Ex paratroopers deny murder of Joe McCann

Timberrrrrrrr

Stihl waters wrote: »

I'm going to assume you're fine with Israeli forces taking Palestinian land, seeing as all they have to do is take it and call it Israel's

And still no one answers the question, no more whataboutery lads it's a simple enough question

Should the guards

A. Attempt arrest and risk death?

B. Shoot a known killer?

Normal One

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Rules of war study them

The brits did everything they could to avoid recognising the conflict as a war.

realdanbreen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And still no one answers the question, no more whataboutery lads it's a simple enough question

Should the guards

A. Attempt arrest and risk death?

B. Shoot a known killer?

You're coming up with a bunch of "what if" scenarios.Fact is the guards did not shoot your 'known islamist' in the back whereas British soldiers did, and many more besides.

Timberrrrrrrr

realdanbreen wrote: »

You're coming up with a bunch of "what if" scenarios.Fact is the guards did not shoot your 'known islamist' in the back whereas British soldiers did, and many more besides.

And you dodge the question again

Marco23d

Marco23d wrote: »

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.

I already have, with 3 links. One being a peer reviewed paper and another being a member of the government

Then there's the 3 chaps from Ireland who were training one of the leading drug suppliers in the world. You don't wake up in meath one morning and end up randomly living with farc rebels

Then there's slab murphy and Alan Ryan which you again ignored. Good republicans there.

Still waiting on justification for killing a widow and leaving her orphan children alone at Christmas.

Still waiting for your demand that her killers are given up.

I'll not hold my breath

Google has hundreds now

Stihl waters

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And still no one answers the question, no more whataboutery lads it's a simple enough question

Should the guards

A. Attempt arrest and risk death?

B. Shoot a known killer?

Shoot first ask questions later would be the safest path to preserving the lives of others

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

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

Do I? Can you quote me on that?

I do however, seek clarification regarding this "suspect" and his status at the time.

Dodging questions just shows you up and with that in mind I ask again

Suspect of a murder or Soldier engaged in warfare?

Viable target 24/7 or off duty being off limits?

Need to know the rules before we play the game

Timberrrrrrrr

Stihl waters wrote: »

Shoot first ask questions later would be the safest path to preserving the lives of others

Which is what the soldiers did.

Stihl waters

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Which is what the soldiers did.

I never said otherwise, you need to go back over the posts and read again, he was fair game as were any British soldier in northern Ireland at the time

Marco23d

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And the British soldiers were operating on British soil, you may not agree with that but its a fact. Should the guards arrest or shoot was the question, whats your answer?

They were operating on disputed territory claimed by both Britain and the republic of Ireland.

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Do I? Can you quote me on that?

I do however, seek clarification regarding this "suspect" and his status at the time.

Dodging questions just shows you up and with that in mind I ask again

Suspect of a murder or Soldier engaged in warfare?

Viable target 24/7 or off duty being off limits?

Need to know the rules before we play the game

You asked "Why is it not acceptable to target a killer running away?". So I posed the question as to your being comfortable with agents of the state killing suspects. You'll notice I left a question mark at the end of my post.

So, more directly this time, are you comfortable with agents of the state killing suspects without any sort of trial?

Dodging questions? This is my second post on this topic, I haven't yet had a chance to dodge any questions.

His status? As far as the British were concerned he was an on the run criminal, let's go with that.

Normal One

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I
Still waiting on justification for killing a widow and leaving her orphan children alone at Christmas.

The people you are defending murdered a mother of 8, still waiting for you to justify that. Those killed also have a British government minister helping them avoid justice, the current prime minister had also defended the paratroopers who murdered civilians on bloody Sunday. Justify that.

