British Army/RUC waterboarded suspects in the 70's

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

They are costing me thousands in taxes for security.

Where do you live?

I think you'll find that wars against these people, which make them even angrier cost a lot more.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The reason they haven't had more effect is that the US sees to it that they are contained and not allowed to bring down western industry and lifestyle by terrorist actions.

More effect? 9/11 and London tube bombings escape your radar? They crippled the American economy in 20 minutes, and crippled the airline business for years. They've had an impact, and while American and British troops continue to kill innocent people - their armies will only grow larger, largely due to discontent with the murder of their relatives and friends.

America and Britain use terrorist tactics to thwart perceived terrorist threats.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Without the US involvement these malcontents would be free to hatch their terrorist agenda in the caves of Afghanistan and have free rein to launch attacks on the West.

Without US involvement, there wouldn't be any attacks on the US.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thank God we have a strong ally who is not afraid to face them down and their cohorts, at considerable cost and sacrifice.

Spare me, please. :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Anytime I hear the word "waterboard" I can't help but think of some aquatic-based leisure event.

You may continue...

FTA69

Paul4As wrote: »

British army personel and RUC officers weren't afforded the option of being just waterboarded if they were captured during the troubles!!! They were probably just stripped, beaten and shot in the back of the head!!!
BUT...hopefully those days are over!!! Good and bad on both sides back then!!! Look to the future...onwards and upwards for Northern Ireland!!!

The key difference being the fact that Republicans freely admitted they were in a state of revolutionary struggle and that such actions would occur as a result of warfare. The Brits on the other hand, were bending over backwards in order to deny there was even a state of political conflict here in Ireland, they tried to portray it as simply a law and order issue, a glorified policing exercise in order to suppress a criminal enterprise. Of course when one raises the fact they mass-interned their own citizens without trial and tortured them that whole facade tends to fall apart; their use of torture and collusion with death squads undermines the whole image with which they have tried to portray their role in this country and their actions here.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Thought so as well. It is quite clear that the British media and people have no idea what went on in their name

FTA69 wrote: »

The key difference being the fact that Republicans freely admitted they were in a state of revolutionary struggle and that such actions would occur as a result of warfare. The Brits on the other hand, were bending over backwards in order to deny there was even a state of political conflict here in Ireland, they tried to portray it as simply a law and order issue, a glorified policing exercise in order to suppress a criminal enterprise. Of course when one raises the fact they mass-interned their own citizens without trial and tortured them that whole facade tends to fall apart; their use of torture and collusion with death squads undermines the whole image with which they have tried to portray their role in this country and their actions here.

so because the Irish declared they were going to torture and murder innocent people, it is somehow acceptable, but because the British did it but denied it, they are evil? Would it have been more "Humane" to torture these people, then bury their bodies in the Dublin mountains never to be seen again, as a "Lesson" to others?

This is the sort of thread where McArmalite pops up and starts lambasting the Brits, then finishes his sentence with "Have you found Nairac yet".

I don't think anyone has the moral highground when it comes to hypocrisy.

FTA69

Personally I don't see any moral equivalence between the British establishment and Republicans, as far as I'm concerned one is an occupying and repressive power while one was concerned with removing that power. However, that's a whole different argument that me, you and many others have done to death in this forum a million and one times over.

To reiterate, Republicans were never under any illusions about what conflict entailed, they knew full well that if you went out to challenge the British presence in this country they would meet that challenge with a variety of military and extra-military means e.g. collusion, internment etc; all this is a part of warfare whether for right or wrong. It's the bloody hypocrisy that grates me, the portrayal of the conflict here as a case of glorified handbag snatchers running wild. Meanwhile they were arming and informing death-squads with a view to murdering their own citizens as well as practicing torture.

FlutterinBantam

I think you should read a book called "Low Intensity Operations" by Brig Gen Sir Frank Kitson.

That will explain the depraved depths that so called freedom fighters were prepared to go to to achieve(or not achieve) their ideals.

This required a very specialised response to defeat and clean out.

I for one am thankful that peace has been restored to an extent in NI,but there are hard core criminal elements out there determined to upset the agreement for their own nefarious objectives, these criminals hide behind flags of convenience,and unfortunately the less worldly adept amongst us are sucked in.

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I think you should read a book called "Low Intensity Operations" by Brig Gen Sir Frank Kitson.

That will explain the depraved depths that so called freedom fighters were prepared to go to to achieve(or not achieve) their ideals.

Perhaps if Catholics/Nationalists weren't needlessly oppressed in the first place, groups like the IRA would have had little or no support and fizzled out. As it stands, the repression of the average person, acted as recruting sergeant for these movements and actually made things a lot worse.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

This required a very specialised response to defeat and clean out.

