British Army/Government Accountability in Ireland?

Horeb

1.) These Soldiers are Human not Robo Soldier they Make Mistakes.

2.) Murderers they are not in my eyes, they killed but more like man-slaughter or a lesser again.. Again I do feel for the family but those soldiers are victims aswell eventhough by there own hand.


3.) I was in the City when it took place not there any I know what was in the reports, I am not saying what was correct but was not premeditated.

4.) Killing of anyone is wrong War or Not, it is against nature and the law but there are varying degrees ie. murder, manslaughter etc.. Majority of deaths accredited to the army are not murder and are by law justified (I said law) not my own opinion but sometimes as hard as it is, it has to be done.

5.) I believe people who commit CERTAIN CRIMES in this case it was a Crime but not murder in my eyes should be given a second chance.Lee Clegg was and he was doing his job and was sent down, similar case but more extreme.
Do you believe terrorists should be allowed into the PSNI,Government,Normal Life if you do then that would be my standing point.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The lack of any smilies give no indication that what you said is not what you believe

Ah now Dub , you've participated in enough of the same IRA and SF threads as Daveirl to know what his take on the subject is by now

I think what he's getting at, is questioning how you can have one standard for your views on British Army wrong do-ing and a different one if it involves Republicans...

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Ah now Dub , you've participated in enough of the same IRA and SF threads as Daveirl to know what his take on the subject is by now

I think what he's getting at, is questioning how you can have one standard for your views on British Army wrong do-ing and a different one if it involves Republicans...

Let me clarify......

The killing of innocent people is a crime and both sides should be subject the same rule of law. Very straight forward but there are plenty who will not agree with that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

1.) These Soldiers are Human not Robo Soldier they Make Mistakes.

Everybody can make mistakes but this murder was no mistake. On what basis are you claiming that this murder was a mistake?

2.) Murderers they are not in my eyes, they killed but more like man-slaughter or a lesser again.. Again I do feel for the family but those soldiers are victims aswell eventhough by there own hand.

So, in your eyes, a soldier who knowingly kills a defenceless man and that soldier is not in danger or there is no danger to anybody else is not guilty of murder? Do you think that soldiers do not have malice in them or are they all either doing their jobs or making mistakes?

3.) I was in the City when it took place not there any I know what was in the reports, I am not saying what was correct but was not premeditated.

Premeditated in the sense that they set out to kill an innocent Irishman as they left their barracks - No

Premeditated in the sense that they searched the guy and seen that he was unarmed then when the guy runs in fear, the soldiers take aim and shoot him in the back when the guy was posing no danger to themselves or others - Yes

4.) Killing of anyone is wrong War or Not, it is against nature and the law but there are varying degrees ie. murder, manslaughter etc.. Majority of deaths accredited to the army are not murder and are by law justified (I said law) not my own opinion but sometimes as hard as it is, it has to be done.

Yet you do not accept the laws view on this murder and claim higher knowledge.

5.) I believe people who commit CERTAIN CRIMES in this case it was a Crime but not murder in my eyes should be given a second chance.Lee Clegg was and he was doing his job and was sent down, similar case but more extreme.
Do you believe terrorists should be allowed into the PSNI,Government,Normal Life if you do then that would be my standing point.

Do you believe that the soldiers convicted of abuse in Iraq (obviously wrongly!!) should have been thrown out of the British Army?

Horeb

You did not answer my question about terrorists attaining jobs mmmmmmm

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Let me clarify......

The killing of innocent people is a crime and both sides should be subject the same rule of law. Very straight forward but there are plenty who will not agree with that.

You'll have to clarify further there Dub because you are not making it clear whether you think Detective Garda MCCabe falls into the category of innocent for you and that his killers should be treated to the same rule of law as any other killer.

