Soldier F

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How predictable again.

No comment on the topic but you arrive to have a go at a poster.

How is pointing out that you are wrong now considered "having a go" at a poster?

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How is pointing out that you are wrong now considered "having a go" at a poster?

You made NO comment on the topic of the thread and called me out for not doing something that has nothing to do with the thread.

Your desire to get at me was bigger than your desire to comment on the topic. Weird tbh.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You made NO comment on the topic of the thread and called me out for not doing something that has nothing to do with the thread.

Your desire to get at me was bigger than your desire to comment on the topic. Weird tbh.

You told a lie, I corrected you.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You told a lie, I corrected you.

Who is allowed to kill civilians because they have come under attack elsewhere?

And why does that vindicate what happened n Bloody Sunday which the British government has accepted was wrong and a crime?

How is over 40 years of whitewashing and avoiding of delivering justice right for a state to be involved in.

Do you think a state should be held to a higher account than paramilitaries or are they allowed to behave in the same way as paramilitaries if it suits them. I.E. DO you think it fundamentally important for the future to establish that distinction or are you happy to allow them behave to the same standard.

The answering of those questions might help keep you on topic.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is allowed to kill civilians because they have come under attack elsewhere?

And why does that vindicate what happened n Bloody Sunday which the British government has accepted was wrong and a crime?

How is over 40 years of whitewashing and avoiding of delivering justice right for a state to be involved in.

Do you think a state should be held to a higher account than paramilitaries or are they allowed to behave in the same way as paramilitaries if it suits them. I.E. DO you think it fundamentally important for the future to establish that distinction or are you happy to allow them behave to the same standard.

The answering of those questions might help keep you on topic.

America? Israel?

As I said, you told I lie and I was just correcting you, no need to get upset over it.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

America? Israel?

As I said, you told I lie and I was just correcting you, no need to get upset over it.

They kill civilians Timberrrrr, are you saying it's allowed/right to do that?

Does it excuse the British here...what are you saying bar having a cheap snipe at a poster?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We get it. You think the State is the same as paramilitaries.

Paramilitaries who were caught faced the full force of the law, something you also seem to ignore.

Criminals are criminals no matter who they are.

We have been over this ground with you many many times before, and you refuse to accept the realities and the reasonable sensible perspective.

Some of the actions of the British Army were criminal, others were completely justifiable on the basis of the democratic legitimacy of State security forces. I am not going down the road of discussing which were and which weren't with you, as that only opens up another rabbit-hole to a warren of whataboutery and dissembling.

All of the actions of the PIRA were criminal. No ifs, buts or maybes to that.

All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments.


P.S. Your last sentence is another full-blown lie, one of hundreds that you have peddled on this site, all in the cause of defending criminality, because even the paramilitaries who were caught were released early under the GFA.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

P.S. Your last sentence is another full-blown lie, one of hundreds that you have peddled on this site, all in the cause of defending criminality, because even the paramilitaries who were caught were released early under the GFA.

If the last sentence is a lie. Explain how.

*You tell your consistent lies in the rest of your post in order to attack me. I have never condoned the actions of paramilitaries and my position is that what happened here was wrong from the very beginning.
The state ignoring it's responsibilities and becoming a player in the conflict/war and shoring up a sectarian bigoted statelet, being a major contributory part of that wrong. Bloody Sunday was one instance of that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the last sentence is a lie. Explain how.

*You tell your consistent lies in the rest of your post in order to attack me. I have never condoned the actions of paramilitaries and my position is that what happened here was wrong from the very beginning.
The state ignoring it's responsibilities and becoming a player in the conflict/war and shoring up a sectarian bigoted statelet, being a major contributory part of that wrong. Bloody Sunday was one instance of that.

You said that those paramilitaries who were caught faced the full force of the law. They didn't, they got an amnesty, they got early release. Stop with the lies and propaganda and accept the truth.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You said that those paramilitaries who were caught faced the full force of the law. They didn't, they got an amnesty, they got early release. Stop with the lies and propaganda and accept the truth.

