Bloody Sunday

[Kevin 1]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

Fuck off you old twat. real scumbags? if by scumbag you refer to murderers and killers of the innocent then you must mean the British army.

 

hmmmm we could start listing the many, many innocent men, women and children killed by the IRA while going about their daily business but I guess they dont count do they?

another person who seems to think that I support the IRA. This thread isn't about the IRA, it's about those murdering soldiers who killed innocent people. So if your arguement is just about the IRA i suggest you just back on out of this thread.

[Guest alex]

I didn't realise he had a point to begin with.

I was replying to LM btw

[The Fish 10750]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

Fuck off you old twat. real scumbags? if by scumbag you refer to murderers and killers of the innocent then you must mean the British army.

 

hmmmm we could start listing the many, many innocent men, women and children killed by the IRA while going about their daily business but I guess they dont count do they?

another person who seems to think that I support the IRA. This thread isn't about the IRA, it's about those murdering soldiers who killed innocent people. So if your arguement is just about the IRA i suggest you just back on out of this thread.

If you can't see the two are inexorably linked you should get out of this thread tbh

 

also, the army have been found guilty of this tragedy and the man responsible has been named... what more are you wanting?

[Kevin 1]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

Fuck off you old twat. real scumbags? if by scumbag you refer to murderers and killers of the innocent then you must mean the British army.

 

hmmmm we could start listing the many, many innocent men, women and children killed by the IRA while going about their daily business but I guess they dont count do they?

another person who seems to think that I support the IRA. This thread isn't about the IRA, it's about those murdering soldiers who killed innocent people. So if your arguement is just about the IRA i suggest you just back on out of this thread.

If you can't see the two are inexorably linked you should get out of this thread tbh

 

also, the army have been found guilty of this tragedy and the man responsible has been named... what more are you wanting?

The Saville Enquiry told us that the british soldiers killed innocent people and tried to cover it up. Mischeivous bastards. Which seems that most people on here can't accept. The IRA bombed loads, fair enough? what the fucks your point with the IRA? Everyone's going on as if I support them and feel they were right to bomb/kill.

[Monkeys Fist 42075]

He wants the list of Paras on duty that day so his pals in RIRA can do a bit of revenge 70s stylee.

 

Don't you Vuvu?

[The Fish 10750]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

Fuck off you old twat. real scumbags? if by scumbag you refer to murderers and killers of the innocent then you must mean the British army.

 

hmmmm we could start listing the many, many innocent men, women and children killed by the IRA while going about their daily business but I guess they dont count do they?

another person who seems to think that I support the IRA. This thread isn't about the IRA, it's about those murdering soldiers who killed innocent people. So if your arguement is just about the IRA i suggest you just back on out of this thread.

If you can't see the two are inexorably linked you should get out of this thread tbh

 

also, the army have been found guilty of this tragedy and the man responsible has been named... what more are you wanting?

The Saville Enquiry told us that the british soldiers killed innocent people and tried to cover it up. Mischeivous bastards. Which seems that most people on here can't accept. The IRA bombed loads, fair enough? what the fucks your point with the IRA? Everyone's going on as if I support them and feel they were right to bomb/kill.

Fair enough? No Kevin, it's not Fair enough.

People are agreeing that the people responsible should be held accountable, but you've yet to say what it is you want to happen now? Other than naming the soldiers, which you've yet to prove would be a good thing.

[LeazesMag 0]

I didn't realise he had a point to begin with.

I was replying to LM btw

 

you mean NJS had a point when he mentioned the Brazilian ? What was it ?

[LeazesMag 0]

What would your response have been if Derrick Bird had been shot before shooting any of those civilians 13 days ago, before being given a "chance to surrender" or "allowed to put his hands up [ie wait until he shoots first]". Would you be complaining they had shot "an innocent man".

 

If you reasonably believe that there's an immediate danger to anyone then you shoot , simple as that. What the report has said today was that there was no immediate danger to the army or anyone else.

 

precisely.

 

Fantastic use of bolding there. Why do you not see the seond part of the sentence as relevant (in italics now)?

 

 

If you reasonably believe........

 

And in the de Menezes situation they could not have reasonably believed that he was an immediate threat, I think our definitions of 'reasonable' may differ.

 

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

[ewerk 30266]

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

That belief was not reasonable. He was slightly dark skinned and on the tube so they shot him. They gave him no opportunity to put his hands up or surrender.

 

And has been pointed out, it's irrelevant to anything.

[LeazesMag 0]

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

That belief was not reasonable. He was slightly dark skinned and on the tube so they shot him. They gave him no opportunity to put his hands up or surrender.

 

And has been pointed out, it's irrelevant to anything.

 

 

ah. I see. You're getting there, but it was NJS who mentioned him, as he is one of those who seem to have a very idealistic attitude concerning things like this.

 

A bit like asking terrorists to surrender first too.

[ewerk 30266]

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

That belief was not reasonable. He was slightly dark skinned and on the tube so they shot him. They gave him no opportunity to put his hands up or surrender.

 

And has been pointed out, it's irrelevant to anything.