Running around torturing and killing innocent people, made the Brits no better than the people they were fighting.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I for one am thankful that peace has been restored to an extent in NI,but there are hard core criminal elements out there determined to upset the agreement for their own nefarious objectives, these criminals hide behind flags of convenience,and unfortunately the less worldly adept amongst us are sucked in.

You see the reason none of thse groups have gotten anywhere is that Catholics/Nationalists now have there civil rights respected. This has done more to put a stop to the likes of the IRA, than the gun ho shoot first, ask question attitude the British forces use to have up North.

If the British government ensured respect for the rights of Catholics/Nationalists, a lot of the nasty crap probably could have been avoided.

FlutterinBantam

wes wrote: »

If the British government ensured respect for the rights of Catholics/Nationalists, a lot of the nasty crap probably could have been avoided.

In fairness, I would agree with you there.

Wertz

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Terrorism today is a dirty business,anyone who is naive enough or blinkered to believe that terrorism today can be fought and crushed by conventional methods is a tad off the mark in my opinion.

So why the famous "War on Terror" in both Afghanistan and Iraq then? Surely two of the most adept military forces in the world would have foreseen the futility of a conventional war on "terrorsists", particularly in Afghanistan after previous efforts by the Russians and a similar failure in Vietnam for Uncle Sam.
The US and the UK, despite warnings from history and from those who opposed the move at the time, waded headlong into unwinnable conflicts with no clear intent other than "defeating terrorism", but yet the forces which you hold in such high regard cannot hope to "win" by conventional methods in the face of guerilla tactics (short of just carpet bombing the place, civillians and all)...so those same forces and those who command them can only be seen by you as "naive and blinkered" to use your own words.



On topic: no surprise in this story for me. "Waterboarding" would have been a common enough method from what I've read, amongst many other methods. I have a mate from a northern county who had a male relative in the 70's arrested on suspicion of whatever...when questions failed to yield the answers the cops wanted, he was hooded/tied up, put in a 'copter, questioned again whilst it hovered with the the door open and then f*cked out. It was hovering a few ft off the ground, but the guy being questioned didn't know that. Anecdotal BS? I don't really care what your opinion is of the story: I would trust the source and don't doubt the ability of the forces in question.

John Stalker tried to expose the Brits underhanded tactics and state sponsored murder back in the 80's and got himself a nice desk job back in blighty and his enquiries office firebombed by the FRU, but not before a character assasination and smear campaign at a political and legal level to make sure he was rendered ineffectual. SAS and RUC special branch operated a shoot to kill policy in the North for at least 2 months in the winter of '82. This was a government, military and legislature (all unofficially) operating at the level of a dysfunctional revenge squad.

The provos never made a secret of the fact that they were out to kill and maim security forces...the British on the other hand whilst talking as if butter wouldn't melt, arguably carried out even lower deeds than the army they were engaging with...
That torture methods were used amounts to little when protagonists of same were willing to murder. That applies to both sides, but again, the IRA never tried to hide it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

FlutterinBantam

heh heh heh , jeez sorry for laughing, so it's all right to kill and maim if you say you are going to do it?

And it's not if you don't say it??

Justifies it ,does it.?

That makes a difference to those killed and maimed.??

Fratton Fred

What is shooting someone if it isn't shoot to kill?

Personally I see nothing wrong with it if the people you are shooting employ the exact same tactics.

K-9

Wertz wrote: »

On topic: no surprise in this story for me. "Waterboarding" would have been a common enough method from what I've read, amongst many other methods. I have a mate from a northern county who had a male relative in the 70's arrested on suspicion of whatever...when questions failed to yield the answers the cops wanted, he was hooded/tied up, put in a 'copter, questioned again whilst it hovered with the the door open and then f*cked out. It was hovering a few ft off the ground, but the guy being questioned didn't know that. Anecdotal BS? I don't really care what your opinion is of the story: I would trust the source and don't doubt the ability of the forces in question.

John Stalker tried to expose the Brits underhanded tactics and state sponsored murder back in the 80's and got himself a nice desk job back in blighty and his enquiries office firebombed by the FRU, but not before a character assasination and smear campaign at a political and legal level to make sure he was rendered ineffectual. SAS and RUC special branch operated a shoot to kill policy in the North for at least 2 months in the winter of '82. This was a government, military and legislature (all unofficially) operating at the level of a dysfunctional revenge squad.

The provos never made a secret of the fact that they were out to kill and maim security forces...the British on the other hand whilst talking as if butter wouldn't melt, arguably carried out even lower deeds than the army they were engaging with...
That torture methods were used amounts to little when protagonists of same were willing to murder. That applies to both sides, but again, the IRA never tried to hide it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

It shouldn't be forgotten that it was often decent RUC Officers who exposed the policies and gave Stalker the information, at great professional and personal risk.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is shooting someone if it isn't shoot to kill?