If you are making distinctions then there is a double standard being applied given that if you(and you are entitled to) have a view of the IRA that they were at "war" with the British Army, then you must give equal lattitude to the British Army when they have been in this case subjected to due process.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

You did not answer my question about terrorists attaining jobs mmmmmmm

Hmmm indeed

If anybody commits murder and they are in any job, I would fully expect them to be turfed out of that job.

That is not the same thing as saying

If a former murderer was offered a job, he should not get it because he is a former murderer although the specific circumstances will depend on the job. I would not expect a convicted murderer to get a job the policeforce or the army. Obviously, you do.

These 2 soldiers were in a job, commited murder whilest on the job, done time and still kept their job. There is a difference.

Now how about some of those little questions I posed?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

You'll have to clarify further there Dub because you are not making it clear whether you think Detective Garda MCCabe falls into the category of innocent for you and that his killers should be treated to the same rule of law as any other killer.

The McCabe killing was murder. What I believed was that the convictions should come under the GFA just like all the other convictions including this one.

If you are making distinctions then there is a double standard being applied given that if you(and you are entitled to) have a view of the IRA that they were at "war" with the British Army, then you must give equal lattitude to the British Army when they have been in this case subjected to due process.

There are people on both sides who give latitude to either side killing civilians and I am not one of them. I am asking that both sides be treated consistantly with the rule of law.

clarified

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Just like pogoń, you appear not to have read any of the posts that actually deal with the issue of this thread otherwise you would know why this 'issue was dug up'. As per usual anybody highlighting an abuse of human rights, a murder, an insult to some family by the British state is immediately 'shot' down as an apologist!!

You can choose to ignore the fact that the British Government appear to have a 2 (or maybe 3) tier of moral outrage when their soldiers commit crimes. This is just one instance of that fact.

No, you're shot down as an apologist for pretending that the IRA is a legitimate entity with a purpose.

The point I made, that you're carefully avoiding, is that the reason this issue has been dragged out is classic SF spinning - SF are up to their necks in sh!t so in true style someone "just happens" to step forward to bleat about some ancient issue that SF can look good talking about while simultaneously painting the British Government as the ultimate villans of everything.

Again, through the whole thread, you haven't got one dissenting voice - everyone admits the killing was wrong and that the killers should be punished. The closest you've got to a dissenter is a soldier who points out that life on the front line isn't always as clear cut as we'd like it to be, and that once they've served their time there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to continue in the army.

Seeing as the GFA allows terrorists on both sides of the fence to get pardoned and live normal lives despite never having been punished for any of their crimes, I don't think it's that difficult a request to make.

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

No, you're shot down as an apologist for pretending that the IRA is a legitimate entity with a purpose.

Really? So it is left to you to raise issues like this I take it?

The point I made, that you're carefully avoiding, is that the reason this issue has been dragged out is classic SF spinning - SF are up to their necks in sh!t so in true style someone "just happens" to step forward to bleat about some ancient issue that SF can look good talking about while simultaneously painting the British Government as the ultimate villans of everything.

Very active imagination there... are you in the local drama group

This is a topical issue or does the plea from Jean McBride not matter? If I 'am not allowed' to raise similar issues, who will? You?

Again, through the whole thread, you haven't got one dissenting voice - everyone admits the killing was wrong and that the killers should be punished.

There are plenty of voices trying to pull the thread somewhere else though

Seeing as the GFA allows terrorists on both sides of the fence to get pardoned and live normal lives despite never having been punished for any of their crimes, I don't think it's that difficult a request to make.

What request?

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Really? So it is left to you to raise issues like this I take it?

You're confusing yourself there - calling you an apologist has nothing to do with whether or not anybody should be dragging up this issue.

Very active imagination there... are you in the local drama group
This is a topical issue or does the plea from Jean McBride not matter? If I 'am not allowed' to raise similar issues, who will? You?

Nothing imaginative about it - it's all very repetetive and standard SF spin practice.

