Ex paratroopers deny murder of Joe McCann

Marco23d

Marco23d wrote: »

Ok... So you deny the official verdict that the IRA were training FARC rebels and you believe this is a conspiracy and they travelled there to buy some cocaine?

Did I ever deny a small number of Gardai were killed during the 30 year conflict?

It's like arguing with an empty tub of toothpaste.

Are you, genuinely trying to say that the farc aren't involved in the drug trade? Your beloved will burn a few kilos in YouTube but have no issue taking payment directly from the main suppliers either in product or cash obtained from selling drugs. Take your pick which but either way, they cooperated with international drug dealers.

I could also bring Alan Ryan into it. Suppose he wasn't involved in criminality either?

Do you actively believe that the robbers and murderers within the ira ranks should be handed in and anyone with information provide it? 26 Gardai murdered despite a supposed order to not engage or target republic forces.

Go sell your magic beans to someone stupid enough to believe you. Hopefully that person never heard of any of the "disappeared".

Jean McConville, justify that. Now justify the continued silence and protection of her killers.

But hey, the guy let killers from the other side go so I guess that's ok then.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a great book about the period. Joe McCann features heavily. The Officals/Stickies were certainly more revolutionary and progressive in their outlook. The Provos were seen as conservative, sectarian, and ruled by Holy Joes from Dublin.

Thats a very good book, but to judge where the main people in both the sticks and the provos ended up, it does not seem there were any revolutionaries at all.

The provos basically ended up being similar to the SDLP and FF, the WP went full conservative reactionary.

FileNotFound

Marco23d wrote: »

He targeted soldiers and politicians he was completely against even attacking loyalist paramilitaries.

In 1971 McCann led a unit which captured three UVF members in Sandy Row. The UVF had raided an OIRA arms dump earlier that day and the OIRA announced they would execute the three prisoners if the weapons were not returned. McCann eventually released the three UVF members because they were "working class men like yourself".[

Wouldn't targeting politicians equate to murder? So he was a murderer.

He was shot while trying to escape captivity after engaging in warfare with the enemy and killing many of them.

While I can happily say the man was fighting for the side I'd be behind, I don't get the idea he was treated differently to most active combatants in war zones.

I am a little confused as to what you expect to be claimed or said in relation to his death?

Marco23d

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Are you, genuinely trying to say that the farc aren't involved in the drug trade? Your beloved will burn a few kilos in YouTube but have no issue taking payment directly from the main suppliers either in product or cash obtained from selling drugs. Take your pick which but either way, they cooperated with international drug dealers.

I could also bring Alan Ryan into it. Suppose he wasn't involved in criminality either?

Do you actively believe that the robbers and murderers within the ira ranks should be handed in and anyone with information provide it? 26 Gardai murdered despite a supposed order to not engage or target republic forces.

Go sell your magic beans to someone stupid enough to believe you. Hopefully that person never heard of any of the "disappeared".

Jean McConville, justify that. Now justify the continued silence and protection of her killers.

But hey, the guy let killers from the other side go so I guess that's ok then.

Ok so you admit that you are wrong and the IRA didn't "sell drugs" like you claimed, fair enough.

Also another fact check them 26 Gardai weren't killed by the IRA I think I read the actual figure was something like 8, the 26 were killed some by mentally ill people with no political connection, some were killed by the INLA and of course some by the IRA mainly by IRA members trying to avoid arrest but most IRA members did follow orders and took heavy jail sentences rather than harm Gardai.

I don't have a clue about Alan Ryan he was involved with extortion rackets/real IRA.

Marco23d

FileNotFound wrote: »

Wouldn't targeting politicians equate to murder? So he was a murderer.

He was shot while trying to escape captivity after engaging in warfare with the enemy and killing many of them.

While I can happily say the man was fighting for the side I'd be behind, I don't get the idea he was treated differently to most active combatants in war zones.

I am a little confused as to what you expect to be claimed or said in relation to his death?

He was unarmed and running away, by the laws of engagement state forces are meant to arrest and not just go around shooting anyone they believe to be a "terrorist".

realdanbreen

FileNotFound wrote: »

.

He was shot while trying to escape captivity after engaging in warfare ..

Exactly what the British said after their soldiers gunned down 13 innocent civilians in Derry!

Marco23d

Marco23d wrote: »

He was unarmed and running away, by the laws of engagement state forces are meant to arrest and not just go around shooting anyone they believe to be a "terrorist".

Only state forces?

