Bloody Sunday

[Guest alex]

Dozens of soldiers had been killed in the 12 months or so leading up to Bloody Sunday, the boundaries inevitably become blurred because of that. Not that that makes what happened acceptable in any way. But it becomes personal when comrades have died. People are only human. The only have to look at the footage of that day and around that time to see it's not as clean-cut as some would have it.

 

Thing is if you go back to the days before the republic was setup there were atrocities on both sides which make BS seem like a minor incident. I think it's a mark of how more "civilised" we are that at least enquiries are held (even if delayed) which wasn't the case in the days of empire.

I quite agree although the length and cost of it all is questionable. It's also part of the process of 'appeasement' to help end the troubles so perhaps it's difficult to put a price on that. With that in mind though I think any people pursuing this further could have a counter-productive effect, given how many other people will never see 'justice'.

[Kitman 2207]

Sadly I don't think it will 'be the end of it', on the contrary I think it will open up a whole new can of worms - the families of countless soldiers killed in the troubles may well want aplogies from those responsible who in large have never shown remorse.

 

Personally I draw a distinction between the British Army and vicious terrorist organisations like the Provisional IRA or UDA. You can't expect standards of behaviour from the latter because they're illegal criminal organisations. You can and should expect it from a sovereign army on peacekeeping duties amongst its own citizens. Unless of course the British Army is viewed as a terrorist organisation in its own right, which Irish rebels have said for years.

 

 

I dont get how so many are missing this point.

Dozens of soldiers had been killed in the 12 months or so leading up to Bloody Sunday, the boundaries inevitably become blurred because of that. Not that that makes what happened acceptable in any way. But it becomes personal when comrades have died. People are only human. The only have to look at the footage of that day and around that time to see it's not as clean-cut as some would have it.

 

Indeed. But you have to ask serious questions about who sent in the Paras on peacekeeping duties in that atmosphere. The paras are the nutter stormtroopers of the army, more intended for frontline action not peacekeeping. Not the best choice to police troublemakers in a powderkeg situation you'd have thought.

[Guest alex]

Sadly I don't think it will 'be the end of it', on the contrary I think it will open up a whole new can of worms - the families of countless soldiers killed in the troubles may well want aplogies from those responsible who in large have never shown remorse.

 

Personally I draw a distinction between the British Army and vicious terrorist organisations like the Provisional IRA or UDA. You can't expect standards of behaviour from the latter because they're illegal criminal organisations. You can and should expect it from a sovereign army on peacekeeping duties amongst its own citizens. Unless of course the British Army is viewed as a terrorist organisation in its own right, which Irish rebels have said for years.

 

 

I dont get how so many are missing this point.

Dozens of soldiers had been killed in the 12 months or so leading up to Bloody Sunday, the boundaries inevitably become blurred because of that. Not that that makes what happened acceptable in any way. But it becomes personal when comrades have died. People are only human. The only have to look at the footage of that day and around that time to see it's not as clean-cut as some would have it.

 

Indeed. But you have to ask serious questions about who sent in the Paras on peacekeeping duties in that atmosphere. The paras are the nutter stormtroopers of the army, more intended for frontline action not peacekeeping. Not the best choice to police troublemakers in a powderkeg situation you'd have thought.

Agreed.

[Kitman 2207]

And it was about 7 years too soon for Maggie.

 

She was education minister in Heath's government - not in anyway related I know but the only minister I'd guess who is still alive (and famous).

 

She's away with the fairies these days though, isn't she?

[Kevin 1]

Sometime soon Kitman, sometime soon.

[ewerk 31195]

Indeed. But you have to ask serious questions about who sent in the Paras on peacekeeping duties in that atmosphere. The paras are the nutter stormtroopers of the army, more intended for frontline action not peacekeeping. Not the best choice to police troublemakers in a powderkeg situation you'd have thought.

 

Aye, they were making the point last night that the Paras were trained to be aggressive and hadn't had the time in NI to adjust their MO.

[LeazesMag 0]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

Edited June 16, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Renton 21983]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

So presumably you'd prefer there was no peace in Northern Ireland then? Interesting.

[Howmanheyman 33828]

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.

My Dad once thought he stopped McGuinness when he was a wanted terrorist, but wasn't 100% sure if it was him. If he suspected he was him, one thing my Dad never did was to pull him out of his car, drag him to some waste ground, torture him and then kill him in cold blood. Would my Dad have got the same consideration had the tables been turned? I still remember those poor intelligence blokes who drove down the wrong street and were murdered at a funeral.

 

Really, Kevin, I think you'll find the troubles and the terrorists would have ceased to be a big problem pretty quickly if rules and laws didn't have to be followed. In 30 years this was the worst thing that happened by the British Army and we're still having enquiries to this day! Don't think many countries would have bothered to do this and also apologise to be honest.

 

Without going into details I've had relatives shot by terrorists, one of them was a civilian driving a bus, and that was his only crime, they wanted his bus.