Yes, an agreed amnesty AFTER they had faced the full force of the law, were found guilty and sentenced. Nobody outside prison got an 'amnesty'. You are once again mis-informed, willfully or otherwise.

No lie.

Do you think, like Unionists, that the state should also receive an amnesty?

Miniegg

blanch152 wrote:

P.S. Your last sentence is another full-blown lie, one of hundreds that you have peddled on this site, all in the cause of defending criminality, because even the paramilitaries who were caught were released early under the GFA.

blanch152 wrote:

P.S. Your last sentence is another full-blown lie, one of hundreds that you have peddled on this site, all in the cause of defending criminality, because even the paramilitaries who were caught were released early under the GFA.

blanch152 wrote:

All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments.

blanch152 wrote:

All of the actions of the PIRA were criminal. No ifs, buts or maybes to that.

blanch152 wrote:

Some of the actions of the British Army were criminal, others were completely justifiable on the basis of the democratic legitimacy of State security forces. I am not going down the road of discussing which were and which weren't with you, as that only opens up another rabbit-hole to a warren of whataboutery and dissembling.

blanch152 wrote:

We have been over this ground with you many many times before, and you refuse to accept the realities and the reasonable sensible perspective.

Do you accept that the people killed on Bloody Sunday (and at Ballymurphy) were innocent British?

Do you think the British government should have the right to murder its own innocent citizens?
Do you think it is OK for the British government to cover up the murders, and to smear the victims?
Do you think it is OK for the British government to shield a murderer of innocent British citizens (who acted in the government's name) from prosecution.

Anything else being mentioned here is deflection and irrelevant, and a tacit acknowledgement that the above is acceptable.

blanch152

Miniegg wrote: »

Do you accept that the people killed on Bloody Sunday (and at Ballymurphy) were innocent British?

Do you think the British government should have the right to murder its own innocent citizens?
Do you think it is OK for the British government to cover up the murders, and to smear the victims?
Do you think it is OK for the British government to shield a murderer of innocent British citizens (who acted in the government's name) from prosecution.

Anything else being mentioned here is deflection and irrelevant, and a tacit acknowledgement that the above is acceptable.

Only correcting inaccurate statements of others.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, an agreed amnesty AFTER they had faced the full force of the law, were found guilty and sentenced. Nobody outside prison got an 'amnesty'. You are once again mis-informed, willfully or otherwise.

No lie.

Do you think, like Unionists, that the state should also receive an amnesty?

Which bit of they didn't get to serve their full sentences means that they are not facing the full force of the law do you not understand? Here, mass murderer, you are facing the full force of the law but we are letting you out after 1 year instead of 40, but you faced the full force of the law. That is nonsense.

As to your second question, again which bit of "All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments" which I posted earlier, do you not understand?

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

You said that those paramilitaries who were caught faced the full force of the law. They didn't, they got an amnesty, they got early release. Stop with the lies and propaganda and accept the truth.

That's funny B. The person who did this:

Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.

Never had the chance to be released as he never seen jail. His victims, unlike those of the Birmingham pub bomber were accused of being in the IRA and deserving it. The British state gave Dave Cleary (soldier F) medals for participating in armed conflict in Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of they didn't get to serve their full sentences means that they are not facing the full force of the law do you not understand? Here, mass murderer, you are facing the full force of the law but we are letting you out after 1 year instead of 40, but you faced the full force of the law. That is nonsense.

As to your second question, again which bit of "All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments" which I posted earlier, do you not understand?

They FACED the full force of the law when caught. NO LIE. If you want to discuss what happened after that...legally and within the law incidentally - that is a different matter and DOES NOT vindicate the British state which is your prime and sick motive to be on this thread.


I'll rephrase the question you are too cowardly to answer without pointing elsewhere.



Is the state above paramilitaries or the same?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When will the Irish government vociferously call them out on this - 'reasonable prospects' on a postcard please.

I'm taking a guess that this was probably a rhetorical question, but giving it an honest answer - never.