Normal One

It's mind-blowing that some here celebrate this killing, probably because of their fear of SF and their electoral success despite Big Joe being a Stickie (even more mind-blowing when you can trace their lineage back!).

A reminder of the times:

Anyone on the streets during the 1971 Ballymurphy shootings in west Belfast was considered to be associated with the IRA and liable to be shot, a former soldier has said.

Some within the British army’s parachute regiment were rogue and out of control “psychopaths” who had evaded prison by joining up, an ex-serviceman known as M597 alleged at an inquest on Monday.

The hearing at Belfast Coroner’s Court is examining the deaths of 10 civilians, including a mother of eight, across three days in August 1971 which became known as the Ballymurphy Massacre.

While most FFGers of the time were hiding behind the sofa, the modern day black and tans were rampaging around the north east of our island murdering people.

Now go ahead and justify the killing of Joan Connolly when you're at it.

Marco23d

Marco23d wrote: »

Ok so you admit that you are wrong and the IRA didn't "sell drugs" like you claimed, fair enough.

Also another fact check them 26 Gardai weren't killed by the IRA I think I read the actual figure was something like 8, the 26 were killed some by mentally ill people with no political connection, some were killed by the INLA and of course some by the IRA mainly by IRA members trying to avoid arrest but most IRA members did follow orders and took heavy jail sentences rather than harm Gardai.

I don't have a clue about Alan Ryan he was involved with extortion rackets/real IRA.

Oh no but nice try on that score. Again, the link shows a clear direct link between one of the main global narcos and the ira. How you can try and then claim the ira had no involvement in drugs after that, I dunno. Brass balls I guess.

Here's another few so but again, your only filling yourself by denying what the dog in the street knew:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/ira-is-now-involved-in-drug-crime-deasy-claims-1.34781

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-ira-man-sold-drugs-seized-from-dealers-69xtvp8g8

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546559908427502

26 Gardai isn't the total Gardai killed in the line of duty. You do realise that yes? It's those killed by republicans. At least 19 Garda deaths were by ira men over the years.

Alan and slab were involved in Criminal behavior and was part of the ira. Do you accept that?

Have you just decided to ignore Jean like your heroes ignored her children?

Marco23d

Normal One wrote: »

It's mind-blowing that some here celebrate this killing, probably because of their fear of SF and their electoral success despite Big Joe being a Stickie (even more mind-blowing when you can trace their lineage back!).

A reminder of the times:



While most FFGers of the time were hiding behind the sofa, the modern day black and tans were rampaging around the north east of our island murdering people.

Now go ahead and justify the killing of Joan Connolly when you're at it.

Them psychopaths were put on the streets by the British government to put the fear of God into the people, the week before bloody Sunday at the previous civil rights dozens of peaceful protesters were beaten to a pulp many of them hospitalised in serious condition.

Also a few months after bloody Sunday another massacre most people never heard of the "Springhill Massacre" 5 people were killed by the paras including a 13 year old girl Margaret Gargan.

Marco23d

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Oh no but nice try on that score. Again, the link shows a clear direct link between one of the main global narcos and the ira. How you can try and then claim the ira had no involvement in drugs after that, I dunno. Brass balls I guess.

Here's another few so but again, your only filling yourself by denying what the dog in the street knew:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/ira-is-now-involved-in-drug-crime-deasy-claims-1.34781

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-ira-man-sold-drugs-seized-from-dealers-69xtvp8g8

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546559908427502

26 Gardai isn't the total Gardai killed in the line of duty. You do realise that yes? It's those killed by republicans. At least 19 Garda deaths were by ira men over the years.

Alan and slab were involved in Criminal behavior and was part of the ira. Do you accept that?

Have you just decided to ignore Jean like your heroes ignored her children?

You must be having me on, a single article from 1996 which says nothing about the IRA selling drugs, if the IRA were involved in selling drugs don't you think this would have been shoved down our throats constantly by the British and Loyalists?

And another article about a single member of the New IRA selling drugs?

Come on man give it up.

Normal One

Marco23d wrote: »

Them psychopaths were put on the streets by the British government to put the fear of God into the people, the week before bloody Sunday at the previous civil rights dozens of peaceful protesters were beaten to a pulp many of them hospitalised in serious condition.

Also a few months after bloody Sunday another massacre most people never heard of the "Springhill Massacre" 5 people were killed by the paras including a 13 year old girl Margaret Gargan.

