Commonwealth soldiers

[ban-all-sheds]

What questions??

These, for a start:

Then of course we have the travesty of Northern Ireland, it was just yesterday that the government announced setting up a NEW enquiry into our troops at an initial cost of £150,000,000.

So do you think it would be better if troops were allowed to murder civilians?

If it is alleged that troops have murdered civilians in the UK, why do you not want that to be investigated?

They shot at people who were not posing any serious threats. They shot at people running away. They shot at people trying to help ones they had already shot. They shot at people already shot and lying on the ground. They concoted lies to cover up what they had done.

So no - you do not want to answer questions about whether they should be allowed to get away with it, whether allegations like that should be investigated, whether soldiers should face prosecution for doing things like that. Instead you say things like "Usual pointless comment".

 

[donrkebab]

They shot at people who were not posing any serious threats. They shot at people running away. They shot at people trying to help ones they had already shot. They shot at people already shot and lying on the ground. They concoted lies to cover up what they had done.

Yea that's what happens when you give a 16 year old a machine gun, and tell him "your job is to stop these lunatics who have been bred to hate each other from killing each other.

So no - you do not want to answer questions about whether they should be allowed to get away with it, whether allegations like that should be investigated, whether soldiers should face prosecution for doing things like that. Instead you say things like "Usual pointless comment".

I never said any of those things, your problem is (I had to interrupt myself there, I just won £200) you imagine and add in words and meanings to what people say. For instance , you asked me if I approved of murder, it is a ridiculous question. By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Vinty]

• The firing by soldiers of 1 PARA on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury.
• The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries.
• British paratroopers "lost control", fatally shooting fleeing civilians and those who tried to aid the civilians who had been shot by the British soldiers.
• British soldiers had concocted lies in their attempt to hide their acts.
• none of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers, and that the civilians were not posing any threat.
• five British soldiers aimed shots at civilians they knew did not pose a threat and two other British soldiers shot at civilians "in the belief that they might have identified gunmen, but without being certain that this was the case".
• Martin McGuinness "did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire".
• Prime Minister David Cameron addressing the House of Commons after the publication of the report on 15 June 2010, described what British soldiers had done as "both unjustified and unjustifiable, it was wrong". He acknowledged that all those who died were unarmed when they were killed by British soldiers and that a British soldier had fired the first shot at civilians. [He] acknowledged, among other things, that the paratroopers had fired the first shot, had fired on fleeing unarmed civilians, and shot and killed one man who was already wounded.

That is a resounding yes to "these allegations have been investigated on a number of occasions", and a resounding no to "nothing has been found".

Everything you have posted are political statements and not factual.
As I have said repeatedly these allegations have been investigated by the relevant authorities who were not under political control and their findings were that these killings were lawful.
Why don't you watch some of the original film footage of the events.
According to the prevailing myth the Army opened fire on a "peaceful" Civil rights march.
The truth is that a section of the march broke away and attacked an army barricade which had been erected to prevent the marchers parading through a small protestant enclave in the City.
The rioters were attempting to overun the army barricade when the army had to open fire to prevent the rioters from overrunning their barricade and seizing their weapons.
The fault for any deaths lies with the organisers of the original march who were determined to escalate rather than descalate tensions in the City which were already at boiling point.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yea that's what happens when you give a 16 year old a machine gun, and tell him "your job is to stop these lunatics who have been bred to hate each other from killing each other.

But should it be allowed?

Should it be investigated?

I never said any of those things

No you didn't, but then I'm not claiming that you did say them.

What I am asserting is that you have not answered the questions asked of you.

Pointing out that you have not answered "Should allegations like that should be investigated", for example, is not an assertion that you have said they have not.

But what you have said is "Then of course we have the travesty of Northern Ireland, it was just yesterday that the government announced setting up a NEW enquiry into our troops at an initial cost of £150,000,000."

Would you like to clarify what you mean by that?

your problem is (I had to interrupt myself there, I just won £200) you imagine and add in words and meanings to what people say. For instance , you asked me if I approved of murder, it is a ridiculous question.

It's not ridiculous, given that you seem to be very much opposed to an enquiry into the actions of troops there. Given that an enquiry has already shown that soldiers shot at unarmed civilians, people who were running away, people who were already injured etc, and that as a result of those actions 13 people were killed, I think it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that there is a very strong possibility that they did commit murder.

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?

Really?

Really?

Do you genuinely believe that you can equivalence that to the questions I've asked you as a way of showing that you can't answer them?

Anybody answering that question yes or no admits to having a wife and to having beaten her at some time in the past.

It is ludicrous to claim that the same problem applies to answering "do you think it would be better if troops were allowed to murder civilians?"

There may be some people here who will think it's equivalent to what I asked you, but I am not one of them. Nor, I suspect, are you, but you're getting a bit desperate.

 

[donrkebab]

But should it be allowed?

Should it be investigated?



No you didn't, but then I'm not claiming that you did say them.

What I am asserting is that you have not answered the questions asked of you.

Pointing out that you have not answered "Should allegations like that should be investigated", for example, is not an assertion that you have said they have not.