 

 

ah. I see. You're getting there, but it was NJS who mentioned him, as he is one of those who seem to have a very idealistic attitude concerning things like this.

 

A bit like asking terrorists to surrender first too.

 

A terrorist may not have surrendered, CJdM was not a terrorist though, unfortunately the police decided to act as judge, jury and executioner.

[peasepud 59]

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

That belief was not reasonable. He was slightly dark skinned and on the tube so they shot him. They gave him no opportunity to put his hands up or surrender.

 

And has been pointed out, it's irrelevant to anything.

There was slightly more to it than that (and Im not saying they were right here).

 

He came out of a block of flats where a known terrorist suspect was staying. Police had the belief that this suspect was going to carry out a suicide bombing and on seeing him they believed, wrongly that it was the suspect. They then acted to prevent what they believed to be a bombing.

 

Right idea, wrong target. A terrible mistake but something that shouldnt be mistaken with randomly shooting an innocent man.

[ewerk 30266]

They couldn't have positively identified him and didn't give him a chance to surrender, sounds like randomly shooting an innocent man to me.

[LeazesMag 0]

They couldn't have positively identified him and didn't give him a chance to surrender, sounds like randomly shooting an innocent man to me.

 

 

how do you know what intelligence they had ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

That belief was not reasonable. He was slightly dark skinned and on the tube so they shot him. They gave him no opportunity to put his hands up or surrender.

 

And has been pointed out, it's irrelevant to anything.

 

 

ah. I see. You're getting there, but it was NJS who mentioned him, as he is one of those who seem to have a very idealistic attitude concerning things like this.

 

A bit like asking terrorists to surrender first too.

 

A terrorist may not have surrendered, CJdM was not a terrorist though, unfortunately the police decided to act as judge, jury and executioner.

 

OK. And the question was, what would have happened if Derrick Bird had also been shot before shooting anyone ?

 

You don't understand. Nobody is saying mistakes aren't made, but you have to act on the knowledge and intelligence you have, and I for one, would not run away from the police. Would you ?

[ewerk 30266]

From the coroner's hearing.

[Renton 21351]

NJS brought up the De Menenzes incident because of the subsequent lies and cover up, not because of the manner of the shooting.

 

What happened on Bloody Sunday was simply indefensible. That is what the Inquiry has found and that is what Cameron has stated. I can't see how anyone with a conscience can disagree. The actions of the IRA, or the actions of the security forces in other situations, are entirely irrelevant to this point.

[ewerk 30266]

You don't understand. Nobody is saying mistakes aren't made, but you have to act on the knowledge and intelligence you have, and I for one, would not run away from the police. Would you ?

 

No but if you don't know that you're being followed it makes it difficult to stop.

 

And if the police saw Derrick Bird with a gun and told him to stop and he refused then yes they should have shot him, I don't see what a hypothetical point adds to your argument, in fact I'm not sure what your argument is.

Edited June 15, 2010 by ewerk

[Renton 21351]

OK. And the question was, what would have happened if Derrick Bird had also been shot before shooting anyone ?

 

I'm struggling to make sense of this gibberish. Why would Bird have been shot before shooting anyone?

 

Why don't you just stick to the facts of the case in hand?

[LeazesMag 0]

NJS brought up the De Menenzes incident because of the subsequent lies and cover up, not because of the manner of the shooting.

 

What happened on Bloody Sunday was simply indefensible. That is what the Inquiry has found and that is what Cameron has stated. I can't see how anyone with a conscience can disagree. The actions of the IRA, or the actions of the security forces in other situations, are entirely irrelevant to this point.

 

aye, well its a shame that the murderous bastards on both sides in NI can't also stand up and apologise or be held to account for their actions too.

 

I just don't get people like you, who hurl flak at people predominantly trying to keep law and order, and obeying orders, yet defend those with deliberate intentions to murder as many people enjoying a Saturday afternoon in a city centre as often as possible. or defend the circumstances and freedoms allowed to those with such intentions. And I'm not just talking about the IRA here.

 

It would appear that Cameron apologising for something that others were responsible for [and he is correct to apologise] isn't enough. What must Adams and his cronies be thinking ? Are they big enough to do the same ? I doubt it, as they have never had the balls to stand up in the open in the first place. Will they take his lead ?

 

The point about De Menzies is that if the intelligence had been correct [and they believed it to be correct] then they also believed they were doing the right thing at the time.

Edited June 15, 2010 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

OK. And the question was, what would have happened if Derrick Bird had also been shot before shooting anyone ?

 

I'm struggling to make sense of this gibberish. Why would Bird have been shot before shooting anyone?

 

Why don't you just stick to the facts of the case in hand?

 

The facts of the case, is that an apology has been made, but it evidently isn't enough for some. Other facts are that they don't call for perpetrators of other atrocities to do the same.

 

Too many people just don't understand the reality of facing up to those intent on murdering innocent civilians.

[Renton 21351]

NJS brought up the De Menenzes incident because of the subsequent lies and cover up, not because of the manner of the shooting.