 

So Kevin, do me a favour mate and go stick your head back up your own arse, son.

 

Any legitimacy a terrorist thinks he has goes out the window when they start murdering people.

[Guest alex]

Naive idealism there, LM.

[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.

My Dad once thought he stopped McGuinness when he was a wanted terrorist, but wasn't 100% sure if it was him. If he suspected he was him, one thing my Dad never did was to pull him out of his car, drag him to some waste ground, torture him and then kill him in cold blood. Would my Dad have got the same consideration had the tables been turned? I still remember those poor intelligence blokes who drove down the wrong street and were murdered at a funeral.

 

Really, Kevin, I think you'll find the troubles and the terrorists would have ceased to be a big problem pretty quickly if rules and laws didn't have to be followed. In 30 years this was the worst thing that happened by the British Army and we're still having enquiries to this day! Don't think many countries would have bothered to do this and also apologise to be honest.

 

Without going into details I've had relatives shot by terrorists, one of them was a civilian driving a bus, and that was his only crime, they wanted his bus.

 

So Kevin, do me a favour mate and go stick your head back up your own arse, son.

 

Any legitimacy a terrorist thinks he has goes out the window when they start murdering people.

Was your Da a soldier over here? So you think that 13 innocent people murdered should have been swept under the rug the day after? My head is far from up my own arse, it's only you English that find it hard to accept that your soldiers murdered innocent people. Thats the simple fact. Don't say about the IRA etc. because they killed alot more innocent people, they aren't an official armed force.

[Guest alex]

I can't get over how badly you miscomprehend the stuff people have put on here, Kevin. You're thick as pig's shit.

[Howmanheyman 33828]

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.

My Dad once thought he stopped McGuinness when he was a wanted terrorist, but wasn't 100% sure if it was him. If he suspected he was him, one thing my Dad never did was to pull him out of his car, drag him to some waste ground, torture him and then kill him in cold blood. Would my Dad have got the same consideration had the tables been turned? I still remember those poor intelligence blokes who drove down the wrong street and were murdered at a funeral.

 

Really, Kevin, I think you'll find the troubles and the terrorists would have ceased to be a big problem pretty quickly if rules and laws didn't have to be followed. In 30 years this was the worst thing that happened by the British Army and we're still having enquiries to this day! Don't think many countries would have bothered to do this and also apologise to be honest.

 

Without going into details I've had relatives shot by terrorists, one of them was a civilian driving a bus, and that was his only crime, they wanted his bus.

 

So Kevin, do me a favour mate and go stick your head back up your own arse, son.

 

Any legitimacy a terrorist thinks he has goes out the window when they start murdering people.

Was your Da a soldier over here? So you think that 13 innocent people murdered should have been swept under the rug the day after? My head is far from up my own arse, it's only you English that find it hard to accept that your soldiers murdered innocent people. Thats the simple fact. Don't say about the IRA etc. because they killed alot more innocent people, they aren't an official armed force.

No, I don't think I said that.

 

In a peace keeping conflict, helping the local police, in 30 years, when young men are sent onto the streets with weapons and no idea if someone in a window in a street will shoot them, when people have threw molatov cocktails at them, when they don't know if rioters will do any more than just throw bricks at them, then I think it's a surprise there hasn't been more innocent deaths caused by the Army to be honest. Good job they were almost always professional and didn't just kill any daft young kid who got in their faces. There'd have been a blood bath every few months.

[NJS 4411]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

[LeazesMag 0]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

My Dad once thought he stopped McGuinness when he was a wanted terrorist, but wasn't 100% sure if it was him. If he suspected he was him, one thing my Dad never did was to pull him out of his car, drag him to some waste ground, torture him and then kill him in cold blood. Would my Dad have got the same consideration had the tables been turned? I still remember those poor intelligence blokes who drove down the wrong street and were murdered at a funeral.

 

Really, Kevin, I think you'll find the troubles and the terrorists would have ceased to be a big problem pretty quickly if rules and laws didn't have to be followed. In 30 years this was the worst thing that happened by the British Army and we're still having enquiries to this day! Don't think many countries would have bothered to do this and also apologise to be honest.

 

Without going into details I've had relatives shot by terrorists, one of them was a civilian driving a bus, and that was his only crime, they wanted his bus.

 

So Kevin, do me a favour mate and go stick your head back up your own arse, son.

 

Any legitimacy a terrorist thinks he has goes out the window when they start murdering people.

Was your Da a soldier over here? So you think that 13 innocent people murdered should have been swept under the rug the day after? My head is far from up my own arse, it's only you English that find it hard to accept that your soldiers murdered innocent people. Thats the simple fact. Don't say about the IRA etc. because they killed alot more innocent people, they aren't an official armed force.

No, I don't think I said that.