Sunny Disposition

While I'd abhor what the IRA did, as do most people who were alive at the time, there should be no amnesty for soldiers. Some of them committed murder and those people are no better than the IRA, those saying they shouldn't face trial now are insulting those of us who lived through the time and didn't support the IRA. I think few British soldiers feel there should be an amnesty anyway, it would take away from the legitimacy of what more decent soldiers tried to do.
It was a complicated time for sure, but the State forces had guidelines to comply with, if flouting those is covered up then the State was no more legitimate than the paramilitaries.

Marco23d

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

While I'd abhor what the IRA did, as do most people who were alive at the time, there should be no amnesty for soldiers. Some of them committed murder and those people are no better than the IRA, those saying they shouldn't face trial now are insulting those of us who lived through the time and didn't support the IRA. I think few British soldiers feel there should be an amnesty anyway, it would take away from the legitimacy of what more decent soldiers tried to do.
It was a complicated time for sure, but the State forces had guidelines to comply with, if flouting those is covered up then the State was no more legitimate than the paramilitaries.

Just wondering do you think the same about the IRA?

That some IRA members killed innocent people in retaliation to loyalist attacks and took away from what "decent" IRA men tried to do?

Normal One

Normal One wrote: »

The people you are defending murdered a mother of 8, still waiting for you to justify that. Those killed also have a British government minister helping them avoid justice, the current prime minister had also defended the paratroopers who murdered civilians on bloody Sunday. Justify that.

Who have i defended? Again, a quote of this defence please.


Whataboutery is the last pathetic defence. I'm not defending nor justifying anyone. Not so I support or applaud anyone but don't let that get in the way of your fanboy defence

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

You asked "Why is it not acceptable to target a killer running away?".

Deliberately taking the second half of a question. Care to quote the entire question?

"Yakov wrote:

So I posed the question as to your being comfortable with agents of the state killing suspects. You'll notice I left a question mark at the end of my post.

You made a suggestion. You suggested I was comfortable with state killings and used half a question to justify it. You did so deliberately in my opinion.

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

So, more directly this time, are you comfortable with agents of the state killing suspects without any sort of trial?.

Under certain circumstances, yes. To prevent the loss of life being one. To bring to an end a violent situation being another.

Like all police forces globally are authorized to do.

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

His status? As far as the British were concerned he was an on the run criminal, let's go with that.

Your stance is irrelevant considering I was asking a specific user that was not you. Why did you feel to answer for them?

blanch152

Marco23d wrote: »

They were operating on disputed territory claimed by both Britain and the republic of Ireland.

Thankfully now that is not the case with us having withdrawn our claim on Northern Ireland.

Now how would an ex sinn fein man end up in the middle of a drug gang war?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/former-sinn-f%C3%A9in-councillor-charged-with-regency-hotel-murder-1.4548922

corner of hells

Marco23d wrote: »

Sold drugs? First I'm hearing of this, the British or loyalists have never claimed the IRA were involved in drug dealing what evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?

Funny you say about bank robberies in the republic I was only reading about this the other day, In 1973, two self-proclaimed British spies, Keith and Kenneth Littlejohn, were convicted and jailed for a £67,000 armed robbery at a Dublin bank - it was at that time the biggest robbery to date in Irish history.

During their trial the brothers said they were working for the British Government against the IRA. They said they had been told to stage the robbery to discredit the republican organisation and force the Irish Government to introduce tougher measures against its members.

IRA had no problem killing drug dealers in the 90s in Finglas who wouldn't pay them protection money .

"If you want to deal in our area, you pay us protection money" .

political analyst

Why is the McCann case scheduled to last for 4 weeks? If the judge is not sitting in other cases during that period, why can't the trial be completed in a fortnight? I find it hard to believe that there is a huge number of witnesses in this case.

Normal One

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Who have i defended? Again, a quote of this defence please.


Whataboutery is the last pathetic defence. I'm not defending nor justifying anyone. Not so I support or applaud anyone but don't let that get in the way of your fanboy defence

You talk about whataboutery yet you're the one who brought up Jean McConville, the Colombia 3, Alan Ryan. None of which had anything to do with the subject of the thread. Your agenda is obvious.