Please point me in the direction of anyone who said you weren't allowed to post something? I certainly didn't. I did, however say that the post serves very little purpose other than for a SF supporter to get up on a soapbox to talk about something that he knows won't end up blowing up in his face, unlike everything else that SF has been faced with recently.

And frankly, no this isn't "topical". If there had been some sort of substatial development, or new evidence, or a new trial, then it would be topical. As things are, it is merely Mrs McBride making the same comments she's been making for 10 years. No that doesn't mean, before you jump gleefully down my throat, that her comments or suffering are irrelevant - just not topical.
And, as I say, suspiciously timed given that SF are desperate for something to whack the British Government with and get the press off their backs.

There are plenty of voices trying to pull the thread somewhere else though
What request?

The request (or should I say statement) that the soldiers are just as entitled to live a normal life as the terrorists now are. The terrorists have been given an automatic pardon - but apparantly the soldiers shouldn't be?

And where else is there for the thread to go - as I keep saying, you don't have any dissenters telling you that the murder was A O.K., do you? So it shouldn't be a suprise if people end up discussing something else.

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

You're confusing yourself there - calling you an apologist has nothing to do with whether or not anybody should be dragging up this issue.

No confusion here... The sort of people who want to shoot down the thread starter as some kid of apologist are the ones which try to discredit the message by shooting the messenger. Exactly what you have attempted to do.

Nothing imaginative about it - it's all very repetetive and standard SF spin practice.

I suppose you are right, it is the usual line spouted by someone who wishes to attempt to discredit the message... go for the messenger.

Please point me in the direction of anyone who said you weren't allowed to post something? I certainly didn't. I did, however say that the post serves very little purpose

Almost every thread here serves very little purpose at the end of the day. It is only the internet where ideas and opinions are discussed. You, however, seem to have a problem with this type of idea and opinion and will try and 'shoot down' the messenger. Have I broken any guidelines or criteria for posting (apart from in your fantasyland)?

other than for a SF supporter to get up on a soapbox to talk about something that he knows won't end up blowing up in his face, unlike everything else that SF has been faced with recently.

And I ask again, who is going to raise issues like this if you think like that? You, of course, are entitled to start anythread you wish that is within the rules..... and so am I and it is merely your opinion on why this thread was started.

And frankly, no this isn't "topical". If there had been some sort of substatial development, or new evidence, or a new trial, then it would be topical.

I believe it is topical..... there are plenty of threads in this very forum which are not topical if you take your criteria for posting a thread. Do you keep a list or is it just this one? You seem to have a problem with the subject matter rather than the 'topicalness'.

As things are, it is merely Mrs McBride making the same comments she's been making for 10 years. No that doesn't mean, before you jump gleefully down my throat, that her comments or suffering are irrelevant - just not topical.

As I said, pleas provide me with the guidelines that says threads here must be a breaking news story. I assume you also have alist of other non-topical threads you have challenged or is it really the message you want to attack but don't have the testicles to do that.

And, as I say, suspiciously timed given that SF are desperate for something to whack the British Government with and get the press off their backs.

Jean Mcbride must be in on this fantasy of yours

The request (or should I say statement) that the soldiers are just as entitled to live a normal life as the terrorists now are. The terrorists have been given an automatic pardon - but apparantly the soldiers shouldn't be?

I have already explained the difference in a post above

And where else is there for the thread to go

Obviously, in your eyes, into the bin as it is not relevant/topical/you do not like it.

- as I keep saying, you don't have any dissenters telling you that the murder was A O.K., do you?

Apart from one obvious and one suspect case

So it shouldn't be a suprise if people end up discussing something else.

Like you, who would rather enter threads you do not agree with and apparantly have no interest in, to put some additional fantasy citeria on the subject matter of threads in this forum. I take all threads started by your good self have been breaking news stories or am I totally missing the point as to why you have posted here with your 'advice'.