Sure I know, some of these headmelters would be commemorating them if they had their way.

indioblack

Marco23d wrote: »

He was unarmed and running away, by the laws of engagement state forces are meant to arrest and not just go around shooting anyone they believe to be a "terrorist".

One side is bound by "laws of engagement".
The opposing side are bound by whatever rules they decide upon.

indioblack

realdanbreen wrote: »

Exactly what the British said after their soldiers gunned down 13 innocent civilians in Derry!

It's unlikely he will be perceived as an innocent civilian.
Unless the prosecution can make a convincing case that he was merely a part-time soldier in an army - that is how some wish to see him portrayed.
On his days off he was a civilian.

realdanbreen

indioblack wrote: »

One side is bound by "laws of engagement".
The opposing side are bound by whatever rules they decide upon.

Do you think if Irish soldiers had been roaming the streets of Sheffield or Leicester , wrecking homes and terrorising locals they could expect resistance?

Marco23d

Marco23d wrote: »

You must be having me on, a single article from 1996 which says nothing about the IRA selling drugs, if the IRA were involved in selling drugs don't you think this would have been shoved down our throats constantly by the British and Loyalists?

And another article about a single member of the New IRA selling drugs?

Come on man give it up.

3 articles.

Your full of holes, you ignore the parts you can't argue just like your heroes ignored jean McConvilles children.

Jean. AGAIN

Alan Ryan

Slab murphy

19 Gardai

Multiple banks

And the links that were just the first page on google search.

The world IS AWARE that your heroes were dealing. Only you seem unaware of this.

realdanbreen

realdanbreen wrote: »

Do you think if Irish soldiers had been roaming the streets of Sheffield or Leicester , wrecking homes and terrorising locals they could expect resistance?

Do you think the soldiers wouldn't have shot back?

You can't have it both ways. Either he was a retreating soldier or he was a civilian that had thrown his gun away.

If it's acceptable to kill off duty police and their families at their homes, why is it not acceptable to target a killer running away?

Hamsterchops

realdanbreen wrote: »

Do you think if Irish soldiers had been roaming the streets of Sheffield or Leicester , wrecking homes and terrorising locals they could expect resistance?

I suspect they'd be court-martiald by their own command for being drunk and disorderly in another jurisdiction. No other treason for them to be in Sheffield or Leicester wrecking homes & terrorising the locals...

Marco23d

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

3 articles.

Your full of holes, you ignore the parts you can't argue just like your heroes ignored jean McConvilles children.

Jean. AGAIN

Alan Ryan

Slab murphy

19 Gardai

Multiple banks

And the links that were just the first page on google search.

The world IS AWARE that your heroes were dealing. Only you seem unaware of this.

I'm done talking about this, you have no clue what you're on about you just so badly want it to be true that you have convinced yourself of it.

Can you explain why this great propaganda piece against SF/IRA selling drugs during the troubles that not the British government, loyalist parties, the Gardai or irish government have ever claimed they were involved in drug dealing?

Please answer me that.

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If it's acceptable to kill off duty police and their families at their homes, why is it not acceptable to target a killer running away?

You seem quite comfortable with the idea of agents of the state killing suspects without any sort of trial?

Marco23d

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

3 articles.

Your full of holes, you ignore the parts you can't argue just like your heroes ignored jean McConvilles children.

Jean. AGAIN

Alan Ryan

Slab murphy

19 Gardai

Multiple banks

And the links that were just the first page on google search.

The world IS AWARE that your heroes were dealing. Only you seem unaware of this.

This should clear things up for you.

In the 1970s the fact that both republican and loyalist groups made it clear they would kill dealers kept the city, apart from the traditionally bohemian student districts, relatively free of drugs.

This hard-line attitude softened in the late 1980s, particularly on the loyalist side, with increasing quantities of dope and tablets gradually making their appearance. In the early 1990s the IRA maintained its puritanical anti-drugs stance but in other quarters things changed dramatically. Some minor republican groups and some major loyalist figures, seeing the profits to be made, switched from condemning the drugs trade to actively trafficking in it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/how-the-guns-kept-drugs-out-of-belfast-1526802.html%3famp


This should clear things up for you, the independent.co.uk have no reason to be covering up for the PIRA/SF.... or do they?

indioblack

realdanbreen wrote: »

Do you think if Irish soldiers had been roaming the streets of Sheffield or Leicester , wrecking homes and terrorising locals they could expect resistance?

