Ex paratroopers deny murder of Joe McCann

beauf

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.

Maybe you should have a game of who shot the most civilians or innocents maybe with a slider for personal bias.

corner of hells

Marco23d wrote: »

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.

While you're talking through your bollux there ,have a read of the attempt to murder a judge called Tom Travers , tell us what you think of the IRA trying to kill not just him , his wife and managing to murder his daughter.

Marco23d

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

In the mid 1980s, the FRU recruited Brian Nelson as a double agent inside the Ulster Defence Association (UDA). The UDA was a legal Ulster loyalist paramilitary group that had been involved in hundreds of attacks on Catholic and nationalist civilians, as well as a handful on republican paramilitaries.

The FRU helped Nelson become the UDA's chief intelligence officer In 1988, weapons were shipped to loyalists from South Africa under Nelson's supervision.[Through Nelson, the FRU helped the UDA to target people for assassination. FRU commanders say their plan was to make the UDA "more professional" by helping it to kill republican activists and prevent it from killing uninvolved Catholic civilians, They say if someone was under threat, agents like Nelson were to inform the FRU, who were then to alert the police. Gordon Kerr, who ran the FRU from 1987 to 1991, claimed Nelson and the FRU saved over 200 lives in this way. However, the Stevens Inquiries found evidence that only two lives were saved and said many loyalist attacks could have been prevented but were allowed to go ahead.

The Stevens team found evidence that Nelson was responsible for at least 30 murders and many other attacks, and that most of the victims were uninvolved civilians.

During the Stevens inquiry in the 90s they arrested around 250 top loyalist paramilitary members, all but 4 of them were working for the intelligence services.

Many journalists, former MI5 leaders, FRU leaders and historians believe/know that loyalist paramilitaries by the mid 70s were almost under complete control by MI5/MI6.

This is just one example I could provide you with endless other examples if you so wish.

Marco23d

indioblack wrote: »

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?

Of course they don't feel bound by the same rules the other side is supposed to follow, what are they supposed to do go over to heavily armed soldiers with tanks, armoured cars and most of the time travelling by the dozens place them under arrest and lock them up in a house on the falls road?

indioblack

Marco23d wrote: »

Of course they don't feel bound by the same rules the other side is supposed to follow, what are they supposed to do go over to heavily armed soldiers with tanks, armoured cars and most of the time travelling by the dozens place them under arrest and lock them up in a house on the falls road?

Indeed - and there is the contradiction.
As for what were they supposed to do - in the mid 1970's I considered a continuation of their campaign would be counter-productive.

Marco23d

indioblack wrote: »

Indeed - and there is the contradiction.
As for what were they supposed to do - in the mid 1970's I considered a continuation of their campaign would be counter-productive.

What is the contradiction you are talking about?

beauf

Marco23d wrote: »

Of course they don't feel bound by the same rules the other side is supposed to follow, ...

The likely consequence of one side not following the "rules" is that other side is likely not to follow the "rules" either.

Its laying it on a bit thick half a century later to go, "..but..but...but the rules"

Of course if you think the other side isn't legitimate, then exactly what rules are legitimate. If one side thinks they can't win following the rules, then perhaps both sides think the same.

Its not so much which side is right. But perhaps both sides might be wrong.

Marco23d

beauf wrote: »

The likely consequence of one side not following the "rules" is that other side is likely not to follow the "rules" either.

Its laying it on a bit thick half a century later to go, "..but..but...but the rules"

Of course if you think the other side isn't legitimate, then exactly what rules are legitimate. If one side thinks they can't win following the rules, then perhaps both sides think the same.

Its not so much which side is right. But perhaps both sides might be wrong.

The struggle for Irish independence has always been legitimate in my eyes.

The ownership of Ireland for the people of Ireland, not a lot to ask for.

beauf

Marco23d wrote: »

The struggle for Irish independence has always been legitimate in my eyes....

If you seek the application of a rule of law that you believe is illegitimate that kinda recognizance's the authority of that rule of law. Isn't that counter productive.

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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

"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?"

There's your entire post in all its glory, given that it doesn't change the question asked, nor the answer given, I'm not sure what you think it achieves.

Yes, I deliberately quoted what I took to be the most pertinent part of your post, forgive me, please.

