PSNI rejects British Army version of 1988 shooting

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

Also - Given the fact that the defense forces were riddled with allegations of collusion - How on earth was the nationalist community supposed to trust these newly found saviours of the Catholic community? Would it not make perfect sense that the backlash would be less than positive?

By defense forces, do you mean Army or RUC? Obviously the RUC was riddled because it was a nearly a wholly protestant force. The army eventually became the defacto police of the nationalist communities because the RUC were targeted in those areas.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Why are we still discussing the IRA? Fred, stop derailing the thread please. This is a thread discussing the death of a civilian at the hands of a British soldier. Not a thread about the IRA or any other group.

Because it is relevant to the way the thread has panned out. I didn't raise the subject of Bases next to schools.

carry on with your witch hunt, I'm sure you are enjoying it.,

getz

it must be very hard to stay neutral when the people you are there to protect are being used as a cover to shoot you in the back.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought they were welcomed by cheering crowds when they first went in.

I doubt they were cheering when they found out their true intentions, when 17 year old children were laying dead in Derry, now were they Fred?

stovelid wrote: »

By defense forces, do you mean Army or RUC? Obviously the RUC was riddled because it was a nearly a wholly protestant force. The army eventually became the defacto police of the nationalist communities because the RUC were targeted in those areas.

Both. The Army (in most part, the UDR) and RUC, and there are many documented events to back that up. It wasn't the RUC that attacked civilians on Bloody Sunday and lied about the events. It wasn't the RUC that killed civilians on a bus in the Miami Showband Massacre.

menoscemo

stovelid wrote: »

By defense forces, do you mean Army or RUC? Obviously the RUC was riddled because it was a nearly a wholly protestant force. The army eventually became the defacto police of the nationalist communities because the RUC were targeted in those areas.

The army were much more despised and feared in nationalist communities than the RUC. The army would regularly set up check points in Nationalist areas, demanding to see documentation driving licenses etc with their machine guns at their side, even though they had no legal right to do so (they are not a police force) As a child I personally witnessed a soldier take my father out of the car and beat seven shades out of him for refusing to show him any documentation at such a checkpoint, after pointing out he had no right to ask for it. (They had a right to search cars but nothing more.)
Despite their bad press, the RUC were never as crass and brutal as this.

stovelid

menoscemo wrote: »

The army were much more despised and feared in nationalist communities than the RUC. The army would regularly set up check points in Nationalist areas, demanding to see documentation driving licenses etc with their machine guns at their side, even though they had no legal right to do so (they are not a police force) As a child I personally witnessed a soldier take my father out of the car and beat seven shades out of him for refusing to show him any documentation at such a checkpoint, after pointing out he had no right to ask for it. (They had a right to search cars but nothing more.)
Despite their bad press, the RUC were never as crass and brutal as this.

dlofnep wrote: »

Both. The Army (in most part, the UDR) and RUC, and there are many documented events to back that up. It wasn't the RUC that attacked civilians on Bloody Sunday and lied about the events. It wasn't the RUC that killed civilians on a bus in the Miami Showband Massacre.

Sigh.

Again: quit tarring me with the army apologist brush..

My post was in response to the poster (Hagar?) who questioned why the Army were only deployed in nationalist areas. They were initially deployed because the RUC could not police those areas. Especially so, once the IRA began targeting the R.U.C.

How you can take my post to be broadly supportive of army wrongdoing, or supportive of the bleeding UDR, is completely beyond me.

I am beginning to wonder if this thread is of any discursive use? Haven't people swapped enough emotive army horror stories at this stage?

dlofnep

If you don't like reading about the atrocities inflicted by the British army, you don't have to read the thread. Freedom of choice. Make use of it. It's not our fault that there is a long list of atrocities. Believe me you, I'd rather it was shorter.

menoscemo

stovelid wrote: »

Sigh.

Again: quit tarring me with the army apologist brush..