Reason being the Irish government is the biggest Unionist party on the entire island regardless of what flavours make them up on whatever particular day. Like it or lump it.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's funny B. The person who did this:



Never had the chance to be released as he never seen jail. His victims, unlike those of the Birmingham pub bomber were accused of being in the IRA and deserving it. The British state gave Dave Cleary (soldier F) medals for participating in armed conflict in Northern Ireland.

There are 3 groups interested in vindicating what happened on Bloody Sunday for their own and crossover reasons:
The British Establishment/Government
Irish Unionists
Irish partitionists.

You can see two of those groups operating their 'look over there' dilution and excusing on this thread.

With the British intent on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR and operating at time akin to a rogue nation, now more than ever, it is important to establish the principle that the state is held to higher account than transitory paramilitary groups.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They kill civilians Timberrrrr, are you saying it's allowed/right to do that?

Does it excuse the British here...what are you saying bar having a cheap snipe at a poster?

Have they been bought to task for it? Of course I'm not saying it's right, I've already made my thoughts clear on this but you already know that.

ec18

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Did none of the victims hold Irish passports ?

Frankie Machine wrote: »

The point of my asking the question was the assertion that...



... which in technically not true anyway.

If any of the victims were Irish passport holders, then it certainly has a lot to do with the Irish government.

johnsae2231 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, sad to think there are many privileged snobs like this still around with attitudes like that.

Back then all of Ireland was claimed by the republic of Ireland, which in effect made us occupied, innocent Irish teenagers killed in occupied territory by a foreign army.

How could you say it has nothing do with the Irish government you clearly have no idea how big a deal bloody Sunday was in the republic, the 26 counties came to standstill for days the biggest protests in europe since WW2 were going on.

to be clear. I don't condone the action and believe that they should be prosecuted for their actions.

However Britain murdering it's own citizens is a problem for them, not a quagmire that the the republic should wade into willingly.

I don't appreciate being called a snob for having a different viewpoint from you. The only people that truly believe the part highlighted above are SF/IRA sympathisers

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Have they been bought to task for it? Of course I'm not saying it's right, I've already made my thoughts clear on this but you already know that.

Your first post on this thread was to have a go at me.

I said it was not allowed for States under attack to kill civilians.

You haven't clarified if you think that should be the case. NOTE: I said nothing about States been 'taken to task' for doing it.

FrancieBrady

ec18 wrote: »

to be clear. I don't condone the action and believe that they should be prosecuted for their actions.

However Britain murdering it's own citizens is a problem for them, not a quagmire that the the republic should wade into willingly.

I don't appreciate being called a snob for having a different viewpoint from you. The only people that truly believe the part highlighted above are SF/IRA sympathisers

Bull.

There is onus on Ireland under the GFA.

End of discussion about responsibilities.

political analyst

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are 3 groups interested in vindicating what happened on Bloody Sunday for their own and crossover reasons:
The British Establishment/Government
Irish Unionists
Irish partitionists.

You can see two of those groups operating their 'look over there' dilution and excusing on this thread.

With the British intent on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR and operating at time akin to a rogue nation, now more than ever, it is important to establish the principle that the state is held to higher account than transitory paramilitary groups.

They're not. Britain is not leaving the Council of Europe, which was founded shortly after World War 2.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They FACED the full force of the law when caught. NO LIE. If you want to discuss what happened after that...legally and within the law incidentally - that is a different matter and DOES NOT vindicate the British state which is your prime and sick motive to be on this thread.

Now you are saying that something which happens legally and within the law is perfectly ok. So when the charges are dropped against soldiers, by that logic, those soldiers are completely innocent and there was no crime on Bloody Sunday. That is your twisted logic.

Let me be absolutely clear. Crimes were committed on Bloody Sunday and those responsible should be brought to justice. However, I will not single out those victims for special treatment. All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments.