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

No confusion here... The sort of people who want to shoot down the thread starter as some kid of apologist are the ones which try to discredit the message by shooting the messenger. Exactly what you have attempted to do.

Where exactly have I had a go at the messenger? Nowhere. I've merely stated that the thread exists for spinning purposes, not debating purposes.

Almost every thread here serves very little purpose at the end of the day. It is only the internet where ideas and opinions are discussed. You, however, seem to have a problem with this type of idea and opinion and will try and 'shoot down' the messenger. Have I broken any guidelines or criteria for posting (apart from in your fantasyland)?

Where did I say you did? Where did I say you shouldn't be allowed to post? Nowhere. I merely stated my reasoning for why the posting of the thread was suspiciously good opportunity for a bit of SF chest-thumping in a couple of weeks where they've had very bad press indeed.

I believe it is topical..... there are plenty of threads in this very forum which are not topical if you take your criteria for posting a thread. Do you keep a list or is it just this one? You seem to have a problem with the subject matter rather than the 'topicalness'.

Where have I criticised the subject matter? Have I suggested Mrs McBride's claims or grievences aren't true? No. Has anyone else? No.

As I said, pleas provide me with the guidelines that says threads here must be a breaking news story. I assume you also have alist of other non-topical threads you have challenged or is it really the message you want to attack but don't have the testicles to do that.

There aren't any - and as I said above, I have no need to attack the message at all. Merely why the message is being used at a specific time for whose benefit other than Mrs McBride.

Who's attacking the poster now?

Apart from one obvious and one suspect case

Name and shame please, I've just read through the thread again and can't see a single person disagreeing with the sentiments Mrs McBride expressed. I see one ex-soldier who has posted that life at a checkpoint is a difficult, stressful and hazardous place where if a mistake gets made someone can end up dead, and thinks that the soldiers have earned as much right as the terrorists to lead a normal life once they've served their time. Note he doesn't think the boy deserved to die. He gave his reasons why he thinks the shooting might have happened, that's all.

I take all threads started by your good self have been breaking news stories or am I totally missing the point as to why you have posted here with your 'advice'.

i don't think you're missing the point but I do think there's a good chance you're choosing to misunderstand it, like you've been choosing to misunderstand Horeb and Daveirl.

Horeb wrote:

Have you been in that posistion ever as I have and it is not easy.

No I have never been in a position where I murdered someone.

Like that example - you knew exactly what Horeb was saying - namely "have you ever been at a checkpoint" and chose to misunderstand him.

FTA69

pogo&#324 wrote:

This may be compared with the 103 members of the IRA who rather sadly and unfortunately blew themselves to smithereens

And that is considered as the IRA "killing each others"? By that logic the British soldiers who shot themselves in the foot can be counted as "injured by the British Army" and the latest Brit fatalities (a helicopter crash last year) were killed by the British Army.

Volunteers accidentally killing themselves is just that, an accidental happening. They do not classify as being "killed by the IRA".

pogoń

Referring again to the Sutton index of deaths the figures are as follows:

Number of deaths of IRA members: attributed to IRA 132
to British Army 96

I don't know exactly what methodology he uses to obtain these figures, but they are the ones most generally accepted even by Republicans
(and I've been on plenty of Republican boards).

By comparison the British Army are responsible for the deaths of 5 of their own people.

From the same source I discovered the number of Protestant IRA casualties ............... 3.

By contrast the number of Irish Catholic casualties in the Crown security services was 53.

Now what might this tell us (in case we didn't know) about sectarianism within the British security services and Republicanism?

FTA69

I don't know exactly what methodology he uses to obtain these figures, but they are the ones most generally accepted even by Republicans
(and I've been on plenty of Republican boards).

Not by any Republicans here. You even pointed out how the vast majority of those listed as "IRA killed by IRA" died, they were killed by their own bombs.

