Soldier F

What transpired on that day is generally accepted. Your charge is that the army was sent there specifically to commit murder.

Awful but what on earth is the relevance to soldier F or his victims?

Are you saying those who were murdered in BS and BM were linked to the above? Because they weren't, they were innocent people like you and I.

Or are you saying those who think solider F, his batallion, and those who covered up the murders of innocent people are automatically IRA supporters and/or condone the murder of the children you mentioned above?

Why are you so against Britain releasing its documents on this? Why are you against them putting soldier f, his fellow "soldiers" and those who facilitated and covered up his murders on trial.

Please try and explain it without asking me to defend the IRA or SF as they are irrelevant and I have nothing at all to do with them.

Actually like to correct this last statement, it is bullcr** in the extreme.

The British and indeed the other Allies in no way followed Nazis to the end of the earth to bring them to justice for their crimes.

They chased a few particular ones, but they all colluded with the German authorities and a lot of the worse murdering bast***s ended up in cushy jobs in Germany and elsewhere.

Most of the Einsatzgruppen formed to carry out the mass slaughters in Eastern Europe sailed back into their old jobs in the security services and police.

In the last few decades states made great bones about going after an accounts clerk in Aushwitz and some other minor guards and soldiers all the while over the years they let high ranking guards and officials sail off into the sunset.

And to show how fooked up Germany was, the widow of the butcher of Prague, Reinhard Heydrich, the most unrepentant Nazi c u n t until her death got a state pension from West Germany because of her evil husband's army service.

As for soldier F there was never any way the Brits were going to go after one of their own, the army has to many high ranking connections in blighty to allow that ever occur.

I was trying to find my way back to this thread and ended up getting lost in the new site, it seems Current Affairs under After Hours has one thread and this forum has been moved.

Very suspicious me thinks.

Now if it wasn't for all the threads being moved around one might even be tempted to start a thread in Conspiracy Theories (that is if one could find the forum nowadays) about the British intelligence services moving discussion threads around on an Irish internet discussion site to dissuade people from discussing things about them and their history. ;-)

If you're going to describe them as British, then identify the Nazis as German. Most members of the NSDAP were German.

Your comment is as useless as me claiming "The Irish murdered people" - with no explanation or definition.

With regard to this thread, there was a crime - not a "war crime".

We aren't debating three decades of recent history, we are debating soldier F and his victims, and the British government coverup.

I'm sure that it is tiresome for you that I need to repeat this, but the IRA had absolutely nothing to do with Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy. These massacres led to the rise of the provisional IRA and the subsequent troubles, but you can't blame what happened after these events to what happened before.

The protesters were looking for equal rights in an apartheid state, run by the loyalist majority and facilitated by the British Government. The protesters involved in BS weren't violently rebelling against Britain (as the IRA do). They had nothing to do with with the IRA. The people killed in Ballymurphy weren't protesting against anything at all, just going about their lives. Many people in Catholic areas cheered when the British army first came to the North as they thought the army would protect them from violent loyalism. The IRA are completely irrelevant to these people.

The only reason you can make it relevant (in my eyes) is that to the victims were Catholics?

Some of the victims in Ballymurphy who were killed by soldier F were themselves either British army veterans (one who had lost a hand in service), or relations of veterans. Why are some veterans (soldier F) protected, and others (John McKerr) demonized as IRA bombers?

I for one can see a distinction between Nazi's and Germans (I know that some people can't, fair enough).

From what I can see, 95% of Germans are horrified of what happened in their past, at least very much so politically. Swastika's, Nazism, Mein Kempf etc all illegal in the country. As far as I know, they aren't still trying to cover-up prosecutions of Nazi's, smear Jewish victims, they aren't trying to say "it happened along time ago, forget about it". They also don't try to equivocate Nazi victims to those who violently resisted Nazism in Germany.

The British government have actively refused to prosecute a murderer of it's own innocent citizens (because the victims happened to be ethnically Irish?). They refuse to prosecute those who ordered the killings, those who covered it up, and those who smeared the victims. They have participated in this for 50 years. When it became an almost legal impossibility for them not to prosecute, they sought to change the laws. So I see the British Government now, and the British Government then, as one and the same (though I do recognize relationships are alot better, I'm sure the Irish political influence in USA is more to do with this than the IRA however).

People aren't saying all British people support their stance on BM and BS victims (many aren't aware of it, some as indicated above, are ethnically Irish). But, the government is democratically elected by the British people. As such, it is easier to say "the British".

Is it not common to refer to democratically elected governments by their national title in all walks of life?

Lots have awful things have happened throughout recorded history.

Rape, theft, violence...Murder (arguably) being the worst.

They are an unfortunate part of human nature. That is why we, who operate in civilized society, have laws to deal with them.

I'm not sure what a soldier shooting dead his own fellow innocent citizens has to do with "empire" though?

Or what the government covering it up has to do with it?

Or why a country (that is definitely no longer an empire) want's to change it's fundamental laws so that outright murder is not prosecuted.

Responding to your earlier post.

And Hitler's party was elected in the same way. By the German electorate. The distinction between the Nazis and Germans is those who were members of the party and those who supported it - and those who didn't. Put bluntly, in 1945 the Germans had no choice other than to be appalled at the consequences of the Third Reich - it was all around them. I don't recall any inquiries into the actions of the state during Hitler's years.

As for empire - that was a response to an earler post that mentioned it. I'd agree it has little relevance to this thread.

David James Cleary