|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 15, 2019 14:22:02 GMT
So in what context is it acceptable to draw a line under the shooting of unarmed civilians then? Your right we should go back to year 1 and prosecute those who crusified the son of god. Yeah the big difference is, Solider F is alive as are those German veterans they keep finding, people from 2000 years ago are dead so getting them into the dock may be a bit of a problem. As they are living they should face proceedings to answer what they are charged with, same as anyone. So I'll ask again, what context excuses the shooting/murder of unarmed civilians? |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 15, 2019 14:31:02 GMT
Your right we should go back to year 1 and prosecute those who crusified the son of god. Yeah the big difference is, Solider F is alive as are those German veterans they keep finding, people from 2000 years ago are dead so getting them into the dock may be a bit of a problem. As they are living they should face proceedings to answer what they are charged with, same as anyone. So I'll ask again, what context excuses the shooting/murder of unarmed civilians? Who said it was ok? I said draw a line under it and move on. Your right let's find the oldest veteran and investigate their role. Let's investigate every death in the Falklands, let's investigate every death in conflict over the world bad things happen in conflict all I'm saying is at some point you move on. What's the point in prosecuting a member of the military doing his job under orders over 40years ago. We should go back further to the oldest veteran to make sure justice was done. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 15, 2019 14:34:24 GMT
Too far back how about Churchill and Eisenhower? How about the Paras and Welsh Guards in the Falklands or Stormin Norman? Pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. If there is evidence that a person has broken the laws as documented in the Geneva Convention then they should be prosecuted and tried for those crimes. Absolutely no one should be above the law, soldiers included...... Total agreement but where do you draw the line? 40years 60years 80years or with every living member of the armed forces in all conflict. Was the Belgrano legal? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 14:35:28 GMT
If the soldier is being prosecuted then all the terrorists, including those who received a letter of immunity from Bliar should also be prosecuted. There can't or shouldn't be one rule for one side and another rule for the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 15, 2019 14:38:10 GMT
Yeah the big difference is, Solider F is alive as are those German veterans they keep finding, people from 2000 years ago are dead so getting them into the dock may be a bit of a problem. As they are living they should face proceedings to answer what they are charged with, same as anyone. So I'll ask again, what context excuses the shooting/murder of unarmed civilians? Who said it was ok? I said draw a line under it and move on. Your right let's find the oldest veteran and investigate their role. Let's investigate every death in the Falklands, let's investigate every death in conflict over the world bad things happen in conflict all I'm saying is at some point you move on. What's the point in prosecuting a member of the military doing his job under orders over 40years ago. We should go back further to the oldest veteran to make sure justice was done. Soldier F was offered immunity if he told the truth. He decided not to. |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 15, 2019 14:47:28 GMT
Yeah the big difference is, Solider F is alive as are those German veterans they keep finding, people from 2000 years ago are dead so getting them into the dock may be a bit of a problem. As they are living they should face proceedings to answer what they are charged with, same as anyone. So I'll ask again, what context excuses the shooting/murder of unarmed civilians? Who said it was ok? I said draw a line under it and move on. Your right let's find the oldest veteran and investigate their role. Let's investigate every death in the Falklands, let's investigate every death in conflict over the world bad things happen in conflict all I'm saying is at some point you move on. What's the point in prosecuting a member of the military doing his job under orders over 40years ago. We should go back further to the oldest veteran to make sure justice was done. Not all veterans are implicated in crimes such as Bloody Sunday though, that's the whole damn point. The overwhelming majority carried out their service without such incidents. Solider F isn't just some guy they've pulled off the street who happened to serve in Northern Ireland in 1972, he was directly involved in one of the most infamous massacres on British soil. As I recall, it's not in the remit of the British Army to shoot unarmed civilians, and I cannot believe you just referred to the line actually referred to as "The Nuremberg defence" in "only following orders" as if they had no agency or moral obligations themselves. The point of this prosecution is to provide family members of those killed that day, some small measure of peace at the end of a 40 year fight, in which some of their deceased relatives have been slandered, accused of being terrorists and had their cases ignored by their own government. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 15, 2019 17:17:21 GMT