Personally I see nothing wrong with it if the people you are shooting employ the exact same tactics.

Law and order should be exactly that. Plenty of other ways to get at the IRA eg. informers which IMO is acceptable.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Personally I see nothing wrong with it if the people you are shooting employ the exact same tactics.

'Works both ways'... 'vicious circle'...'chicken & egg'

Your statement can be employed by any side in any conflict but will get you nowhere to solving the problem

Grudaire

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is shooting someone if it isn't shoot to kill?

Personally I see nothing wrong with it if the people you are shooting employ the exact same tactics.

That's the crux of it, isn't it!?

If anything the IRA's over the years have been more effective at targeting 'legitimate' targets.

But this line of thought leads down the 'they started it' arguments, which we should all be above

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

The key difference being the fact that Republicans freely admitted they were in a state of 'revolutionary struggle' and that such actions would occur as a result of warfare........

Revolutionary struggle me ar** :rolleyes: dear oh dear, some people are so indoctrinated its freightening (unless of course you are actually a genuine IRA member, or sympathiser)? in which case I'm on the other side.

FTA69

Camelot wrote: »

Revolutionary struggle me ar** :rolleyes: dear oh dear, some people are so indoctrinated its freightening (unless of course you are actually a genuine IRA member, or sympathiser)? in which case I'm on the other side.

Sure how do you know you aren't the one who has been indoctrinated?

dlofnep

Camelot wrote: »

Revolutionary struggle me ar** :rolleyes: dear oh dear, some people are so indoctrinated its freightening (unless of course you are actually a genuine IRA member, or sympathiser)? in which case I'm on the other side.

Tackling civil inequality, state collusion and state murder, gerrymandering, internment without trial.

How was it not revolutionary struggle to oppose this?

Paul4As

As a unionist I am apalled at state collusion which has been proven to have occurred in Northern Ireland...I am apalled at the awful inhumane killings committed by loyalist terrorists and republican terrorists!!!Things are progressing in Northern Ireland...ever so slowly...though they still are progressing!!!But some of the blatant support for the IRA movement on this thread...and the murderous actions they got up to in the past...it is a disgrace!!! Thankfully a lot of the posters of those comments seem to based in the Republic!!!This water-bombing incident...which may I add "allegedly" (still to be proven in the courts) happened 30 years ago...it is so far back in the past!!! If people on this politics forum wish to live in the past...I believe there is a history forum on boards.ie!!! Would some moderator please lock this thread!!! Thanks in advance!!!

dlofnep

Paul4As wrote: »

As a unionist I am apalled at state collusion which has been proven to have occurred in Northern Ireland...I am apalled at the awful inhumane killings committed by loyalist terrorists and republican terrorists!!!

Are you appalled at the murders by the British army also?

Paul4As wrote: »

But some of the blatant support for the IRA movement on this thread...and the murderous actions they got up to in the past...it is a disgrace!!!

Paul4As wrote: »

This water-bombing incident...which may I add "allegedly" (still to be proven in the courts) happened 30 years ago...it is so far back in the past!!! If people on this politics forum wish to live in the past...I believe there is a history forum on boards.ie!!! Would some moderator please lock this thread!!! Thanks in advance!!!

Note, the irony is in bold.

gurramok

Why would a mod lock the thread? I certainly didn't request it. I think the discussion has been intriguing with many valuable inputs.

gurramok

dlofnep wrote: »

Tackling civil inequality, state collusion and state murder, gerrymandering, internment without trial.

How was it not revolutionary struggle to oppose this?

You see, state murder does not exist. The unarmed victim of such crimes were *insert random excuse* up to no good.

I'm horrified that certain posters condone horrific torture to be carried out in their name.

A Dub in Glasgo

Paul4As wrote: »

Would some moderator please lock this thread!!! Thanks in advance!!!

On what basis do you justify locking the thread?

S.L.F

Riddle101 wrote: »

Although I feel sorry, i'm not surprised, how else do you get information from people?

What kind of info are we talking about the kind where someone says, "Yes I killed that soldier"

or the, "What do you want me to say?", kind.

EDIT I've had a look about on the net and have found a bunch of people who take cases of people who claim to be innocent.

Have a look at this site then in the search box put in torture and a number of cases will come up.

Nodin

Paul4As wrote: »

This water-bombing incident...(....)!!!

Alas.....

hatrickpatrick

Personally I don't believe in any kind of immunity, ever. If someone breaks the law, the length of time since the offense or the status of the person who committed it is irrelevant. They still committed a crime and should still be punished for it in exactly the same way as any other person would be.