Soldier F

Cleary? I will never not be weirded out by Irish names that pop up in such a fashion.

Regarding Para’s being sent to kill - the British Parachute Regiment were and are the elite offensive force in the British army.

That’s the “marketing talk”; in plain English, it means Para’s are trained and honed to be the best and most brutal killers. Only people with a propensity for this are allowed in - killing and violence is their number one job.

If a government sends them somewhere (such as to a peaceful civil right protest, or into a housing estate in Belfast), they aren’t sending them to act as armed police. They already have armed police for that. They already have countless other regiments in less offensive sections of the army to do that if pushed.

To add to this, that battalion were put onto the streets in Derry having already committed a massacre in Ballymurphy. They shot indiscriminately into groups of people, killed elderly people, women, priests, shot people in the back, people who were already on the ground, performed mock executions, and absolutely terrorized British citizens in their own neighborhood for days. This was all done in the open, was known about by the authorities, and ignored.

If these were “rogue soldiers”, why would that same battalion then have been put onto the streets of Derry a couple of months later during a peaceful protest, why are there a recording requesting kills?

If the British government did not send them to kill, why have they covered this up for 50 years, refuse to release documents and try to change the fundamental laws of its country so that a trial is never carried out?

It’s not to protect “Soldier F” or “soldier G”, or any of the Para’s.

If army veterans mattered that much to the British Government they would  be seeking justice for the murdered British Army veteran and veteran’s relatives in Ballymurphy – but no, instead they were called IRA bombers, slandered and vilified in death, and their families ignored.

The only deduction one can take from this blatant hypocrisy is that people further up the food chain are being protected. And what do they need to protected for if this was the actions of “rogue soldiers”?

Without scrolling back , I believe my comment was that the British government sent the army onto the streets of Derry. This is 100% factual. BA soldiers were on the streets and killed unarmed civilians, hence the army was on the streets.

I don’t believe anyone would read that and think that the British government somehow pulled all of their soldiers out of all of their domestic and territorial bases, landed them in Derry in 1972 and set them all to kill. Not sure how you thought I could have meant that?

But it goes without saying if they were rogue soldiers and it could be explained away that easily, they would be prosecuted. The British government doesn’t seem to care if it’s veterans are murdered in cold blood, that is plain to see, so why would it care if they are imprisoned, unless the ramifications strike to something much deeper? Why would a “rogue soldier” be promoted multiple times after the event, as Soldier F was? Why would Mike Jackson, who was there at Ballymurphy and covered it up, promoted to head of the British Army? If he facilitated rogue soldiers murdering British citizens, surely that would disbar him from the army, never mind it's highest position.

I don’t believe for a second that the most murderous squad in the British army were sent to Derry, having already committed a massacre of innocents in Ballymurphy, without objectives to kill. It makes absolutely no sense to have them there otherwise. and the subsequent promotion of belligerents, and cover up, smearing campaign, law changes make no sense.

I would agree with hindsight that there that kill objectives in Derry have not benefited the British. It gave rise to the provisional IRA and forty plus years of bombs, deaths and troubles. But the British have shown time and again in Ireland that this is how they react. The killing of 1916 leaders, the Black and Tans, Auxiliaries, destruction of cork, Bloody Sunday 1 etc, hardened the majority of the populace against Britain and led to the ROI gaining independence, but those events still happened. Time and again this is how they have reacted in Ireland and I have no reason to believe the deployment of the Parachute regiment is any different.

1.) Britain have murdered in cold blood countless times on this island and it has not done them well (thus, not at all illogical to conclude this as a case of history repeating itself)

2.) They sent the parachute regiment, an elite squad of killers to Northern Ireland (clear expectation of offensive military action against what were peaceful protesters)

3.) the 1st batallion of the parachute regiment murdered 11 innocent British civilians in Ballymurphy, and knowing this, were STILL deployed to Derry (rogue soldier theory out the window)

4.) that there is a recording that the battalion should get some kills

5.) that the BM and BS killings were covered up. That those killed were described as IRA bombers. Their families described as combatants and sympathisers for 30 years. (rogue soldier theory out the window)

6.) after these events, solider f was not discharged and arrested, but promoted twice (rogue soldier theory out the window)

7.) Mike Jackson, who took part in the mass killings at Ballymurphy was not discharged, but eventually promoted to the HEAD of the British army (rogue soldier theory booted out the window, once and for all)

8.) British gov are attempting to change one of the fundamental laws of the civilized world, aka murder of innocents as a prosecutable offence, either a.) to protect soldier f (rogue soldier theory, where is that gone? ).

Or b) to protect veterans - wait though veterans were murdered by soldier f

(protection of veterans theory out the window)

... Ignore all that, and argue instead that the language I use is not up to some made up, pie in the sky, ridiculous standards that you would prefer, that conveniently attributes less blame to the British state, and eradicates most of the series of events I have had to pain stakingly repeat, and render them what - coincidences? Irrelevances?

And your other points - how does deploying soldiers in places they aren't familiar with (and other such excuses you mentioned) explain in any way why they would shoot and kill unarmed civilians in the back, those lying wounded on the ground, priests giving last rights to dying men, mothers going about their day. Why would it explain them performing a mock execution on a vulnerable man, causing him a fatal heart attack?

Does the violence you mentioned in a previous post, aka throwing stones, as happened in Derry, in any way excuse or explain it?

You should be looking less at my semantics and more at the unrealistic excuses you are putting forward for what was carried out by soldier f, his fellow soldiers, and by numerous British governments ever since. 

Apologies but in some of your posts what you deem as “context” I see to be excuses.

Context is when one lists circumstances that set the scene so that events can be understood.

 Example - mentioning a small number of civilians throwing stones at soldiers is not offering context for them being slaughtered in cold blood i.e. a few civilians throwing stones doesn’t make them being gunned down, in the manner I mentioned above, understandable.

In my posts, I have tried to offer facts, and provide context on what seems (to me) to be plain as day, that these killings were deliberate and planned and not the actions of rogue soldiers. Even still Soldier F should absolutely be prosecuted under the full weight of the law as, orders or not, his acts were still illegal. I just think the prosecutions should go much further.

I am not writing a legal document or inquiry as Saville was, I’m deriving a cohesive narrative based on facts.

Saville reached his own conclusions on this over many years. Personally, some of them I agree with and some I don’t.