 

In a peace keeping conflict, helping the local police, in 30 years, when young men are sent onto the streets with weapons and no idea if someone in a window in a street will shoot them, when people have threw molatov cocktails at them, when they don't know if rioters will do any more than just throw bricks at them, then I think it's a surprise there hasn't been more innocent deaths caused by the Army to be honest. Good job they were almost always professional and didn't just kill any daft young kid who got in their faces. There'd have been a blood bath every few months.

 

precisely and very well said.

[LeazesMag 0]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

So presumably you'd prefer there was no peace in Northern Ireland then? Interesting.

 

thats a daft statement.

 

Does the sight of Adams and McGuiness as "statesmen" not make you squirm ?

[Renton 21983]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

[Renton 21983]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

So presumably you'd prefer there was no peace in Northern Ireland then? Interesting.

 

thats a daft statement.

 

Does the sight of Adams and McGuiness as "statesmen" not make you squirm ?

 

How's it daft though? There would be no peace in Northern Ireland without concessions to terrorist groups, do you seriously disagree with that?

 

As for Adams and McGuiness, I can't say I particularly think about them. You'd clearly want them executed and the war to begin again though by the sounds of it.

[ewerk 31195]

In a peace keeping conflict, helping the local police, in 30 years, when young men are sent onto the streets with weapons and no idea if someone in a window in a street will shoot them, when people have threw molatov cocktails at them, when they don't know if rioters will do any more than just throw bricks at them, then I think it's a surprise there hasn't been more innocent deaths caused by the Army to be honest. Good job they were almost always professional and didn't just kill any daft young kid who got in their faces. There'd have been a blood bath every few months.

 

Tbf the Army were welcomed by catholics when they first came over but it soon transpired that their intentions certainly weren't to win hearts and minds, they're heavy handed tactics meant that they ended up losing the confidence of both sides of the community.

 

I have a general question if anyone cares to have a go at answering it, what were the alternatives for Northern Irish catholics?

 

They were discriminated against for jobs and housing, they were disenfranchised and under represented in the Northern Ireland parliament, their attempts and peaceful protest were being ignored, they were being thrown in jail without trial, Thatcher was letting an MP die on hunger strike, they simply didn't have a voice.

 

I'm not defending terrorism but this wasn't just about getting a united Ireland, it was also about the institutional discrimination against a community that didn't have a voice. So violence aside, what could they have done?

[ewerk 31195]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

 

Like the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six should've been shot on sight?

[Renton 21983]

In a peace keeping conflict, helping the local police, in 30 years, when young men are sent onto the streets with weapons and no idea if someone in a window in a street will shoot them, when people have threw molatov cocktails at them, when they don't know if rioters will do any more than just throw bricks at them, then I think it's a surprise there hasn't been more innocent deaths caused by the Army to be honest. Good job they were almost always professional and didn't just kill any daft young kid who got in their faces. There'd have been a blood bath every few months.

 

Tbf the Army were welcomed by catholics when they first came over but it soon transpired that their intentions certainly weren't to win hearts and minds, they're heavy handed tactics meant that they ended up losing the confidence of both sides of the community.

 

I have a general question if anyone cares to have a go at answering it, what were the alternatives for Northern Irish catholics?

 

They were discriminated against for jobs and housing, they were disenfranchised and under represented in the Northern Ireland parliament, their attempts and peaceful protest were being ignored, they were being thrown in jail without trial, Thatcher was letting an MP die on hunger strike, they simply didn't have a voice.

 

I'm not defending terrorism but this wasn't just about getting a united Ireland, it was also about the institutional discrimination against a community that didn't have a voice. So violence aside, what could they have done?

 

Not a lot. It's a story that's repeated around the World. The whole creation of Northern Ireland was probably a mistake and then you can go further back it all comes down to British Imperialism. Violence was inevitable.

[LeazesMag 0]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

So presumably you'd prefer there was no peace in Northern Ireland then? Interesting.

 

thats a daft statement.

 

Does the sight of Adams and McGuiness as "statesmen" not make you squirm ?

 

How's it daft though? There would be no peace in Northern Ireland without concessions to terrorist groups, do you seriously disagree with that?

 

As for Adams and McGuiness, I can't say I particularly think about them. You'd clearly want them executed and the war to begin again though by the sounds of it.

 

 

no. I'm realistic enough to see that the current "peace" is vastly preferable to what went before and should not be inflamed again. They have got away with what they did, the same as the report yesterday, its time to let it lie.

 

Generally though, I wouldn't change my view. I'd shoot all the muslims involved in terrorism in the UK for example, and I don't really care what any do gooders say or smart arsed lawyers either.

[LeazesMag 0]

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 ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

 

Like the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six should've been shot on sight?

 

 

well, if they didn't do it, who did ?

[ewerk 31195]

Generally though, I wouldn't change my view. I'd shoot all the muslims involved in terrorism in the UK for example, and I don't really care what any do gooders say or smart arsed lawyers either.

 

I love how anyone who isn't to the right of the Third Reich is classed as a do gooder.