My post was in response to the poster (Hagar?) who questioned why the Army were only deployed in nationalist areas. They were initially deployed because the RUC could not police those areas. Especially so, once the IRA began targeting the R.U.C.

How you can take my post to be broadly supportive of army wrongdoing, or supportive of the bleeding UDR, is completely beyond me.

I am beginning to wonder if this thread is of any discursive use? Haven't people swapped enough emotive army horror stories at this stage?

I never accused you of being an Army apologist, I am just pointing out the facts. Yes in many ways the Army did become a defacto Police force in nationalist Areas, mainly beacuse they gathered in droves and were armed to the teeth. Also they would accompany The RUC on street patrols, 2 or 3 soldiers to back up every Police-man, kind of body-guards or enforcers.
To nationalists, the Army were the strong arm of the law, the SS backing up the Gestapo if you will

Hagar

stovelid wrote: »

I am beginning to wonder if this thread is of any discursive use? Haven't people swapped enough emotive army horror stories at this stage?

All threads regarding NI end up this way. It's impossible to discuss any single topic in isolation and it's equally impossible to resolve every issue at once.

Lyrics >> The Town I loved so well wrote:

They will not forget but their hearts are set
on tomorrow and peace once again
For what's done is done and what's won is won
and what's lost is lost and gone forever
I can only pray for a bright, brand new day
in the town I loved so well

Unless both sides of the debate resolve to let the many horrible events fade into the past and only look forward, the next thread will be just like the last. If Iain could sit with Gerry, albeit uncomfortably, we Internet Warriors of all shades and colours should be able to do the same.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

If you don't like reading about the atrocities inflicted by the British army, you don't have to read the thread. Freedom of choice. Make use of it.

I asked this about three times on this thread with no answer. Would you make use of your own freedom of choice to completely ignore a 6 page thread authored by a unionist saying that Sean Kelly was a killer who shouldn't have been released under the GFA?

Why should anybody else butt out of this thread just because they have differing views to you? Not a single person has said that the Army were right in this instance, but the forum is for rational politcial discussion, not for rehashing old war stories.

dlofnep

stovelid wrote: »

I asked this about three times on this thread with no answer. Would you make use of your own freedom of choice to completely ignore a 6 page thread authored by a unionist saying that Sean Kelly was a killer who shouldn't have been released under the GFA?

I didn't see the said thread. It has absolutely nothing to do with this thread however. And like I said, just another attempt by you to deflect the attention elsewhere. I don't feel the need to answer you, as it would allow you to divert the thread anywhere but to the topic at hand.

stovelid wrote: »

Why should anybody else butt out of this thread just because they have differing views to you? Not a single person has said that the Army were right in this instance, but the forum is for rational politcial discussion, not for rehashing old war stories.

Old war stories? Since when was the slaying of a civilian a war? You were the one who stated you didn't want to see stories being posted about civilian casualties who died as a result of British army terrorism - in a thread ABOUT a British army attack on a civilian. What do you expect us to discuss, ham sandwiches and the pretty shapes clouds make?

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My friend's father, who i mentioned in another post told us once that on his first tour, one of the older corporals got a guy, who they claimed was a known player, outside a pub, put a gun to his head and told him that if anything happened to one of his lads, he would kill him whether it was him or not. Professional? no of course not, legal, definately not, understandable under the circumstances at the time? yes, I believe it is. These are soldiers, not policemen, diplomats of nurse maids.

Yet more porkies from the very imaginitve Fred. Just like his previous one -

" I have had several friends who have been to NI, in particular two friends who were cousins and both in the Royal Hampshires. Their view was pretty much that one minute you are being fired at by one lot, then the next day you are protecting those same people's kids from a bunch of snarling animals who are throwing bricks at you because they don't want 5 year old girls walking through their estate on the way to school . "

When TOMASJ replied - " Fred I think if you check your dates, you will find there was no republican activity of any type in that area on your friends in the Royal Hampshires, as a ceasefire was in affect for several years previous, A bit of honesty about the situations at the time of that diabolical incident would be appreciated. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376988&page=26

And what about the one about the Paddy nationalists and unionists beating up one another in a secterian row in your local pub and been the best of buddies the next day, before a benign and bewildered English crowd ??

