute nonsense. So if an Iranian guy enters Iraq and blows up a load of civilians in a market, that's the fault of the British army? Absolutely ridiculous reasoning.

TOMASJ wrote: »

When does a terrorist become a hero'

Never, in my opinion.

A Dub in Glasgo

djpbarry wrote: »

Never, in my opinion.

Take your pick

djpbarry

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Take your pick

You'll note that I said, "in my opinion".

A Dub in Glasgo

I did note it although I will be amazed if most people do not see at least one of those pcitured a hero

Allah Hu Akbar

djpbarry wrote: »

Never, in my opinion.

What about Nelson Mandela? Convicted of terrorism, would've been released if he renounced violence, he never did so he was kept in jail.

djpbarry

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

What about Nelson Mandela?

Predictable question.

Mandela is quite open about the fact that the ANC violated human rights on more than one occasion. I salute him for that fact, but personally, I would not consider him a hero.

Liam Byrne

TOMASJ wrote: »

when has there ever been a war where civilians were not killed,- wrong as that is it occurs in all wars,

IF that is your view, then you should have no problem with Irishmen or "republicans" being killed ? Glad we got that sorted, then. So no need for any inquiry, then (and bear in mind that's the logical conclusion to YOUR viewpoint expressed above, because I didn't say the above)

Re the photos; any figures as to how many innocent civilians they deliberately put at risk ? If any of them achieved results without doing that, then I might regard them as heroes; otherwise, I don't.

TOMASJ

Liam Byrne wrote: »

IF that is your view, then you should have no problem with Irishmen or "republicans" being killed ? Glad we got that sorted, then. So no need for any inquiry, then (and bear in mind that's the logical conclusion to YOUR viewpoint expressed above, because I didn't say the above)

your spinning again -difference here is - was this and other' specific killing a mistake or planned by the brits?
your viewpoint would have been sensible if the "victims" in question had not been killed deliberately, what you haven't grasped after all you posts is that Aidan McAnespie was 'not' to use a (military expression)-collateral damage' he had been stopped at that border checkpoint threatened by the army' and watched as he walked towards the football field before they shot him in the back, and as such could not be classified as having been killed mistakenly,

oscarBravo

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

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?

Omagh was after the GFA. Any act of terrorism after the GFA should be punished to the full extent possible, which - to me - means that the perpetrators should die behind bars.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

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.

Fair point. Presumably you'll agree with me that, by the same token, all republicans should be doing everything in their power to help bring about a conviction of Robert McCartney's killers?

Liam Byrne

FFS.....I'm not spinning.....!!! I'm stating facts that don't suit your argument, and the most frustrating part is that I'm doing my damndest to find a logical middle ground on which you'll be consistent!

But before I completely write you off as too blinkered to be bothered trying to reason with, can you explain what a "mistake" is, and how a planned operation differs from that ?

I mean, Omagh was well planned but it was also a huge mistake.....does that mean that that those who died were killed deliberately or not ? Bringing a bomb into a crowded urban centre on a shopping day means that they were. Of course, I can probably predict your response on that; you'll probably ignore the fact that "no terrorists + no bomb = no casualties" and go on about how THAT was all the Brits fault too....for not evacuating properly......ah sure, weren't the IRA guys completely innocent, driving around with their bomb hoping no-one would be killed.......

And Gerry McCabe was shot pretty deliberately too....they didn't even bother taking the money so to quote your words....."and as such could not be classified as having been killed mistakenly"

As to what I have and haven't grasped, I've spelt it out a dozen times......Aidan McAnespie shouldn't have been killed, Gerry McCabe shouldn't have, hundreds of others shouldn't have. There's NO DIFFERENCE, and it was you tried to manufacture one to get around YOUR statement that people are killed in wars.

My stance was - and is - that innocent people definitely shouldn't be.

But you're choosing to differentiate between the innocent people and how they died / who killed them.

I'm not.