1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

Commonwealth soldiers

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ban-all-sheds, 17 May 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    These, for a start:


    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".
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. donrkebab

    donrkebab

    Joined:
    15 Apr 2012
    Messages:
    507
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.

    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?
     
  4. Vinty

    Vinty

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2018
    Messages:
    1,799
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Location:
    Belfast
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
  5. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
  6. donrkebab

    donrkebab

    Joined:
    15 Apr 2012
    Messages:
    507
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom

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

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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?
     
  8. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
  9. donrkebab

    donrkebab

    Joined:
    15 Apr 2012
    Messages:
    507
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. Sponsored Links
  11. Vinty

    Vinty

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2018
    Messages:
    1,799
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Location:
    Belfast
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. transam

    transam

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2009
    Messages:
    24,060
    Thanks Received:
    3,102
    Location:
    Surrey
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Wouldn't happen to the American armed forces ;)
     
  13. Notch7

    Notch7

    Joined:
    15 Sep 2017
    Messages:
    17,746
    Thanks Received:
    1,244
    Location:
    Sussex
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    No, they manage to kill themselves with friendly fire.
     
  14. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    What do you mean by this:
    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?
     
  15. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Oh looky, looky, looky.

    Guess who agrees with Vinty?

    upload_2019-5-18_22-59-19.png

    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.
     
  16. transam

    transam

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2009
    Messages:
    24,060
    Thanks Received:
    3,102
    Location:
    Surrey
    Country:
    United Kingdom

    Me :cool:
     
  17. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
Sponsored Links
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page