Can you just put in a bit of reality in your posts Fred and leave the Walt stuff out

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Yet more porkies from the very imaginitve Fred. Just like his previous one -

" I have had several friends who have been to NI, in particular two friends who were cousins and both in the Royal Hampshires. Their view was pretty much that one minute you are being fired at by one lot, then the next day you are protecting those same people's kids from a bunch of snarling animals who are throwing bricks at you because they don't want 5 year old girls walking through their estate on the way to school . "

When TOMASJ replied - " Fred I think if you check your dates, you will find there was no republican activity of any type in that area on your friends in the Royal Hampshires, as a ceasefire was in affect for several years previous, A bit of honesty about the situations at the time of that diabolical incident would be appreciated. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376988&page=26

And what about the one about the Paddy nationalists and unionists beating up one another in a secterian row in your local pub and been the best of buddies the next day, before a benign and bewildered English crowd ??

Can you just put in a bit of reality in your posts Fred and leave the Walt stuff out

sorry, why are they porkies? what gives any reason (or the right) to doubt me?

btw, I couldn't reply to Tomas because the thread was locked, but it was an example, that is all. I know when the Holy Child incidents happend. The guy I spoke about, he was the father of one of the cousins, all three in the Royal Hampshire regiment.

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

sorry, why are they porkies? what gives any reason (or the right) to doubt me?

btw, I couldn't reply to Tomas because the thread was locked, but it was an example, that is all. I know when the Holy Child incidents happend. The guy I spoke about, he was the father of one of the cousins, all three in the Royal Hampshire regiment.

Fred
your good friends in the Royal Hampshire regiment must have told there dad porkies, You should check your bed time stories about what the whiter than white British army got up to in Ireland , before you post them as fact

Fratton Fred

TOMASJ wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Fred
your good friends in the Royal Hampshire regiment must have told there dad porkies, You should check your bed time stories about what the whiter than white British army got up to in Ireland , before you post them as fact

taken in the context of the posts, how are they porkies?

A Dub in Glasgo

Why is this surprising? The dogs in the street knew that the soldier aimed his gun at McAnespie and killed him. All the BA apologists claimed from day one it was an accident and some still do claim it. It is irrational.

'To say it was an accident is the greatest crime of all
To his heart-broken family the worst had `er befalled
A cross it marks the lonely spot where Aiden was gunned down
As he strolled on that sunny evening on his way to the Gaelic ground'

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

TOMASJ wrote: »

taken in the context of the posts, how are they porkies

Fred
read again post 390 in the now closed Would you like to see a united Ireland
were you wrote the following

(Their view was pretty much that one minute you are being fired at by one lot,) :pac: porkie

then the next day you are protecting those same people's kids from a bunch of snarling animals who are throwing bricks at you because they don't want 5 year old girls walking through their estate on the way to school

And the reply to that

Fred
I think if you check your dates,
you will find there was no republican activity of any type in that area on your friends in the Royal Hampshires,
as a ceasefire was in affect for several years previous,
A bit of honesty about the situations at the time of that diabolical incident would be appreciated.

Fratton Fred

TOMASJ wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

TOMASJ wrote: »

Fred
read again post 390 in the now closed Would you like to see a united Ireland
were you wrote the following

(Their view was pretty much that one minute you are being fired at by one lot,) :pac: porkie

then the next day you are protecting those same people's kids from a bunch of snarling animals who are throwing bricks at you because they don't want 5 year old girls walking through their estate on the way to school

And the reply to that

Fred
I think if you check your dates,
you will find there was no republican activity of any type in that area on your friends in the Royal Hampshires,
as a ceasefire was in affect for several years previous,
A bit of honesty about the situations at the time of that diabolical incident would be appreciated.

like I said, it was an example of why the British army that were doing tours of ireland had little trust in anyone in Ireland. What do you want me to say, one day they were getting petrol bombed by one lot, the next day the other.