Sunny Disposition

Marco23d wrote: »

Just wondering do you think the same about the IRA?

That some IRA members killed innocent people in retaliation to loyalist attacks and took away from what "decent" IRA men tried to do?

Not really, the IRA had support, it’s true, but if they’d ever asked the majority of Belfast Catholics should they stop or not they’d have been told they should. They didn’t care, they put us through a lot. The position of Catholics would have improved much earlier if the campaign hadn’t taken off. There was a need for a political reaction, but not that campaign.
It’s true that some decent people did join up, as was true of loyalist paramilitaries, but all of them were very misguided.
It’s a long time ago, but the IRA did a lot of harm. Sure, they are the biggest party now for Catholics but that’s not a retrospective justification. When it was going on there was not majority support.

Normal One

Normal One wrote: »

You talk about whataboutery yet you're the one who brought up Jean McConville, the Colombia 3, Alan Ryan. None of which had anything to do with the subject of the thread. Your agenda is obvious.

Jean, an unarmed civilian was murdered by the ira. Completely relevant to the op scenario.

The Columbia 3 and Alan ryan directly in reference to another users denial that the ira were involved in the drug business. Again, completely relevant to the conversation being had with that user.

My agenda is only to have the defenders agree to the rules of the game they are playing.

Now, again I ask for proof of your allegation that I was defending anyone

Marco23d

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Not really, the IRA had support, it’s true, but if they’d ever asked the majority of Belfast Catholics should they stop or not they’d have been told they should. They didn’t care, they put us through a lot. The position of Catholics would have improved much earlier if the campaign hadn’t taken off. There was a need for a political reaction, but not that campaign.
It’s true that some decent people did join up, as was true of loyalist paramilitaries, but all of them were very misguided.
It’s a long time ago, but the IRA did a lot of harm. Sure, they are the biggest party now for Catholics but that’s not a retrospective justification. When it was going on there was not majority support.

You can't really say decent people joined up to loyalist paramilitaries as almost all their targets are Catholic civilians so if you join up to loyalist paramilitaries you know the game that's being played.

If you join up to the IRA it's different the vast majority of IRA killings were police and army and any civilians killed were mostly down to solo runs or people making big mistakes so you can't really compare.

Also loyalists could sign up to the UDR whereas if Catholics wanted to fight their only options were the IRA.

Marco23d

political analyst wrote: »

Why is the McCann case scheduled to last for 4 weeks? If the judge is not sitting in other cases during that period, why can't the trial be completed in a fortnight? I find it hard to believe that there is a huge number of witnesses in this case.

Nj

Bass Reeves

Marco23d wrote: »

You can't really say decent people joined up to loyalist paramilitaries as almost all their targets are Catholic civilians so if you join up to loyalist paramilitaries you know the game that's being played.

If you join up to the IRA it's different the vast majority of IRA killings were police and army and any civilians killed were mostly down to solo runs or people making big mistakes so you can't really compare.

Also loyalists could sign up to the UDR whereas if Catholics wanted to fight their only options were the IRA.

I think you are living in a fantasy land the figures for killing are fairy stark and the republicans are not the paragons of virtue you let on

https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Marco23d

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I think you are living in a fantasy land the figures for killing are fairy stark and the republicans are not the paragons of virtue you let on

https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Them statistics don't show anything apart from people's religion.

According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), a research project at the University of Ulster, the IRA was responsible for 1,705 deaths, about 45% of the total conflict deaths. Of that figure:

1,009 (59.2%) were members or former members of the British security forces, including:

697 British military personnel: 644 from the British Army, 4 from the Royal Air Force, 1 from the Royal Navy, and 43 former British military personnel.

312 British law enforcement personnel:
270 Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers, 14 former RUC officers, 20 Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) officers, 2 former NIPS officers, and 6 English police officers.

508 (29%) were classed as civilians, including 17 political activists.