Who said it was ok? I said draw a line under it and move on. Your right let's find the oldest veteran and investigate their role. Let's investigate every death in the Falklands, let's investigate every death in conflict over the world bad things happen in conflict all I'm saying is at some point you move on. What's the point in prosecuting a member of the military doing his job under orders over 40years ago. We should go back further to the oldest veteran to make sure justice was done. Not all veterans are implicated in crimes such as Bloody Sunday though, that's the whole damn point. The overwhelming majority carried out their service without such incidents. Solider F isn't just some guy they've pulled off the street who happened to serve in Northern Ireland in 1972, he was directly involved in one of the most infamous massacres on British soil. As I recall, it's not in the remit of the British Army to shoot unarmed civilians, and I cannot believe you just referred to the line actually referred to as "The Nuremberg defence" in "only following orders" as if they had no agency or moral obligations themselves. The point of this prosecution is to provide family members of those killed that day, some small measure of peace at the end of a 40 year fight, in which some of their deceased relatives have been slandered, accused of being terrorists and had their cases ignored by their own government. I'm pretty sure anyone could find fault and blame if you looked hard enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 17:57:34 GMT
Not all veterans are implicated in crimes such as Bloody Sunday though, that's the whole damn point. The overwhelming majority carried out their service without such incidents. Solider F isn't just some guy they've pulled off the street who happened to serve in Northern Ireland in 1972, he was directly involved in one of the most infamous massacres on British soil. As I recall, it's not in the remit of the British Army to shoot unarmed civilians, and I cannot believe you just referred to the line actually referred to as "The Nuremberg defence" in "only following orders" as if they had no agency or moral obligations themselves. The point of this prosecution is to provide family members of those killed that day, some small measure of peace at the end of a 40 year fight, in which some of their deceased relatives have been slandered, accused of being terrorists and had their cases ignored by their own government. I'm pretty sure anyone could find fault and blame if you looked hard enough. You might want to go and read some of the articles posted earlier on this thread then make you mind up whether people have had to go looking for this evidence or weather it was blindingly bloody obvious and covered up for decades. Shooting an unarmed man waving a hanky trying to help another wounded person. Shooting a boy in the back as he tried to crawl away. And shouting 'I've got another one'? It's all well and good saying you should forget it now but what if this happened to you - what if it was you or your child. It should have been done at the time. The fact that its taken this long is part of the problem. It was done for political reasons and covered up. Which is exactly why it is so important it happens now even despite it being so long a go. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 15, 2019 18:06:15 GMT
I'm pretty sure anyone could find fault and blame if you looked hard enough. You might want to go and read some of the articles posted earlier on this thread then make you mind up whether people have had to go looking for this evidence or weather it was blindingly bloody obvious and covered up for decades. Shooting an unarmed man waving a hanky trying to help another wounded person. Shooting a boy in the back as he tried to crawl away. And shouting 'I've got another one'? It's all well and good saying you should forget it now but what if this happened to you - what if it was you or your child. It should have been done at the time. The fact that its taken this long is part of the problem. It was done for political reasons and covered up. Which is exactly why it is so important it happens now even despite it being so long a go. Nothing to do with this comment it's directed at other conflict. If you look hard and long enough you can find fault. At no point have i said it's right in this case to ignore evidence. So maybe you should read my posts before passing judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 18:16:57 GMT