It is a raional statement, what's the problem.

Erin Go Brath

TOMASJ wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

TOMASJ wrote: »

Fred
read again post 390 in the now closed Would you like to see a united Ireland
were you wrote the following

(Their view was pretty much that one minute you are being fired at by one lot,) :pac: porkie

then the next day you are protecting those same people's kids from a bunch of snarling animals who are throwing bricks at you because they don't want 5 year old girls walking through their estate on the way to school

And the reply to that

Fred
I think if you check your dates,
you will find there was no republican activity of any type in that area on your friends in the Royal Hampshires,
as a ceasefire was in affect for several years previous,
A bit of honesty about the situations at the time of that diabolical incident would be appreciated.

Freds fairytales coming to a book store near you soon. Read about how the Brit army soldiers were just plain misunderstood by the natives, and how the boys in the regiments based in Ireland over the years were really just a bunch of Mary Poppins type do-gooders here to help all. Will you be signing copies in easons fred?

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Freds fairytales coming to a book store near you soon. Read about how the Brit army soldiers were just plain misunderstood by the natives, and how the boys in the regiments based in Ireland over the years were really just a bunch of Mary Poppins type do-gooders here to help all. Will you be signing copies in easons fred?

Ooh, lets all join in with McArmalites cheap wise cracks. Who'd have guessed it, the sheep all following each other.

Thought you were better than that Erin :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ooh, lets all join in with McArmalites cheap wise cracks. Who'd have guessed it, the sheep all following each other.

Thought you were better than that Erin :rolleyes:

Sorry couldn't resist. It must be said you do have quite the talent for fiction though! :P

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Sorry couldn't resist. It must be said you do have quite the talent for fiction though! :P

I don't have an ounce of respect for McArmalite so I couldn't give a monkey's chuff if he believes me or not tbh, I don't have to justify what I say to him or anyone. I do take exception to the piss taking though.

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't have an ounce of respect for McArmalite so I couldn't give a monkey's chuff if he believes me or not tbh, I don't have to justify what I say to him or anyone. I do take exception to the piss taking though.

Calm down Fred, that's getting into the realm of attacking the poster. We don't want to go there. There's no point get all worked up about these things. I'm sure you repeated in good faith the stories that were told to you. That doesn't make them true however and it shouldn't cause a riot if someone challenges them.

McArmalite

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Saw it with my own two eyes at a GAA match in Boston in the summer of 1998.

I'm sure you could still buy one on the web, I'll look around

Well, when you get the link please post it and prove me wrong.

dresden8

I think it's gas that Fred thinks we're wrong to expect higher standards from the forces of law and order than from a bunch of terrorists.

What part of "Don't shoot innocent civilians and cover it up" are crown forces missing from their instruction manual?

Fratton Fred

dresden8 wrote: »

I think it's gas that Fred thinks we're wrong to expect higher standards from the forces of law and order than from a bunch of terrorists.

What part of "Don't shoot innocent civilians and cover it up" are crown forces missing from their instruction manual?

I don't

dresden8

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't

So you don't think we should expect higher standards from the forces of law and order. Targetting and murdering civilians is ok. Just once their Paddies and Brazilians.

Perfidious Albion indeed.

Fratton Fred

dresden8 wrote: »

So you don't think we should expect higher standards from the forces of law and order. Targetting and murdering civilians is ok. Just once their Paddies and Brazilians.

Perfidious Albion indeed.

I would rather you didn't use the term "Paddies", it implies that it is a word i would use and it is not.

now, your post there is typical and where I find this whole thing amazing. The people on here who are showing this shock/horror and are full of remorse for Aiden Mcanespie's death, in reality are more interested in scoring points off the British than they are in any form of closure for the McAnespie family.

stovelid

dresden8 wrote: »

I think it's gas that Fred thinks we're wrong to expect higher standards from the forces of law and order than from a bunch of terrorists.