133 (7.8%) were members of the IRA, killed as informers or in premature explosions of bombs.[4]

39 (2.2%) were loyalist paramilitary members: 26 Ulster Defence Association (UDA) members, 12 Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) members and 1 Red Hand Commando (RHC) member.

8 (0.4%) were members of the Irish security forces, including 6 Gardaí, 1 Irish Prison Service officer, and 1 Irish Army
soldier.[4]

5 (0.2%) were members of other republican paramilitary groups: 4 Official IRA members and 1 IPLO member.

Sunny Disposition

Marco23d wrote: »

You can't really say decent people joined up to loyalist paramilitaries as almost all their targets are Catholic civilians so if you join up to loyalist paramilitaries you know the game that's being played.

If you join up to the IRA it's different the vast majority of IRA killings were police and army and any civilians killed were mostly down to solo runs or people making big mistakes so you can't really compare.

Also loyalists could sign up to the UDR whereas if Catholics wanted to fight their only options were the IRA.

They did though, they were just young, naive and under the malign influence of encouragement from their community. No worse than the IRA killers. Of course a huge amount of the killers on both sides were scum through and through.
Terrible times, have to be wary it doesn’t happen again. Was back in Belfast last week for the first time in over a year, really don’t like the way things are going, it’s still nothing like when the Ttoubles began, but there is potential for a bad summer.

political analyst

Marco23d wrote: »

Nj

Why would the fact that it's a non-jury court make a difference to the trial's duration? Wouldn't the trial judge be hearing that case only for the duration of the trial?

wicklowstevo

Marco23d wrote: »

You can't really say decent people joined up to loyalist paramilitaries as almost all their targets are Catholic civilians so if you join up to loyalist paramilitaries you know the game that's being played.

If you join up to the IRA it's different the vast majority of IRA killings were police and army and any civilians killed were mostly down to solo runs or people making big mistakes so you can't really compare.

Also loyalists could sign up to the UDR whereas if Catholics wanted to fight their only options were the IRA.

thats obviously not true but you should know that but choose to tell a blatant lie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

i dont think that counts idiots who killed them selfs with crappy bombmaking and general stupidity

Marco23d

wicklowstevo wrote: »

thats obviously not true but you should know that but choose to tell a blatant lie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

i dont think that counts idiots who killed them selfs with crappy bombmaking and general stupidity

70% of PIRA killings were combatants sorry if that doesn't qualify as the vast majority for you but it's definitely not a "blatant lie"

The document, which was obtained under freedom of information legislation by the Pat Finucane center in 2007.

The document, which provides a fascinating insight into British army thinking and which is available from the Pat Finucane Centre website, illustrates that the British army had an a professional respect for the IRA.

It also illustrates that it saw that its "war" was against the IRA rather than against loyalist or other republican groups. Most of the paper's focus is on the IRA rather than loyalist organisations.

"PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe," the document states.

Loyalist paramilitaries "presented themselves as the protectors of the Protestant community but in practice were often little more than a collection of gangsters, a description which could also apply to a number of republican terrorists".

Marco23d

Marco23d wrote: »

70% of PIRA killings were combatants sorry if that doesn't qualify as the vast majority for you but it's definitely not a "blatant lie"

The document, which was obtained under freedom of information legislation by the Pat Finucane center in 2007.

The document, which provides a fascinating insight into British army thinking and which is available from the Pat Finucane Centre website, illustrates that the British army had an a professional respect for the IRA.

It also illustrates that it saw that its "war" was against the IRA rather than against loyalist or other republican groups. Most of the paper's focus is on the IRA rather than loyalist organisations.

"PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe," the document states.

Loyalist paramilitaries "presented themselves as the protectors of the Protestant community but in practice were often little more than a collection of gangsters, a description which could also apply to a number of republican terrorists".

is your next post going to be justifying bombing pubs and shopping centres as "Economic Warfare"?

That's usually what happens when people try to gloss over the atrocities the PIRA carried out.