 

What happened on Bloody Sunday was simply indefensible. That is what the Inquiry has found and that is what Cameron has stated. I can't see how anyone with a conscience can disagree. The actions of the IRA, or the actions of the security forces in other situations, are entirely irrelevant to this point.

 

aye, well its a shame that the murderous bastards on both sides in NI can't also stand up and apologise or be held to account for their actions too.

 

I just don't get people like you, who hurl flak at people predominantly trying to keep law and order, and obeying orders, yet defend those with deliberate intentions to murder as many people enjoying a Saturday afternoon in a city centre as often as possible. or defend the circumstances and freedoms allowed to those with such intentions. And I'm not just talking about the IRA here.

 

It would appear that Cameron apologising for something that others were responsible for [and he is correct to apologise] isn't enough. What must Adams and his cronies be thinking ? Are they big enough to do the same ? I doubt it, as they have never had the balls to stand up in the open in the first place. Will they take his lead ?

 

The point about De Menzies is that if the intelligence had been correct [and they believed it to be correct] then they also believed they were doing the right thing at the time.

 

Aye, back to form as usual. Find me one post I have ever made where I have defended any acts of terrorism, or the perpretrators of terrorism, let alone the slaughter of innocents 'on a Saturday afternoon'. If you can't find one are you going to apologise? Didn't think so.

 

Trying to have a rational debate with you is impossible. Within a few posts you descend into a bizarre mix of hypothetical situations only you can see the relevance of; straw men fallacies; and when that doesn't work, it'll be insults.

[LeazesMag 0]

NJS brought up the De Menenzes incident because of the subsequent lies and cover up, not because of the manner of the shooting.

 

What happened on Bloody Sunday was simply indefensible. That is what the Inquiry has found and that is what Cameron has stated. I can't see how anyone with a conscience can disagree. The actions of the IRA, or the actions of the security forces in other situations, are entirely irrelevant to this point.

 

aye, well its a shame that the murderous bastards on both sides in NI can't also stand up and apologise or be held to account for their actions too.

 

I just don't get people like you, who hurl flak at people predominantly trying to keep law and order, and obeying orders, yet defend those with deliberate intentions to murder as many people enjoying a Saturday afternoon in a city centre as often as possible. or defend the circumstances and freedoms allowed to those with such intentions. And I'm not just talking about the IRA here.

 

It would appear that Cameron apologising for something that others were responsible for [and he is correct to apologise] isn't enough. What must Adams and his cronies be thinking ? Are they big enough to do the same ? I doubt it, as they have never had the balls to stand up in the open in the first place. Will they take his lead ?

 

The point about De Menzies is that if the intelligence had been correct [and they believed it to be correct] then they also believed they were doing the right thing at the time.

 

Aye, back to form as usual. Find me one post I have ever made where I have defended any acts of terrorism, or the perpretrators of terrorism, let alone the slaughter of innocents 'on a Saturday afternoon'. If you can't find one are you going to apologise? Didn't think so.

 

Trying to have a rational debate with you is impossible. Within a few posts you descend into a bizarre mix of hypothetical situations only you can see the relevance of; straw men fallacies; and when that doesn't work, it'll be insults.

 

ah. Are you doing it now ? I realise you have been fairly sensible in your views on this type of thing in the past though. I am also not going to resort to insults, are you going to apologise in advance for your assumption ?

 

I answered NJS ref his comment about De Menzies, as he has idealistic views and is wrong, basically. You can only act on intelligence you have and make life or death decisions based on them, literally. Ask questions first to a gunman, or someone you believe is armed, and it is you who dies. In that situation, bollocks to putting hands up or any other such shite.

 

The report today - I've also said my views on this, and people should let it go now, and their hypocrisy is astounding.

[NJS 4371]

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

That belief was not reasonable. He was slightly dark skinned and on the tube so they shot him. They gave him no opportunity to put his hands up or surrender.

 

And has been pointed out, it's irrelevant to anything.

 

 

ah. I see. You're getting there, but it was NJS who mentioned him, as he is one of those who seem to have a very idealistic attitude concerning things like this.

 

A bit like asking terrorists to surrender first too.

 

I mentioned him in relation to it being the woman in charge who should take the blame, not the blokes who pulled the trigger (though in the bloody sunday case both apply).

 

Comparisons with Bird are ridiculous because De Menenzes was innocent, was unarmed and did absolutely nothing suspicious - and please don't trot out the proven lies told by Ian Blair.

[LeazesMag 0]

Why not ? Someone evidently did ?

That belief was not reasonable. He was slightly dark skinned and on the tube so they shot him. They gave him no opportunity to put his hands up or surrender.

 

And has been pointed out, it's irrelevant to anything.

 

 

ah. I see. You're getting there, but it was NJS who mentioned him, as he is one of those who seem to have a very idealistic attitude concerning things like this.

 

A bit like asking terrorists to surrender first too.

 

I mentioned him in relation to it being the woman in charge who should take the blame, not the blokes who pulled the trigger (though in the bloody sunday case both apply).

 

Comparisons with Bird are ridiculous because De Menenzes was innocent, was unarmed and did absolutely nothing suspicious - and please don't trot out the proven lies told by Ian Blair.

 

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?