Would the IRA define themselves as terrorists?

Part of the major problem in the North has been that the British responded to the vacuum of civil policing with the deployment of troops in what was a domestic conflict. It was a very successful tactic throughout the troubles for insurgents to commit utterly illegal, often heinous, acts, but to hold the British legally accountable when they did the same.

Obviously the argument that the army have to be more accountable than the insurgents that they are fighting is correct and just, but I can't see it ever happening.

If the settlement is about sacrifice on both sides, it's a brutally honest fact that a sizable section of the protestant community will not see army, UDR or Loaylist actions as the 'other side' do. Likewise, many in the catholic community will not see the actions of the IRA as the 'other other side' do.

Moving forward is not gainsaying the fact that people were murdered; that the army acted intolerably. The parity of loss is a dead dodo. Nobody will allow 'their' heroes to be recast as murderers, and until this is acknowledged and the tribunal/inquiry trail comes to a dead end, there will never be lasting peace in NI. Sad, but true.

dresden8

Ah closure.

That's where they feck off and stop hassling other people with their problems. Especially the organisation that killed their son/brother, covered it up and keeps linking his death to the IRA (or was that you only?)

Fratton Fred

dresden8 wrote: »

Ah closure.

That's where they feck off and stop hassling other people with their problems. Especially the organisation that killed their son/brother, covered it up and keeps linking his death to the IRA (or was that you only?)

wtf are you on about?

stovelid

dresden8 wrote: »

Ah closure.

That's where they feck off and stop hassling other people with their problems. Especially the organisation that killed their son/brother, covered it up and keeps linking his death to the IRA (or was that you only?)

See, this is the problem about these threads. It's not a discussion. You just want to bellyache about the Brits with no rationale. If you really want a forum where you can do it without unwanted comment from others, why not set up a hosted forum?

Similarly, there are probably fora right now where unionists want to 'discuss' Enniskillen and Le Mon in perpetuity, and are telling their 'dissenters' to stfu.

Hagar

stovelid wrote: »

why not set up a hosted forum?

That's not a bad idea, but not exactly for the reasons you state. I would suggest a Private Hosted Politics Forum. It would take this type of argument away from the main Politics forum if nothing else.



[Edit] Anybody interested in participating in such a forum please PM me. [/edit]

dlofnep

stovelid wrote: »

See, this is the problem about these threads. It's not a discussion. You just want to bellyache about the Brits with no rationale. If you really want a forum where you can do it without unwanted comment from others, why not set up a hosted forum?

Similarly, there are probably fora right now where unionists want to 'discuss' Enniskillen and Le Mon in perpetuity, and are telling their 'dissenters' to stfu.

Oh - So addressing the murder and coverup of a civilian by a mandated army is "bellyaching" now is it? I see. It might not possibly be an actual practical discussion, now would it? I mean - Shame on us for wanting to expose the British forces for murder and deceit. You're just going to have to get used to the fact that this is a public forum, and sometimes - we may have an opinion or two to share of a topic or two. If you don't like us discussing British army atrocities - just close your eyes and pretend it never happened.

madden1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would rather you didn't use the term "Paddies", it implies that it is a word i would use and it is not.

now, your post there is typical and where I find this whole thing amazing. The people on here who are showing this shock/horror and are full of remorse for Aiden Mcanespie's death, in reality are more interested in scoring points off the British than they are in any form of closure for the McAnespie family.

I know you are very neutral Fred
but some others who posters here see (post 2) in this threads by Sand

Move on Dlop, move on.

would just like to dismiss it as if it was an unfortunate accidend and never really happened
that is amazing looks like it works both ways

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

You're just going to have to get used to the fact that this is a public forum, and sometimes - we may have an opinion or two to share of a topic or two.

I am used to it, and we all have an opinion or two to share of a topic or two.

The opinions don't necessarily concur, so people are not off-topic just because they don't concur with the OP in a public thread on a public forum.