Marco23d

Hh

wicklowstevo

Marco23d wrote: »

70% of PIRA killings were combatants sorry if that doesn't qualify as the vast majority for you but it's definitely not a "blatant lie"

The document, which was obtained under freedom of information legislation by the Pat Finucane center in 2007.

The document, which provides a fascinating insight into British army thinking and which is available from the Pat Finucane Centre website, illustrates that the British army had an a professional respect for the IRA.

It also illustrates that it saw that its "war" was against the IRA rather than against loyalist or other republican groups. Most of the paper's focus is on the IRA rather than loyalist organisations.

"PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe," the document states.

Loyalist paramilitaries "presented themselves as the protectors of the Protestant community but in practice were often little more than a collection of gangsters, a description which could also apply to a number of republican terrorists".

are you going to copy and paste everything from Wikipedia or the Pat Finucane center ?

or are you now admitting that the pira were a criminal terrorist organization ?

have you given up the fantasy that when the ira killed some one it was a heroic act against a imperialist oppressor's while when the brits shot back it was moving down civilians :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

wicklowstevo wrote: »

are you going to copy and paste everything from Wikipedia or the Pat Finucane center ?

or are you now admitting that the pira were a criminal terrorist organization ?

have you given up the fantasy that when the ira killed some one it was a heroic act against a imperialist oppressor's while when the brits shot back it was moving down civilians :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Even worse, they whinged about a "shoot to kill policy"! Erm...why else would you shoot at someone?

blanch152

Marco23d wrote: »

Them statistics don't show anything apart from people's religion.

According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), a research project at the University of Ulster, the IRA was responsible for 1,705 deaths, about 45% of the total conflict deaths. Of that figure:

1,009 (59.2%) were members or former members of the British security forces, including:

697 British military personnel: 644 from the British Army, 4 from the Royal Air Force, 1 from the Royal Navy, and 43 former British military personnel.

312 British law enforcement personnel:
270 Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers, 14 former RUC officers, 20 Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) officers, 2 former NIPS officers, and 6 English police officers.

508 (29%) were classed as civilians, including 17 political activists.

133 (7.8%) were members of the IRA, killed as informers or in premature explosions of bombs.[4]

39 (2.2%) were loyalist paramilitary members: 26 Ulster Defence Association (UDA) members, 12 Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) members and 1 Red Hand Commando (RHC) member.

8 (0.4%) were members of the Irish security forces, including 6 Gardaí, 1 Irish Prison Service officer, and 1 Irish Army
soldier.[4]

5 (0.2%) were members of other republican paramilitary groups: 4 Official IRA members and 1 IPLO member.

Your post actually destroys your whole argument.

I don't remember any submarines launching missiles at Catholics during the IRA terrorist campaign, so why were they killing Royal Navy personnel, except as a result of indiscriminate attacks? Ditto Royal Air Force, english police officers, gardai, prison officers etc. None of them were in "active service" against the PIRA.

Snickers Man

Some of the sloganeering posts here are so devoid of detail and historical accuracy that their authors should piss off to Twitter where they belong. If all you've got is a soundbite (with all its bias, obfuscation, splenetic power and unintelligence) then take it to the Social Medium that lauds such activity.

No Twitter Twats here!!!

Now then. Bringing some perspective to it.

Joe McCann was not in "the IRA" as we know them to be nowadays. IE he was not in the Republican Movement of Gerry Adams/Gerry Kelly/Martin McGuinness or its more fragrantly presentable modern spokespeople like Mary Loo or Pearse Doherty. He was in the Officials, a supporter of the left wing ideologues who had moved the Republican Movement into a materialist socialist direction in keeping with the international zeitgeist of the 1960s and had "analysed" the situation in northern Ireland in pure class politics terms.

In modern parlance, they had identified the situation in the Orange State of being an example of internationalist capitalist exploitation of the working class using the tactic of divide and rule. The Orange Card was played to keep the loyalty of the Protestant working class by offering them the spoils of religious discrimination: job security, all-class solidarity, triumphalism and an identity (however spurious) with the achievements of GREAT Great Britain.