Why did I feel the need to answer a question posed in response to a post of mine? If you wish a specific user that's not me to answer a question you should probably have quoted them, and not me.

Have a day off.

beauf

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

... or he was a civilian that had thrown his gun away....

Throwing your gun away does not make you a civilian. It's makes you unarmed. If you target unarmed people and/or civilians is not unlikely the same will happen to you. That applies to which whichever side is doing it.

Does it make any of it right? no. It's all wrong.

Marco23d

beauf wrote: »

Throwing your gun away does not make you a civilian. It's makes you unarmed. If you target unarmed people and/or civilians is not unlikely the same will happen to you. That applies to which whichever side is doing it.

Does it make any of it right? no. It's all wrong.

He didn't even throw his gun away he had not taken part in any violent acts that day.

He was recognised by an army patrol chased and gunned down.

indioblack

Marco23d wrote: »

What is the contradiction you are talking about?

Difference would have been a better word.
The state having an obligation to behave within set limits, [an expectation not always achieved, as is well known], and an opposing force choosing not to be bound by those limits to further it's own aims.
In this case the advantage of anonymity was lost, the man sought to avoid arrest and was shot.
Why shoot an unarmed civilian? What danger did he pose? As an apprehended civilian, none. If he had evaded arrest - well, I don't suppose he would have abandoned the possibility of further "active duty".
What danger he may have posed in the future and the method of his killing has already been mentioned in earlier posts.

beauf

Marco23d wrote: »

He didn't even throw his gun away he had not taken part in any violent acts that day.

He was recognised by an army patrol chased and gunned down.

I'm not sure either side had the concept of a "day off".

political analyst

There was no report on the trial yesterday or today so far. Why the scarcity of information?

Marco23d

indioblack wrote: »

Difference would have been a better word.
The state having an obligation to behave within set limits, [an expectation not always achieved, as is well known], and an opposing force choosing not to be bound by those limits to further it's own aims.
In this case the advantage of anonymity was lost, the man sought to avoid arrest and was shot.
Why shoot an unarmed civilian? What danger did he pose? As an apprehended civilian, none. If he had evaded arrest - well, I don't suppose he would have abandoned the possibility of further "active duty".
What danger he may have posed in the future and the method of his killing has already been mentioned in earlier posts.

They are not "choosing not to be bound by those limits" it is simply impossible for the smaller and weaker force to bound themselves by the limits of laws made for two sides of equal strength at war with eachother.

Same thing with any guerilla war (Irish war of independence being an example) the old IRA did not take British soldiers as prisoners as it was simply not possible.

Marco23d

Marco23d wrote: »

They are not "choosing not to be bound by those limits" it is simply impossible for the smaller and weaker force to bound themselves by the limits of laws made for two sides of equal strength at war with eachother.

Same thing with any guerilla war (Irish war of independence being an example) the old IRA did not take British soldiers as prisoners as it was simply not possible.

The last I heard they had found no new or compelling evidence.

There is no point in locking these people up it's ridiculous to be bringing this up all this time later.

The only thing that matters now is the truth for the families of all the victims as the McCann family said "we just want the truth not retribution" but the British government has always refused a truth and reconciliation process because they are the only ones who have anything to lose while Loyalists have nothing to lose and republicans would likely gain from it in relation to collusion and false flag terrorism.

political analyst

Marco23d wrote: »

The last I heard they had found no new or compelling evidence.

There is no point in locking these people up it's ridiculous to be bringing this up all this time later.

The only thing that matters now is the truth for the families of all the victims as the McCann family said "we just want the truth not retribution" but the British government has always refused a truth and reconciliation process because they are the only ones who have anything to lose while Loyalists have nothing to lose and republicans would likely gain from it in relation to collusion and false flag terrorism.

Wouldn't that process mean that Adams would have to row back on his denial of being a Provo?

Marco23d

political analyst wrote: »

Wouldn't that process mean that Adams would have to row back on his denial of being a Provo?

