Bloody Sunday

[ewerk 26811]

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 ?

 

Aye, because the IRA are universally portrayed as the good guys.

 

To prosecute either side now would serve no purpose.

[Renton 18050]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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.

[Kevin 1]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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.

[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 ?

 

Just out of interest have you read, watched, or heard the results of the enquiry?

 

there are lots of "enquiries" they could also conduct Renton. Would Adams and MCGuiness present themselves at any such "enquiries". I doubt it.

[ewerk 26811]

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.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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.

[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.

 

it's a response to the point made about shooting the Brazilian, not todays report.

[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 ?

 

Aye, because the IRA are universally portrayed as the good guys.

 

To prosecute either side now would serve no purpose.

 

 

I agree with your statement that is it now time to put this to bed by the way.

[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.

[Kevin 1]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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.

[Renton 18050]

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 ?

 

Just out of interest have you read, watched, or heard the results of the enquiry?

 

there are lots of "enquiries" they could also conduct Renton. Would Adams and MCGuiness present themselves at any such "enquiries". I doubt it.

 

Shall I take that as a no then?

 

I get the impression you would defend the British security forces, at all levels, no matter what they had done.

[Kevin 1]

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.

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

[LeazesMag 0]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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.

[Renton 18050]

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)?

[Guest alex]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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

 

Got literally fuck all to do with this.

[The Fish 9237]

Nothing good would come of naming the soldiers. Name the guy who gave the order, sure... but what's the value in naming the soldiers?

[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.

 

isn't that what Adams and McGuiness ordered ? And without the balls to "fight their war" out in the open like men ?

[Kevin 1]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

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

 

Got literally fuck all to do with this.

 

it's a reply to NJS point about the Brazilian, which is why I quoted 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........

[Kevin 1]

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

[ewerk 26811]

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.

[Guest alex]

Had no relevence to his point either tbh

[ewerk 26811]

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

[peasepud 59]

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?