This may be compared with the 103 members of the IRA who rather sadly and unfortunately blew themselves to smithereens

Now, how can you say that accidents of the above nature are equated with the IRA killing Volunteers? Its a ridiculous notion akin to a British Army private who shot himself in the foot blaming the British Army for shooting him.

Now what might this tell us (in case we didn't know) about sectarianism within the British security services and Republicanism?

Absolutely nothing at all, you need to try harder a chara.

true

FTA69 wrote:

Absolutely nothing at all, you need to try harder a chara.

I think it is you who will have to try harder, a chara. Perhaps if you put in a little more effort you may be able to extract something from the figures, instead of closing your eyes to reality.

Here are the figures again , courtesy of the previous poster.


Referring again to the Sutton index of deaths the figures are as follows:

Number of deaths of IRA members: attributed to IRA 132
to British Army 96

I don't know exactly what methodology he uses to obtain these figures, but they are the ones most generally accepted even by Republicans
(and I've been on plenty of Republican boards).

By comparison the British Army are responsible for the deaths of 5 of their own people.

From the same source I discovered the number of Protestant IRA casualties ............... 3.

By contrast the number of Irish Catholic casualties in the Crown security services was 53.

Now what might this tell us (in case we didn't know) about sectarianism within the British security services and Republicanism?

pogoń

The figures (from Sutton's database of deaths) are the ones most generally accepted by Republicans.

FTA69 wrote:

Not by any Republicans here.

I have seen Sutton's figures used in the following Republican web-sites:
IAUC, Noraid, Murderers Pretending to be Victims www.relativesforjustice.com

I have seen the same figures widely quoted by members of the following bulletin boards:

www.dannymorrison.com/forum

Irish Republican Psychopath Bulletin Board www.irbb.rr.nu (which you are a member of)

If (unlike other Republicans) you don't accept Sutton's figures, in that case whose figures do you accept?

And why don't you accept Sutton's figures?

Now, how can you say that accidents of the above nature (IRA bombs killing IRA members) are equated with the IRA killing Volunteers? Its a ridiculous notion akin to a British Army private who shot himself in the foot blaming the British Army for shooting him.

If a British Army bomb kills a British Army soldier then clearly the British Army (and no-one else) are responsible.

If the British Army shoot members of the British Army then clearly it is the British (and not the Japanese army) which is at fault.

Deaths to IRA members caused by IRA bombs and bullets are the responsibility of the IRA and no-one else.

(What is the significance of the fact that there have been 3 fatalities of Protestant Republicans compared with 53 Irish Catholic fatalities in the British Security Services)?

Absolutely nothing at all, you need to try harder a chara.

I believe you were anxious to prove that Republicanism was non-sectarian in character, and that many Protestants were Sinn Fein/IRA supporters/members.

I also believe that you regard organisations such as the RUC as being fundamentally sectarian in character.

However on the basis of the figures above Catholics in Northern Ireland were 15 X more likely to die in the service of the British state than Protestants to die for Republicanism.

Which, of course, demonstrates your claims to be complete and utter balls.

FTA69

The figures (from Sutton's database of deaths) are the ones most generally accepted by Republicans.

I mean that while the figures themselves might be accepted the slant that IRA accidental deaths are akin to the IRA killing their own members are not.

Irish Republican Psychopath Bulletin Board www.irbb.rr.nu (which you are a member of)

You were a member of it long enough yourself.

If the British Army shoot members of the British Army then clearly it is the British (and not the Japanese army) which is at fault.

But if a brit shoots himself in the foot with his own gun by accident he has no-one but himself to blame. Likewise with an IRA Volunteer and a bomb.

However on the basis of the figures above Catholics in Northern Ireland were 15 X more likely to die in the service of the British state than Protestants to die for Republicanism.

Again, this proves nothing. I never denied that Catholics fought for the state, what I am saying is that religion is inconsequential to Republicanism and as such there are people with a wide range of religious backgrounds within it. The amount of religious people in an organisation does nothing to prove or disprove the inherent sectarianism of a force.