Is that what this man was doing in his time?
It appears he was more pro-active than that.

realdanbreen

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I suspect they'd be court-martiald by their own command for being drunk and disorderly in another jurisdiction. No other treason for them to be in Sheffield or Leicester wrecking homes & terrorising the locals...

So as long as they were in what you regard as their own jurisdiction it's OK to behave like that?
Anyway you seem oblivious to the fact that british troops have caused mayhem and terror throughout the world for many years.

indioblack

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

You seem quite comfortable with the idea of agents of the state killing suspects without any sort of trial?

It would have been preferable if he could have been taken into custody.
The case may hinge on the manner of his death.

indioblack

realdanbreen wrote: »

So as long as they were in what you regard as their own jurisdiction it's OK to behave like that?
Anyway you seem oblivious to the fact that british troops have caused mayhem and terror throughout the world for many years.

You should rescue the poster you are responding to from his/her ignorance of the knowledge you possess.
You might also add the relevance to this thread.

Bass Reeves

Marco23d wrote: »

He was unarmed and running away, by the laws of engagement state forces are meant to arrest and not just go around shooting anyone they believe to be a "terrorist".

It is always commonplace to shoot retreating soldiers unless they surrender. You do not let them retreat to re-engage you later. If they surrender then you do not shoot them. Dropping you gun and running away is no excuse not to be shot.
In fact if the enemy fail to shoot you then most armies would shoot you for either cowardice or desertion in the face of the enemy.

You cannot make up the rules of war to suit yourself. Only in that last 20-30 years has it become less common to shoot prisoners or criminals escaping from the scene of a crime. It's still happens in the USA. As far as I can see this paratrooper saved the IRA from having to shoot the coward themselves. That if they were a real army. They weren't they were just a bunch of cowardly murdering scum who now are trying to rewrite history.

Marco23d

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is always commonplace to shoot retreating soldiers unless they surrender. You do not let them retreat to re-engage you later. If they surrender then you do not shoot them. Dropping you gun and running away is no excuse not to be shot.
In fact if the enemy fail to shoot you then most armies would shoot you for either cowardice or desertion in the face of the enemy.

You cannot make up the rules of war to suit yourself. Only in that last 20-30 years has it become less common to shoot prisoners or criminals escaping from the scene of a crime. It's still happens in the USA. As far as I can see this paratrooper saved the IRA from having to shoot the coward themselves. That if they were a real army. They weren't they were just a bunch of cowardly murdering scum who now are trying to rewrite history.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding among some posters on here I should have explained better in the OP, he did not drop his gun and run away or anything like that, he was not involved in any violent acts the day he was killed, he was supposedly Britain's most wanted man so the army knew his face.

They recognised him from a distance as he was walking down the road and they chased him down and killed him while he was running away unarmed.

realdanbreen

indioblack wrote: »

You should rescue the poster you are responding to from his/her ignorance of the knowledge you possess.
You might also add the relevance to this thread.

It's not just the knowledge that I possess, it's common knowledge. Just check out the experience that India, Bangladesh, most african countries, many asian countries etc experienced at the hands of British forces, it's actually sickening what they got up to.

Hamsterchops

realdanbreen wrote: »

So as long as they were in what you regard as their own jurisdiction it's OK to behave like that?
Anyway you seem oblivious to the fact that british troops have caused mayhem and terror throughout the world for many years.

Maybe you're confusing me with another poster?

I never said it was ok for them to behave like that, but what I did say was that even though the deceased had murdered several people, it was not alright for the accused to just shoot him like a dog!

I suggested that he should have been arrested and brought before the courts, and for them to decide his fate.

Bass Reeves

Marco23d wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding among some posters on here I should have explained better in the OP, he did not drop his gun and run away or anything like that, he was not involved in any violent acts the day he was killed, he was supposedly Britain's most wanted man so the army knew his face.

They recognised him from a distance as he was walking down the road and they chased him down and killed him while he was running away unarmed.

In that case he should have stopped and surrendered. Just because he he was not out murdering people as usual dose not give him a free pass.

Again quite common place a bunch of unarmed enemy combatants are called on to surrender and turn and try to escape BANG, BANG, that it. They should have put there hands up when challenged.

The para did not shoot the wrong person even according to you. As well as that he was out of uniform so he was entitled to be shot anyway. Rules of war. The murdering scum cannot have it both ways. You are not a civilian if you are a soldier without a gun........just stupid especially if you run away when challenged and instructed to surrender.

If I was on the same position I would not.allow an Emmy to escape who might shoot me in the back later that day or night.

Rules of war study them