You might want to go and read some of the articles posted earlier on this thread then make you mind up whether people have had to go looking for this evidence or weather it was blindingly bloody obvious and covered up for decades. Shooting an unarmed man waving a hanky trying to help another wounded person. Shooting a boy in the back as he tried to crawl away. And shouting 'I've got another one'? It's all well and good saying you should forget it now but what if this happened to you - what if it was you or your child. It should have been done at the time. The fact that its taken this long is part of the problem. It was done for political reasons and covered up. Which is exactly why it is so important it happens now even despite it being so long a go. Nothing to do with this comment it's directed at other conflict. If you look hard and long enough you can find fault. At no point have i said it's right in this case to ignore evidence. So maybe you should read my posts before passing judgement. I have read them thanks. You've said and have repeated a number of times "draw a line under it and move on" and you've responded with someone pointing out the direct evidence in this case with "pretty sure you can always find evidence if you look hard enough" as if to suggest they've had to go looking for this when all I was saying was that the evidence has always been there but covered up. Nevermind. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 15, 2019 18:24:41 GMT
Nothing to do with this comment it's directed at other conflict. If you look hard and long enough you can find fault. At no point have i said it's right in this case to ignore evidence. So maybe you should read my posts before passing judgement. I have read them thanks. You've said and have repeated a number of times "draw a line under it and move on" and you've responded with someone pointing out the direct evidence in this case with "pretty sure you can always find evidence if you look hard enough" as if to suggest they've had to go looking for this when all I was saying was that the evidence has always been there but covered up. Nevermind. The beauty of interpretation yours suits you. That was in relation to others read it again at no point have I mentioned Bloody Sunday. I'm making a point that with all conflict you can find fault if you look hard enough. If you think "rules" are always obeyed in conflict thats ok naive but ok. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 18:31:34 GMT
I have read them thanks. You've said and have repeated a number of times "draw a line under it and move on" and you've responded with someone pointing out the direct evidence in this case with "pretty sure you can always find evidence if you look hard enough" as if to suggest they've had to go looking for this when all I was saying was that the evidence has always been there but covered up. Nevermind. The beauty of interpretation yours suits you. That was in relation to others read it again at no point have I mentioned Bloody Sunday. I'm making a point that with all conflict you can find fault if you look hard enough. If you think "rules" are always obeyed in conflict thats ok naive but ok. That's a brilliant response. Sorry I assumed that by posting 'draw a line under it and move on' on a thread called Bloody Sunday - soldier prosecuted you were posting about the subject of thread. But do feel free to get defensive and call me naive for thinking something I don't even think and have not once said. There is really no need to be rude. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 15, 2019 18:40:18 GMT
The beauty of interpretation yours suits you. That was in relation to others read it again at no point have I mentioned Bloody Sunday. I'm making a point that with all conflict you can find fault if you look hard enough. If you think "rules" are always obeyed in conflict thats ok naive but ok. That's a brilliant response. Sorry I assumed that by posting 'draw a line under it and move on' on a thread called Bloody Sunday - soldier prosecuted you were posting about the subject of thread. But do feel free to get defensive and call me naive for thinking something I don't even think and have not once said. There is really no need to be rude. You have made the classic Oatcake mistake, you read something seized on a line and taken it out of context to suit your sanctimonious agenda. I have said I agree that if a person has acted outside of the law then it's right to pursue. You have chosen to ignore that and seize on "draw a line" and to use that as me saying to ignore evidence in this case and let guilty people off. I asked how far do we go back? And it's time to move on and that every member of the armed forces are vulnerable to being accused in times of conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 15, 2019 18:43:06 GMT
Let's not forget that Soldiers who were killed during The Troubles by Republicans also have families that were devastated. We don't hear much about these families do we? John McDonnell interviewed by Nicky Campbell yesterday said that the Bloody Sunday families needed this for closure. I'm sure there are a few families in McDonnell's own country that might need the same. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 15, 2019 18:49:31 GMT
Slightly different context. So in what context is it acceptable to draw a line under the shooting of unarmed civilians then? You need to speak to one of the experts in the field does anyone know if Jerry Adams has made any pronouncements? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 15, 2019 18:49:44 GMT