Horeb

The Provo's are sectarian filth no more than the loyalists....

FTA get rid of your pro - terrorist retoric and live in the real world another armchair republican ... Have a look at a few bodies after they have been blown apart, maybe you will get rid of your moronic ideas...They all look the same blow apart.

Get one thing clear sf/ira are murdering terrorist filth that have killed women,children and men they are pure thugs not soldiers but mere murderers that are getting released because of a stupid agreement they should do their time like the other criminals in prision...

Your great proclaiming you support for them and the usual old tripe, what have you done for your country tell me this, have you every fought for it, served in an army/police force or even civil defence most likely not.

Just another wannabe big man in the pub letting on the ra this the ra that...

Grow up and realise what you support is both wrong and loosing support and the sooner republicans are put back in their hole the better as they are nothing but a shower of over appeased criminals who should be locked up the rest of their natural lifes. :mad:

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

The Provo's are sectarian filth no more than the loyalists....

Disagree there

FTA get rid of your pro - terrorist retoric and live in the real world another armchair republican ... Have a look at a few bodies after they have been blown apart, maybe you will get rid of your moronic ideas...They all look the same blow apart.

What about if they were blown apart by bullets from the BA? Do those people matter?

Get one thing clear sf/ira are murdering terrorist filth that have killed women,children and men they are pure thugs not soldiers but mere murderers that are getting released because of a stupid agreement they should do their time like the other criminals in prision...

The BA have murdered women, children and men and some of the BA soldiers I have come across (not just in NI) act like pure thugs. The agreement worked both ways hence the reason why these murderers (the subject of this thread) were released early.

---SNIP---

You sound like a bitter man

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

some of the BA soldiers I have come across (not just in NI) act like pure thugs. The agreement worked both ways hence the reason why these murderers (the subject of this thread) were released early.

you must appreciate that the logic works both ways too.
Would you like to taint all BA soldiers for the actions of the few you have come across? I'm sure you would argue that Sinn Féin shouldnt be demonised just because some members may be involved in Crime-or all Republicans for the actions of the McCartney murderers.

Disagree there

It's good to respectively disagree with other posters because like it or lump it there little reconciliation to be made between a viewpoint that rigidly sticks to a line that the IRA are heroes and fighting for a cause and those that view them as an illegal army.Most people on this island are in the latter camp.
What would be a good discussion I think is one on the reasons why people have the views that they have rather than articulating the sometimes strong feelings that go along with the views.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

you must appreciate that the logic works both ways too.

Certainly do

Would you like to taint all BA soldiers for the actions of the few you have come across?

I have not done that though, note the use of the word 'some'

I'm sure you would argue that Sinn Féin shouldnt be demonised just because some members may be involved in Crime-or all Republicans for the actions of the McCartney murderers.

Correct

It's good to respectively disagree with other posters because like it or lump it there little reconciliation to be made between a viewpoint that rigidly sticks to a line that the IRA are heroes and fighting for a cause and those that view them as an illegal army.Most people on this island are in the latter camp.
What would be a good discussion I think is one on the reasons why people have the views that they have rather than articulating the sometimes strong feelings that go along with the views.

Valid point but as I do not know the reasoning behind the original point, I don't really have the energy or time to assume a reasoning. It is OK to pull someone for a one line retort but not a one line accusation????

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Disagree there

Dub in Glasgow disagrees that "the Provo's are sectarian filth no more than the loyalists....". Did you ever see someone blown up by a bomb Dub? Ever see someone lose their legs, or their sight. Ever look at the pictures of Warrington, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Le Mons ? Do yo think wahat the provos done to the likes of Jerry McCabe or Jean McColville, and countless hundreds others, was right ?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You sound like a bitter man

No, Dub in Glasgow, Horeb does not sound like a bitter man . He sounds like a fair, decent man. It is you who sounds like the bitter man. God help you.