Bloody Sunday was wrong, every single thing the PIRA did was wrong, the amnesty was wrong, the prisoner releases were wrong, the failures to prosecute were wrong. You may argue that some of the measures were required to stop the PIRA killing their own people (just like the man being persuaded to stop beating his wife) but that doesn't mean those measures were right, they were still wrong.

Finally, if you are happy with things that are done legally and within the law, can you confirm that you are happy about every case where it was decided that a killing by a British soldier was done legally and within the law.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll rephrase the question you are too cowardly to answer without pointing elsewhere.



Is the state above paramilitaries or the same?

You continually rephrase questions to create rhetorical questions to get the answer you want or to portray another poster as something they aren't. It is a pathetically transparent low-level desperate debating tactic. Once again I will repeat my opinion on the issue for you.

All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments.

Not a single decent person would have an issue with what I have said. It answers all questions. Some may disagree - they may favour amnesties for sickening terrorist crimes, for example - but that doesn't take away from the clear unambiguous opinion I have given.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are 3 groups interested in vindicating what happened on Bloody Sunday for their own and crossover reasons:
The British Establishment/Government
Irish Unionists
Irish partitionists.

You can see two of those groups operating their 'look over there' dilution and excusing on this thread.

With the British intent on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR and operating at time akin to a rogue nation, now more than ever, it is important to establish the principle that the state is held to higher account than transitory paramilitary groups.

More peddling of lies.

johnsae2231

26 Innocent Irish men and boys shot and 2 ran down by British Army vehicles in occupied territory 14 people dead, any decent Irish person would find this more abhorrent than any killings by loyalists or Republicans as it was commited by a foreign army occupying our land and the killers were then decorated by the Queen for their "good work".

For the eneducated people on here who will be thinking "we were not occupied" Article 2 of our constitution at the time said

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

The partition of our island was done against the will of the vast majority of the people of Ireland under the threat of "immediate and terrible war".

johnsae2231

ec18 wrote: »

to be clear. I don't condone the action and believe that they should be prosecuted for their actions.

However Britain murdering it's own citizens is a problem for them, not a quagmire that the the republic should wade into willingly.

I don't appreciate being called a snob for having a different viewpoint from you. The only people that truly believe the part highlighted above are SF/IRA sympathisers

There's a wind up, what exactly do you not believe about the part highlighted above?

blanch152

johnsae2231 wrote: »

26 Innocent Irish men and boys shot and 2 ran down by British Army vehicles in occupied territory 14 people dead, any decent Irish person would find this more abhorrent than any killings by loyalists or Republicans as it was commited by a foreign army occupying our land and the killers were then decorated by the Queen for their "good work".

For the eneducated people on here who will be thinking "we were not occupied" Article 2 of our constitution at the time said

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

The partition of our island was done against the will of the vast majority of the people of Ireland under the threat of "immediate and terrible war".

We are now fully back to 19th century thinking.

johnsae2231

blanch152 wrote: »

We are now fully back to 19th century thinking.

How exactly?

Do you look back at all periods of history by looking at how things are now in 2021?

Northern Irelnad back then was not accepted back then by the vast majority of people in Ireland, Ireland was more occupied then in the 70s than Ireland had been in hundreds of years, support for British Rule in Ireland was at the lowest point then as it had ever been

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

More peddling of lies.

More peddling and refusal to answer the question.

Is the 'state' to be held to the same standard as a paramilitary force?

Yes or no will do blanch.

So far, apart from the vitriol because somebody has a different opinion, you have only managed to say they are the same.

We know all crime must be prosecuted by the way, so no need to point that out again. Just deal with the premise you are being asked about.

johnsae2231

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More peddling and refusal to answer the question.

Is the 'state' to be held to the same standard as a paramilitary force?

Yes or no will do blanch.

So far, apart from the vitriol because somebody has a different opinion, you have only managed to say they are the same.

We know all crime must be prosecuted by the way, so no need to point that out again. Just deal with the premise you are being asked about.

In the bigger picture of things at the time which many on this thread are uneducated on, bloody sunday was a small crime part of a far bigger crime, the illegal occupation of part of Ireland as per our constitution.