Sorted.

dlofnep

stovelid wrote: »

I am used to it, and we all have an opinion or two to share of a topic or two.

The opinions don't necessarily concur, so people are not off-topic just because they don't concur with the OP in a public thread on a public forum.

Sorted.

I was under the impression that you agreed with the primary point - A British soldier murdered a civilian and then covered it up.

That is opinion. What you added afterwards was just an attempt to take the focus off the murder and attempt to turn it into a discussion about the IRA. That is not opinion. Just a ruse. But it didn't succeed, as the thread is now 10 pages in length and the facts remain the same, this is another chapter of a British soldier murdering a civilian and getting away with it scot-free.

dlofnep

Hagar wrote: »

That's not a bad idea, but not exactly for the reasons you state. I would suggest a Private Hosted Politics Forum. It would take this type of argument away from the main Politics forum if nothing else.



[Edit] Anybody interested in participating in such a forum please PM me. [/edit]

You have my support.

getz

same old story a british soldier murdered a civilian-first of all it is a alleged murder-- but what else would you except from a republic web site?---i am sure if it was a british web site they would have a differant opinion---if bombs had gone off in dublin or cork killing children you would not be nit picking

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

I was under the impression that you agreed with the primary point - A British soldier murdered a civilian and then covered it up.

That is opinion. What you added afterwards was just an attempt to take the focus off the murder and attempt to turn it into a discussion about the IRA. That is not opinion. Just a ruse. But it didn't succeed, as the thread is now 10 pages in length and the facts remain the same, this is another chapter of a British soldier murdering a civilian and getting away with it scot-free.

Tbh

Seriously, dlofnep, if you consider the relatively neutral points (at least the non-reactive ones) I was making re: parity and the GFA as a ruse to cover up Army wrongdoings and primarily discuss the IRA.... /shakes head.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

Old war stories? Since when was the slaying of a civilian a war?

Ah, so now it wasn't a war? Here and here you claimed it was.

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, so now it wasn't a war? Here and here you claimed it was.

Nice attempt to try and take my posts out of context. Where exactly in either of those posts did I claim that the slaughter of civilians was apart of a war? I categorically stated that any civilian deaths at the hands of the IRA would be on their conscience and that I had an immense amount of sympathy for - Or did you miss that part?

So no - I don't constitute the murder of civilians and then covering it up as part of a "war". I hope that clears it up for you before you start attaching anymore strings.

So djpbarry - Do you think that this soldier should be brought to justice for the murder of a civilian?

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

this is another chapter of a British soldier murdering a civilian and getting away with it scot-free.

dlofnep wrote: »

I categorically stated that any civilian deaths at the hands of the IRA would be on their conscience and that I had an immense amount of sympathy for - Or did you miss that part?

Instructive - and wholly depressing - gradation of civilian deaths.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

That's not a bad idea, but not exactly for the reasons you state. I would suggest a Private Hosted Politics Forum. It would take this type of argument away from the main Politics forum if nothing else.



[Edit] Anybody interested in participating in such a forum please PM me. [/edit]

good idea, good of you to offer to Mod it as well

dlofnep

stovelid wrote: »

Instructive - and wholly depressing - gradation of civilian deaths.

Sand

but some others who posters here see (post 2) in this threads by Sand

Move on Dlop, move on.

would just like to dismiss it as if it was an unfortunate accidend and never really happened
that is amazing looks like it works both ways

Ive noted the case should be investigated, the soldier charged and prosecuted if theres enough evidence to convict. I only noted the possibility of electing him to Stormont as an alternative, but I believe that option is only open for the Provos.

Instructive - and wholly depressing - gradation of civilian deaths.

Dlop, you just got owned.

You view any atrocity other than IRA atrocities as being monstrous acts for which the criminals responsible must be brought to justice and public inquiries held.

You view IRA atrocites as being....well you dont even view them as atrocities firstly. You support the Provos who carried them out, and the election of those same Provos to the highest offices in Northern Ireland.