I'm sure he would be more than happy to do so in a truth and reconciliation process.

knucklehead6

Marco23d wrote: »

I'm sure he would be more than happy to do so in a truth and reconciliation process.

not a chance. That ficker will be lieing through his teeth at the pearly gates/the portal to Hades

wicklowstevo

Marco23d wrote: »

I'm sure he would be more than happy to do so in a truth and reconciliation process.

after all those years and all those lies ?

wouldn't that be something

political analyst

The voir dire process is ongoing, according to this article from earlier this week.



https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2021-04-27/no-new-or-compelling-evidence-found-in-legacy-probe-into-joe-mccann-shooting

corner of hells

Marco23d wrote: »

I'm sure he would be more than happy to do so in a truth and reconciliation process.

"Adams would be happy to admit being provo ?

All his political life he has sought credibility on a world political stage and to admit to being in the IRA now would undo any shred of credibility he has.

beauf

Marco23d wrote: »

They are not "choosing not to be bound by those limits" it is simply impossible for the smaller and weaker force to bound themselves by the limits of laws made for two sides of equal strength at war with eachother.

Same thing with any guerilla war (Irish war of independence being an example) the old IRA did not take British soldiers as prisoners as it was simply not possible.

All comes down to the same thing, you can decided you want rules when its suits you. The opponent can do exactly the same thing.

Contrary to some terrorist groups, guerrillas usually work in open positions as armed units, try to hold and seize land, do not refrain from fighting enemy military force in battle and usually apply pressure to control or dominate territory and population. While the primary concern of guerrillas is the enemy's active military units, terrorists largely are concerned with non-military agents and target mostly civilians. Guerrilla forces principally fight in accordance with the law of war (jus in bello). In this sense, they respect the rights of innocent civilians by refraining from targeting them

Seems like if you decide not to fight by any rules, and target civilians and the unarmed, you can hardly complain if your opponent copies you.

So if half a century later you cant't claim, the other side should be punished for not following the rules that you didn't abide by either, moreover that you never believed were legitimate anyway.

Unless of course you're now claiming those rules were legitimate and both sides should be punished where they didn't follow them.

indioblack

Marco23d wrote: »

They are not "choosing not to be bound by those limits" it is simply impossible for the smaller and weaker force to bound themselves by the limits of laws made for two sides of equal strength at war with eachother.

Same thing with any guerilla war (Irish war of independence being an example) the old IRA did not take British soldiers as prisoners as it was simply not possible.

Nevertheless it was a choice made. A chosen course of action.

beauf

corner of hells wrote: »

"Adams would be happy to admit being provo ?

All his political life he has sought credibility on a world political stage and to admit to being in the IRA now would undo any shred of credibility he has.

Was he ever "credible" though really. It doesn't matter either way but its a meme at this stage.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gerry+adams+Meme&sxsrf=ALeKk02oTLGTQ6b3HoXHVFLzyvbP16VBdg:1619703888613&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU5K-Xy6PwAhWDVRUIHVa_CzwQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=2133&bih=1041

end of the road

political analyst wrote: »

Wouldn't that process mean that Adams would have to row back on his denial of being a Provo?

he wouldn't have to roll back on anything, because as it stands he was never a member of the IRA.
that is what he says and he has not been put on trial for being a member, so therefore he is innocent and would have to roll back on nothing.

beauf

indioblack wrote: »

Nevertheless it was a choice made. A chosen course of action.

"...In a fair fight, I'd win....Well, then that's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?..."

...says both sides...

end of the road

beauf wrote: »

All comes down to the same thing, you can decided you want rules when its suits you. The opponent can do exactly the same thing.



Seems like if you decide not to fight by any rules, and target civilians and the unarmed, you can hardly complain if your opponent copies you.

So if half a century later you cant't claim, the other side should be punished for not following the rules that you didn't abide by either, moreover that you never believed were legitimate anyway.

Unless of course you're now claiming those rules were legitimate and both sides should be punished where they didn't follow them.

however where that opponent is a state, them deciding they want no rules is illegal and when they engage in such, they legitimize the forces they are fighting against.
forces of the state are agents of the state, therefore when they do something wrong they have to be punished, whatever the other side does or did does not negate that reality.

beauf

end of the road wrote: »

he wouldn't have to roll back on anything, because as it stands he was never a member of the IRA.
that is what he says and he has not been put on trial for being a member, so therefore he is innocent and would have to roll back on nothing.

We don't know he was never a member.
We do know no one has proved he was a member.
We do know he says he was never a member.