But what you have said is "Then of course we have the travesty of Northern Ireland, it was just yesterday that the government announced setting up a NEW enquiry into our troops at an initial cost of £150,000,000."

Would you like to clarify what you mean by that?



It's not ridiculous, given that you seem to be very much opposed to an enquiry into the actions of troops there. Given that an enquiry has already shown that soldiers shot at unarmed civilians, people who were running away, people who were already injured etc, and that as a result of those actions 13 people were killed, I think it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that there is a very strong possibility that they did commit murder.



Really?

Really?

Do you genuinely believe that you can equivalence that to the questions I've asked you as a way of showing that you can't answer them?

Anybody answering that question yes or no admits to having a wife and to having beaten her at some time in the past.

It is ludicrous to claim that the same problem applies to answering "do you think it would be better if troops were allowed to murder civilians?"

There may be some people here who will think it's equivalent to what I asked you, but I am not one of them. Nor, I suspect, are you, but you're getting a bit desperate.

Have not read any of this, BAS face facts you're not Andrew Neil or even a poor excuse for him.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Everything you have posted are political statements and not factual.

No - what I posted were from the findings of the Saville Enquiry.

As I have said repeatedly these allegations have been investigated by the relevant authorities who were not under political control and their findings were that these killings were lawful.

Got any links to the results of enquiries by people not under political control which said that shooting people in the back as they an away, or whilst they lay injured on the ground, was lawful?

Why don't you watch some of the original film footage of the events.

Why don't you let go of the bonkers idea that if you find that facts contradict your political ideology you can simply pretend that they don't exist?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Have not read any of this

Oh, what a surprise. Your position is comprehensively demolished, so you try that old tactic. Which is that of a failure - it always is.

I'll summarise it for you.

This is true:

kebab doesn't believe in facing up to awkward questions.

Your denials of it are untrue.

 

[donrkebab]

Oh, what a surprise. Your position is comprehensively demolished, so you try that old tactic. Which is that of a failure - it always is.

I'll summarise it for you.

This is true:



Your denials of it are untrue.

You have no idea what my position is on any of this, think about it, the only thing I have objected to is the government and MOD sponsored and approved harassment of our troops.

And you keep asking do I approve of people being murdered and other nonsense, its all a bit silly and pointless, but that's you to a Tee, give it a rest.

 

[Vinty]

No - what I posted were from the findings of the Saville Enquiry.



Got any links to the results of enquiries by people not under political control which said that shooting people in the back as they an away, or whilst they lay injured on the ground, was lawful?



Why don't you let go of the bonkers idea that if you find that facts contradict your political ideology you can simply pretend that they don't exist?

All those who were shot were in an area were they should not have been.
They had been engaged in a collective assault on army personnel who were Manning a barricade.
If the Paras had been intent on an indiscriminate massacre they would have been a hell of a lot more than 13 killed.
Politicians are mostly self serving scum who will say anything which they believe will advance their interests.

 

[transam]

Wouldn't happen to the American armed forces

 

[Notch7]

Wouldn't happen to the American armed forces

No, they manage to kill themselves with friendly fire.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You have no idea what my position is on any of this, think about it, the only thing I have objected to is the government and MOD sponsored and approved harassment of our troops.

What do you mean by this:

Then of course we have the travesty of Northern Ireland, it was just yesterday that the government announced setting up a NEW enquiry into our troops at an initial cost of £150,000,000.

If I ask you whether an investigation into whether UK a soldiers murderd UK citizens in the UK is what you call "MOD sponsored and approved harassment of our troops", will you answer it honestly?

Will you claim it's a silly and pointless question?

Or will you twist, and evade, and obfuscate, and misrepresent the question, thus proving the veracity of JohnD's assertion that you don't believe in facing up to awkward question?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh looky, looky, looky.

Guess who agrees with Vinty?

So you can save yourself the embarassment of any further attempts to avoid answering a straightforward question.

I'll answer it for you. On the basis of explicitly expressed opinions here, yes, you do believe that British troops should be allowed to get away with murdering people.


I wonder, just what kind of vile and twisted scumbags think it appropriate to hijack a thread about a petition protesting at the way the UK government is treating Commonwealth ex-servicemen in order to promote their ideology that said servicemen should not be investigated when they shoot unarmed civilians who are running away in the back.

Shame on you.

 

[transam]

Oh looky, looky, looky.

Guess who agrees with Vinty?

View attachment 164622

So you can save yourself the embarassment of any further attempts to avoid answering a straightforward question.

I'll answer it for you. On the basis of explicitly expressed opinions here, yes, you do believe that British troops should be allowed to get away with murdering people.


I wonder, just what kind of vile and twisted scumbags think it appropriate to hijack a thread about a petition protesting at the way the UK government is treating Commonwealth ex-servicemen in order to promote their ideology that said servicemen should not be investigated when they shoot unarmed civilians who are running away in the back.

Shame on you.

Me

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So far the "proof" you've adduced is that they expect troops to act lawfully.

And so do I

Really?

Well, even if you do (and there is precious little evidence here that you are telling the truth when you say that) it is abundantly clear that if they don't then you don't think that anybody should do a damn thing about it.