Ex paratroopers deny murder of Joe McCann

Stihl waters

Bass Reeves wrote: »

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 hand up when challenged.

The para did not shoot the wrong 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

I would agree he was fair game in the same way they were fair game when he shot and killed 15 British soldiers, it works both ways, I dont condone the killing of unarmed innocents but British and Irish combatants in northern Ireland had to accept it was a risk they took when engaging in hostilities, the soldiers deserved it imo and to call him murdering scum is simplistic, they all should have been good little paddys and let the mighty brits run riot around the place. If you put on the uniform of a foreign occupation you deserve the welcome you get

Timberrrrrrrr

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.

Imagine for a moment gardai were searching for a known islamist who is known to have killed before, they see him and he runs....should the guards shoot him or risk death themselves? What if he has a weapon hidden? What if he has a bomb vest on?

Marco23d

Here's the picture mentioned in the OP.

Marco23d

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Imagine for a moment gardai were searching for a known islamist who is known to have killed before, they see him and he runs....should the guards shoot him or risk death themselves? What if he has a weapon hidden? What if he has a bomb vest on?

In terms of my opinion or in terms of the law?

Timberrrrrrrr

Marco23d wrote: »

In terms of my opinion or in terms of the law?

Either/both.

realdanbreen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Imagine for a moment gardai were searching for a known islamist who is known to have killed before, they see him and he runs....should the guards shoot him or risk death themselves? What if he has a weapon hidden? What if he has a bomb vest on?

But the gardai would be operating on Irish soil.

Timberrrrrrrr

realdanbreen wrote: »

But the gardai would be operating on Irish soil.

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?

realdanbreen

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?

But the IRA don't recognise the 6 counties as British, that's the whole point!i

Timberrrrrrrr

realdanbreen wrote: »

But the IRA don't recognise the 6 counties as British, that's the whole point!i

Irrelevant to the question I asked, should the guards arrest or shoot?

Stihl waters

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?

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

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.

Yakov P. Golyadkin

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.