Let's not forget that Soldiers who were killed during The Troubles by Republicans also have families that were devastated. We don't hear much about these families do we? John McDonnell interviewed by Nicky Campbell yesterday said that the Bloody Sunday families needed this for closure. I'm sure there are a few families in McDonnell's own country that might need the same. Too much bending over to the republicans fuck everyone else To be fair that’s always been his leader’s mantra |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 15, 2019 18:51:59 GMT
Too far back how about Churchill and Eisenhower? How about the Paras and Welsh Guards in the Falklands or Stormin Norman? Pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. If there is evidence that a person has broken the laws as documented in the Geneva Convention then they should be prosecuted and tried for those crimes. Absolutely no one should be above the law, soldiers included...... Out of interest the point about soldiers being held to a higher account keeps cropping up on this thread. Do you think politicians should be held to the same level of responsibility? |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 15, 2019 19:03:53 GMT
John McDonnell interviewed by Nicky Campbell yesterday said that the Bloody Sunday families needed this for closure. I'm sure there are a few families in McDonnell's own country that might need the same. Too much bending over to the republicans fuck everyone else To be fair that’s always been his leader’s mantra I've no idea why Mr Campbell let him bleat on and didn't raise any hard questions given McDonnell's past history of support for IRA causes. I don't think the IRA ever targeted Liverpool but he could have been asked about the letters of comfort and the dead of London, Birmingham, Warrington, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 19:05:00 GMT
Pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. If there is evidence that a person has broken the laws as documented in the Geneva Convention then they should be prosecuted and tried for those crimes. Absolutely no one should be above the law, soldiers included...... Out of interest the point about soldiers being held to a higher account keeps cropping up on this thread. Do you think politicians should be held to the same level of responsibility? I personally never mentioned higher account, but if you mean should politicians such as Tony Blair face a trial over an illegal war in Iraq for example, if the evidence is there absolutely...... |
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Mar 15, 2019 19:13:27 GMT
Blair eats fine food, drinks wine. Parachute Regiment can go swivel.
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 15, 2019 19:19:49 GMT
Out of interest the point about soldiers being held to a higher account keeps cropping up on this thread. Do you think politicians should be held to the same level of responsibility? I personally never mentioned higher account, but if you mean should politicians such as Tony Blair face a trial over an illegal war in Iraq for example, if the evidence is there absolutely...... I was thinking more of Jerry Adams and I appreciate you didn't specifically mention the point. There's always the accusation that Jerry Adams is in receipt of one of Blair's letters. Blair was a fool to issue them to terrorists/ freedom fighters depending on the viewpoint of the poster whilst not issuing them to the soldiers on the receiving end of the IRA.
Does anyone know if the terrorists who committed the bombings were interviewed under immunity from prosecution? The Enniskillen terrorists and their colleagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 15, 2019 19:28:31 GMT
I personally never mentioned higher account, but if you mean should politicians such as Tony Blair face a trial over an illegal war in Iraq for example, if the evidence is there absolutely...... I was thinking more of Jerry Adams and I appreciate you didn't specifically mention the point. There's always the accusation that Jerry Adams is in receipt of one of Blair's letters. Blair was a fool to issue them to terrorists/ freedom fighters depending on the viewpoint of the poster whilst not issuing them to the soldiers on the receiving end of the IRA.
Does anyone know if the terrorists who committed the bombings were interviewed under immunity from prosecution? The Enniskillen terrorists and their colleagues.
According to the Ira it was war. As such their “terrorists” are soldiers. They should be held to the same account as British soldiers. I repeat. I have no issue with soldier f getting prosecuted. The court will decide guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. My issue is the amnesty afforded to terrorists both Protestant and catholic should have been equally dished out to the small minority of British forces who may or may not have carried out illegal acts. You can’t move on unless everyone moves on. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 15, 2019 19:41:44 GMT
I was thinking more of Jerry Adams and I appreciate you didn't specifically mention the point. There's always the accusation that Jerry Adams is in receipt of one of Blair's letters. Blair was a fool to issue them to terrorists/ freedom fighters depending on the viewpoint of the poster whilst not issuing them to the soldiers on the receiving end of the IRA.
Does anyone know if the terrorists who committed the bombings were interviewed under immunity from prosecution? The Enniskillen terrorists and their colleagues.