Meanwhile they were really only coming out with tuppence ha'penny but they could look down with justified scorn on the Catholics who only had tuppence. And that was being paid for out of Protestant taxes because, hey, Catholics were only good for sponging off Protestant welfare.

Making the working class in its totality realise that they were being played by The Man (ie the Bourgoisie/international capitalism/Tories) would be the key to setting off the revolution. The Border was an issue only in as much as the establishment of an Irish Republic offered the potential of "intersectionality" between class politics and a state that enshrined that politics.

Anything else was merely Indulgent Identity Politics and a distraction from the main class struggle. Surely the "protestant and catholic working man" (to quote the famous eponymous song of Joe McCann's life) could see the trap that was being set for them?

Well, yes and no. Those who decry "Identity Politics" are blissfully ignorant of the need for human beings to want to "identify" with others at some level be it ethnic, social, racial, religious, sexual or some other.

When the Civil Rights agitation of the late 60s inevitably sundered into a straightforward sectarian based hostility, the "Official" republican movement was left holding an ideology that was being disproved by the reality all around them. Nobody cared whether the mobs storming into Bombay Street were the "pathetic lackeys of international capitalism"; it was far easier to identify them as The Prods or the Jaffas. They had to be resisted. Little wonder then that the Republican movement split into the Officials who were trying to keep their faith with a discredited ideology and the Provisionals who just wanted to shoot back and keep shooting.

McCann and his ilk were vehemently hostile to sectarianism. He was known to have released two UVF men who had wandered inadvertently into the Catholic Markets area one night, having been satisfied after interrogating them that they were not there with malevolent intent. On another occasion two Protestants drinking in a Catholic bar were apprehended with the Officials taking charge of one and the Provos the other. The former was released after questioning; the latter was found the next morning with a bullet in his head.

Such activities, regardless of his acknowledged actions against the Army, led to McCann earning a respect among his Loyalist contemporaries that might seem quaint today. Not least because at least some of the Official left-wing ideology resonated with them. The late David Ervine, once of the Long Kesh cages and later of the pro-GFA Progressive Unionist Party (political wing of the UVF) was in no doubt that the continuance of the Troubles was a dead end for the Protestant working class.

Such respect culminated in one of the most remarkable communications of the Troubles, namely the letter written by Gusty Spence, UVF commander and convicted sectarian murderer, to Joe McCann's widow following his death. It is quoted verbatim in a book about sectarian murders in Northern Ireland written in the early 1970s by Martin Dillon (no provo apologist he) and Denis Lehane, both at the time journalists on the Belfast Telegraph.

"My dear Mrs McCann,
I would like to tender to you my deepest and profoundest sympathy on the tragic death of your beloved husband Joe.
There are those who would find it strange to hear from someone such as myself but I can assure you that whilst your husband and I may have been opposed to each other in politics we shared that common bond that is known only to those who fight their own respective corners to the best of their ability. He was a soldier of the Republic and I a Volunteer of Ulster and we made no apology for being what we are or were.
Joe once did me a good turn indirectly [see above] and I never forgot him for his humanity and even though I never got the chance to thank him personally I am almost sure that he knew how I felt and that I was grateful to him.
In such circumstances, my inept words are little comfort to you but if you believe that these words are from the bottom of my heart it may go some little way to enabling you to understand them. ....
I salute your husband as an honourable and brave soldier.

Very sincerely and truly,
Gusty Spence

wicklowstevo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Even worse, they whinged about a "shoot to kill policy"! Erm...why else would you shoot at someone?

i suppose it could be down to the lack of training ?

a lot easier to shoot some one in the back of the head on waste ground or a beach or drop a bomb in a bin on a busy street

Shebean

Doesn't matter if he was JFK or Osama Bin Laden, the issue is were the British Army paras right to shoot him in the back killing him as he fled unarmed?
If we are to hold the BA to a standard then there should be accountability for not meeting that standard. Otherwise the only difference between the IRA, (any version) and the BA is their allegiances.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Your post actually destroys your whole argument.