And the hilarious part is your so indoctrinated you cant even note the way you, and all provos, rank victims of the troubles. Victims of the Provos need to suck it up when they see the killers of their familes smiling out on TV, victims of every other group involved in the Troubles need justice! Now!

The underlying logic is that victims of the Provos got what was coming to them, and dont deserve the same justice as others.

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

Dlop, you just got owned.

Whoever Dlop is, I'm sure he's not bothered.

Sand wrote: »

You view any atrocity other than IRA atrocities as being monstrous acts for which the criminals responsible must be brought to justice and public inquiries held.

Incorrect. If any member of the IRA killed a civilian in cold blood, in a manner with which this soldier shot a civilian in cold blood and then lied about it - I assure you, I'd like to see him also brought to justice. Give me one instance where a member of any Republican group shot a civilian in a cold and calculated manner, without cause and who were not members of the British defense forces and I will have no qualms whatsoever condemning them.

Sand wrote: »

You view IRA atrocites as being....well you dont even view them as atrocities firstly.

I commend their attacks of British military. I condemn any attacks that resulted in civilian death. But well, apparently - you've already decided my opinion for me. How generous of you. Should I not just let you debate with yourself? You can quote yourself back and forth, and tell each persona what they really think.

So Sand - Now that we have that nonsense out of the way. When are you going to stop jumping around the hoop and admit that the British army on numerous occasions has breached basic human rights and slaughtered innocent civilians on the streets of Ireland, and abroad. Because if you haven't gathered by now - That is what this said thread is the topic of discussion of. I can appreciate it hurts for you to see criticism of your beloved British army, but unfortunately - you're going to have to swallow this one and start facing up the realities of their cold reign in Ireland.

So - Any chance of you getting back on topic?

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

Where exactly in either of those posts did I claim that the slaughter of civilians was apart of a war?

In both those posts (and others) you claimed that the IRA was at war. The IRA slaughtered civilians. Logical extension: you claimed the slaughter of civilians was part of a war.

I now await your inevitable claim that “bombing a pub full of civilians does not constitute slaughter, but an attack on a viable, economic target; civilian casualties are inevitable in any war.”

dlofnep wrote: »

So djpbarry - Do you think that this soldier should be brought to justice for the murder of a civilian?

I've already stated that I believe he should be punished, if he is found guilty, but the GFA may well get in the way of that. In fact, I don't think a single poster on this thread has condoned his actions, yet you still tar everyone who doesn't agree with your every point as apologists for their "beloved" British army.

Hagar

If there is sufficient evidence to convict the soldier in court it should be done. Then he should be sentenced for the crime. Then he should be pardoned under the terms of the GFA just the same as all the other people convicted of crimes. It is important that justice be done but sending the guy to gaol now won't bring back the victim or any other victim either. Naturally if he is not convicted we must accept his innocence.

Sand

Incorrect. If any member of the IRA killed a civilian in cold blood, in a manner with which this soldier shot a civilian in cold blood and then lied about it - I assure you, I'd like to see him also brought to justice.

Youd vote for them more likely I think. Have you ever considered what Gerry Adams was doing in the 70s and 80s? To earn such command over the Provos? In a movement that positively despised and rejected anything other than militant struggle? He wasnt a peace activist, thats for sure. Has he been any more honest than the soldier?

Would you think it despicable if the British Army captured a Provo, and having subdued and taken him prisoner then executed them in cold blood? Or would you think, fair enough, the Brits probably couldnt be arsed with the paperwork which is understandable?

I condemn any attacks that resulted in civilian death.

But you support the organisation that planned, carried out and celebrated countless deliberate attacks on civillian targets through bombing pubs, shops, resteraunts, commemorations and other public, completely non military targets. Right?

Any chance of you getting back on topic?

You get to start the topic, others get to discuss it. If you dont like where the discussion is going [ the double standards Provos apply to victims of the troubles] then....too bad to be honest.