According to the Ira it was war. As such their “terrorists” are soldiers. They should be held to the same account as British soldiers. I repeat. I have no issue with soldier f getting prosecuted. The court will decide guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. My issue is the amnesty afforded to terrorists both Protestant and catholic should have been equally dished out to the small minority of British forces who may or may not have carried out illegal acts. You can’t move on unless everyone moves on. It's opening another can of worms you can't appease one side and deny the other. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 15, 2019 20:01:34 GMT
In certain circumstances particularly when its then been the subject of a cover up its more on the terrifying side what they can get away with. Look at Hillsborough and, perhaps more significantly, look at the campaign for the Orgreave enquiry that's just been rejected for example. This is why things like this decision on Bloody Sunday is vital as was the Hillsborough trials. Orgreave may never get theirs and most likely because what is being covered up there is the State/government abusing its powers on a huge scale. With a bit of luck, David Duckenfield will die in jail. Not only did he lie and work with his colleagues to falsify evidence, he has been utterly remorseless of his actions until he realised his pants were being pulled down at which point he decided to change and admit that he had fucked up. He deserves to spend his golden years in jail..... People can be forgiven for mistakes. His actions were no mistake. They were calculated and criminal, but he has been allowed to get away with it because he worked for the police. A slightly different take here from the one usually reported on David Duckenfield.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47582434
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 16, 2019 6:23:48 GMT
Here's an image of a Paratrooper from 1972....but this is the aftermath of an IRA bomb in Belfast which killed 7 people and injured another 148. Most people on mainland U.K. probably don’t remember the Donegall Street bombing. It was cold blooded murder committed by the IRA therefore never got the oxygen of publicity that Sinn Fein/IRA are able to drum up at will within our pathetic media. Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 16, 2019 8:40:09 GMT
Here's an image of a Paratrooper from 1972....but this is the aftermath of an IRA bomb in Belfast which killed 7 people and injured another 148. Most people on mainland U.K. probably don’t remember the Donegall Street bombing. It was cold blooded murder committed by the IRA therefore never got the oxygen of publicity that Sinn Fein/IRA are able to drum up at will within our pathetic media. I caught a programme on TV last week and it showed a clip of Jerry Adams from the days when the Sinn Fein IRA spokesman was subject to that ridiculous voice over from the various governments of the day when you could hear what he had to say but not his actual voice.
Can you imagine an ISIS spokesman being allowed to broadcast these days?
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 16, 2019 8:56:48 GMT
Let's not forget that Soldiers who were killed during The Troubles by Republicans also have families that were devastated. We don't hear much about these families do we? John McDonnell interviewed by Nicky Campbell yesterday said that the Bloody Sunday families needed this for closure. I'm sure there are a few families in McDonnell's own country that might need the same. There are also quite a few Nationalist families in Northern Ireland whose loved ones were murdered by the IRA for being 'touts'. We don't hear much about 'closure' for these families do we? |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 16, 2019 9:05:17 GMT
Here's an image of a Paratrooper from 1972....but this is the aftermath of an IRA bomb in Belfast which killed 7 people and injured another 148. Most people on mainland U.K. probably don’t remember the Donegall Street bombing. It was cold blooded murder committed by the IRA therefore never got the oxygen of publicity that Sinn Fein/IRA are able to drum up at will within our pathetic media. I caught a programme on TV last week and it showed a clip of Jerry Adams from the days when the Sinn Fein IRA spokesman was subject to that ridiculous voice over from the various governments of the day when you could hear what he had to say but not his actual voice.
Can you imagine an ISIS spokesman being allowed to broadcast these days?
Derry Girls? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 9:05:19 GMT
This is so one sided. Charging one soldier for events way back to bring "justice" for the family/families. What about the families of all those soldiers and civilians who were brutally murdered by IRA and Loyalist terrorists. No "justice" for them is there ? All that happened to those terrorists is a nice letter from Bliar dropping through their front door giving them immunity from prosecution.
There should be one rule for all, not a different one depending which side of the divide you fall on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Mar 16, 2019 9:33:51 GMT
You can’t help but to feel this is being exploited for political reasons too. Stirring this up combined with the uncertainty with the back stop, letter bombs to the mainland. I think the Republicans feels they’ve got a second wind.
|
|