I don't remember any submarines launching missiles at Catholics during the IRA terrorist campaign, so why were they killing Royal Navy personnel, except as a result of indiscriminate attacks? Ditto Royal Air Force, english police officers, gardai, prison officers etc. None of them were in "active service" against the PIRA.

Stop being obtuse please. Crown forces were targeted as part of the British military. And what the jaysus does this have to do with the OP?

Stovepipe

"Crown forces" was selectively extended to include judges/policemen/politicians/lawyers and even a dog warden. None,bar the last, were active military soldiers or even reservists. At least a soldier has an active chance of defending himself.

Timberrrrrrrr

Stovepipe wrote: »

"Crown forces" was selectively extended to include judges/policemen/politicians/lawyers and even a dog warden. None,bar the last, were active military soldiers or even reservists. At least a soldier has an active chance of defending himself.

And by default anyone who was just trying to earn a living was also a target, a milkman was used as a proxy bomb but hey...Great bunch of lads altogether.

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Even worse, they whinged about a "shoot to kill policy"! Erm...why else would you shoot at someone?

the policy was about shooting unarmed civilians because they were irish, so yes we absolutely complain about shoot to kill.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

the policy was about shooting unarmed civilians because they were irish, so yes we absolutely complain about shoot to kill.

Wrong as usual EOTR

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland

were accused by Republicans of operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy, under which suspected terrorists were alleged to have been deliberately killed without any attempt to arrest them. Such a policy was alleged to have been directed almost exclusively at suspected or actual members of Irish republican paramilitary groups. 

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wrong as usual EOTR

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland

it was a policy to specifically target civilians, but did get used from time to time in relation to suspected republican soldiers who realistically were not such unless they were proven to be in a court of law or admitted to it.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

it was a policy to specifically target civilians, but did get used from time to time in relation to suspected republican soldiers who realistically were not such unless they were proven to be in a court of law or admitted to it.

I'm sure you will have no trouble showing proof for this claim then?

Galwayguy35

This Johnny Mercer fella seems to show up at all the court cases defending these soldiers, he wants the British government to offer them protection no matter what they did in the North.

political analyst

Stovepipe wrote: »

"Crown forces" was selectively extended to include judges/policemen/politicians/lawyers and even a dog warden. None,bar the last, were active military soldiers or even reservists. At least a soldier has an active chance of defending himself.

I didn't know that a dog warden was targeted during the Troubles.

indioblack

Shebean wrote: »

Doesn't matter if he was JFK or Osama Bin Laden, the issue is were the British Army paras right to shoot him in the back killing him as he fled unarmed?
If we are to hold the BA to a standard then there should be accountability for not meeting that standard. Otherwise the only difference between the IRA, (any version) and the BA is their allegiances.

To what standard do we hold the gunman to? A gunman probably feels that he is not bound by the same rules that his adversary is expected to follow.
Are standards of behaviour absolutes?
What is the situation regarding a person known to have access to weaponry, yet is unarmed at a particular moment? Is he to be regarded as an ordinary citizen, [someone that he would not consider himself to be], and taken into custody? He then attempts to flee arrest. Should he be pursued, with the opportunity to escape - or does the potential threat that he may pose in the future require that he be shot at?

Marco23d

Stovepipe wrote: »

"Crown forces" was selectively extended to include judges/policemen/politicians/lawyers and even a dog warden. None,bar the last, were active military soldiers or even reservists. At least a soldier has an active chance of defending himself.

I don't see anything at all wrong with the targeting of politicians or judges.

The IRA also went after the top tier, they didn't want to just target the dogs they sent out onto the streets they also went after the ones who put them and keep them there.

It was routine for British politicians to check under their car for car bombs every time they used it.