Kevin

Well is nobody going to say why they're protecting the army? They fucked up, bigtime. Admit it, accept it.

question for you, and others like you, as you mention the Brazilian. 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". Apologies to anyone offended by this question, but seriously, some people have their heads so far up their arse its unbelievable. What a ridiculous comparison, even by your standards. He's talking about the shooting of "an innocent man" isn't he, and the belief that he is about to commit an atrocity ? It's perfectly valid, if nothing else, it shows the naivety of some people. Them innocent people were shot by a crazed madman. These innocent people were shot by your army. Big difference there. Your a twat btw. Read the thread. You started this. Let it go man. Armed Forces personnel are just obeying orders, that is what they have to do. Either way the blame lies with the armed forces. The men on the front line mightn't of made the decision, it was Col.Derek Wilford and Gen. Mike Jackson. Who aren't on the front line.

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. So if there was no immediate danger why did they shoot?

question for you, and others like you, as you mention the Brazilian. 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". Apologies to anyone offended by this question, but seriously, some people have their heads so far up their arse its unbelievable. What a ridiculous comparison, even by your standards. He's talking about the shooting of "an innocent man" isn't he, and the belief that he is about to commit an atrocity ? It's perfectly valid, if nothing else, it shows the naivety of some people. Them innocent people were shot by a crazed madman. These innocent people were shot by your army. Big difference there. Your a twat btw.

question for you, and others like you, as you mention the Brazilian. 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". Apologies to anyone offended by this question, but seriously, some people have their heads so far up their arse its unbelievable.

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.

Correct. I was shocked aswell, basically trying to cover up murders.

Why do most of you insist in still trying to cover it up and back them?

To name and shame them.

Normally yes, in this thread, no.

Unbelievable because I don't buy every word in it? Someone made the reference to Hillsborough earlier (Stevie probably) - the scousers will have you believe that they were 'totally innocent' that day but in reality it's considered that a minority of their fans had a small level of responsibility. Innocent people were shot and that action was 100% wrong - what I'm saying is though I don't personally believe that every single person who marched that day didn't encite the troops in some way. But let me re-iterrate, it in no way excused or justified what occurred. I agree with that - comparing it with Hillsborough is correct in the sense that accepting the conclusions doesn't mean you can't hold certain "reservations". Well I meant it that way, but I also drew the comparison and stand by it in the context of "are they fuckin still going on about that the moaning cunts". If the killing of 13 civilians by their own troops isn't worth moaning about then I don't know what is, I suppose it's as silly as not recognising the result of a football match 24 years ago. The fact is that we wouldn't still be moaning about it if the original report wasn't a complete whitewash and this report had taken so fucking long to be completed. You weren't even born, apologies have been made, wrongs have been put right. There's nothing more to say. Wrongs have been put right? Jesus. What happened there? bring people back to life have they?

When are Spain playing?

As ewerk said you seem to have taken a "they weren't shot for nothing" view on it. why may i ask? It's just been proven, you're PM has apologised yet still you seem to stand strong on your view.

No, moron. Soldiers are soldiers doing a job, republican volunteers as you charitably call them are scum. I think it's more evidence that young Kevin believes himself to be totally knowledgable about a period of history that in reality he, and most of us on here tbh, has barely scratched the surface of. What's worse is that I reckon he believes the fact that, simply because he comes from the provence, he's automatically more qualified about it than the rest of us. I've always been of the opinion that the closer you are to a subject, the more biased your opinion of it is - in his case, most likely through the influence of others. What the fuck man? fucking 13 innocent people murdered by your troops and your arguement for it is that "the IRA are terrorists" etc. It was a civil rights march ffs.

No, moron. Soldiers are soldiers doing a job, republican volunteers as you charitably call them are scum. Doing a job? doing a fucking job? murdering innocent people is a "job"? fucking hell. So we should release the name of every soldier ever? I mean if we're applying your backwards logic that Soldiers are somehow the decision makers in their role? release the name of every paratrooper. They must be decision makers, they received no order at all to go into the bog.

No, moron. Soldiers are soldiers doing a job, republican volunteers as you charitably call them are scum. Doing a job? doing a fucking job? murdering innocent people is a "job"? fucking hell.

now release the names of the paras and hold them to account the same way republican volenteers were.

the reason you're all so defensive and find it hard to accept this is that they are your troops. It's not like the IRA are Irish troops ffs. The british army also shot at my parents who was with my brother when he was only 1. Yeah they provoked them to do it, they had guns they were in a f'ing taxi going home!

You really feel no remorse for what YOUR troops done? And that was what exactly? Do you know why they were there in the first place? Yes I do. What was it they done? they killed 13 people. 7 of those teenagers. Just when I think you can't be a bigger fucking dickhead - back you come. There isn't one person who believes what happened that day wasn't wrong. But to try to take the moral high-ground is a piss-take of epic proportions. These were events that occurred before most of us were born and remorse for the actions that day have long been the sentiment. Let's look at another event that occured before you were born but that most of us remember all too well. 20th March 1993 - Warrington Town Centre. IRA blew the shit out of the place and killed a 3 year old boy instantly and maimed a 12 year old boy who later died of his injuries. Not teenagers in this instance because they never got the chance to get to that age. Totally wrong too wouldn't you say? The whole period of troubles in Northern Ireland was a sad pathetic affair when too many people unnecessarily died. Thanks largely to the governments of the UK and Ireland, we're now in a time of peace and long may it continue. One day you'll be mature enough to understand how utterly pathetic and retarded you've been today. Cameron has, quite rightly, waited for the report to be published before making a comment on it. What happened in Warrington by the IRA wasn't right at all. As i've stated I don't support the IRA. Not in the slightest. I mightn't of said my points the most correct way so i apologise for that but it still is very wrong. What makes it worse is that every single one of those were innocent yet still people in here (not you) would argue with that. Nobody is whiter than white and with the greatest of respect, you're showing age and immaturity when you make the comment in bold. You can't possibly know that - it's conjecture. You've either heard the opinion of someone who was there or more likely, you've read it in biased press. It's adundantly clear that something went dreadfully wrong that day and it's my honest belief that our armed forces wouldn't open fire on innocent peacefully protesting civilians for no reason whatsoever - I don't believe them to be 'totally innocent' but then again in no way at all does it justify the actions of the soldiers that day. But it's just been proven in the Saville report? The report showed that not one of those people had a reason to be shot at. none of them were armed and a few of them were actually crawling trying to get away. It's a disgrace. I stated in a post before saying that not all british armed forces are the same but there can be no excuse for what happened.

I think it's easy for people to point out the IRA to be the bad people in Ireland. but what annoys me is when people fail to see the bad side of the british army just because your british, they also done some bad shit over there. the black and tans and all that nonsense were sick as fuck The IRA done bad things but many of them were provoked into joining it by the brutality of the british army. The IRA had a right to fight back to get people out of their country who were not wanted but some of the things they done were sick not all the british troops are bad but there has always been throughout our history violent bastards and there always will be, even some of the stuff you hear in Iraq, just like Ireland britain said they wanted to go there to help and I heard a few Iraqis on the news one day a while back saying we feel more in danger now than when sadaam was in charge.

You really feel no remorse for what YOUR troops done? And that was what exactly? Do you know why they were there in the first place? Yes I do. What was it they done? they killed 13 people. 7 of those teenagers. Just when I think you can't be a bigger fucking dickhead - back you come. There isn't one person who believes what happened that day wasn't wrong. But to try to take the moral high-ground is a piss-take of epic proportions. These were events that occurred before most of us were born and remorse for the actions that day have long been the sentiment. Let's look at another event that occured before you were born but that most of us remember all too well. 20th March 1993 - Warrington Town Centre. IRA blew the shit out of the place and killed a 3 year old boy instantly and maimed a 12 year old boy who later died of his injuries. Not teenagers in this instance because they never got the chance to get to that age. Totally wrong too wouldn't you say? The whole period of troubles in Northern Ireland was a sad pathetic affair when too many people unnecessarily died. Thanks largely to the governments of the UK and Ireland, we're now in a time of peace and long may it continue. One day you'll be mature enough to understand how utterly pathetic and retarded you've been today. Cameron has, quite rightly, waited for the report to be published before making a comment on it. What happened in Warrington by the IRA wasn't right at all. As i've stated I don't support the IRA. Not in the slightest. I mightn't of said my points the most correct way so i apologise for that but it still is very wrong. What makes it worse is that every single one of those were innocent yet still people in here (not you) would argue with that.

Well thats it. Unjustified. Innocent people. What makes it worse is that the British army tried to cover it up by saying they had guns and were armed etc.

You really feel no remorse for what YOUR troops done? and you feel no remorse for the disappeared then? or people caught up in bombings by either loyalist or catholic groups? Suppose my mate shouldn't have been standing outside a gaa club when he was shot by some retard who thought he was catholic the above posts can be put down to you being mid teens and emptied headed, fact is i've barely been through the troubles at 28, so you've seen fuck all, pipe down shut up or fuck off your an embarrassment as it is on here without spouting bollocks about something serious you can't grasp. why do people get the impression that i support the IRA? I don't. the IRA shouldn't of done the bombings / shootings. people might call the IRA terrorists and i'd agree, but they aren't an official armed force of a country.

You really feel no remorse for what YOUR troops done? And that was what exactly? Do you know why they were there in the first place? Yes I do. What was it they done? they killed 13 people. 7 of those teenagers.