Soldier F.

[Highway Man]

Why did it take so long to serve it?

Why did so many people do everything they could to stop it?

Anyway - it is true that the prosecution could not prove that Soldier F killed anybody.

But before you go on about "justice being served", consider the words of the judge:

He said troops had "lost all sense of military discipline", as they shot unarmed civilians "in the back…as they were fleeing from them, on the streets of a British city".
Furthermore, the judge said he had no doubt "the soldiers who opened fire did so with the intention to kill" – and they "did not act in lawful self-defence".

I'm just wondering who and how many will be the people here with such defective reasoning that they will claim that because I quoted what the judge said I'm an IRA sympathiser.

Shut up sloppy.

 

[Highway Man]

Ulster.

That is the flag of the red hand commandos

 

[Highway Man]

Regardless to any political views. No soldier who is sent to serve anywhere in the world should have to face prosecution for doing his job. Unless that soldier opened fire on his own accord and committed a war crime by doing so. Leave them alone to get on with their jobs and take the politicians to court.

 

[Notch7]

It is not a false question. How can it possibly be "false" to ask if people should get away with murder?

Let's take your previous post:



How is it a false question to ask whether soldiers should, for example, get away with murdering those women and children?

Since you seem to be struggling with this concept - I'm not saying anything about what circumstances of a soldier killing them should be counted as murder, just whether you think there could be any.

It is a false question

Using the “get away with murder” phrase does not acknowledge the situation.

Until you acknowledge the fact it was a conflict where soldiers faced immense stress everyday, I’m not going to,waste my time engaging with your nonsense.

If you want to be an idiot, be an idiot on your own

 

[Odds]

That is the flag of the red hand commandos

"Splitters."

 

[Notch7]

It's not a country. The country is Ireland.

Well it’s one of 4 constituent countries that form United Kingdon

 

[Notch7]

So Ireland then.

That’s not really correct though, is it?

Northern Ireland is a part of the Island of Ireland

But Ireland the country is Eire and Northern Ireland is not part of that.


I agree it is confusing that the word “Ireland” describes 2 different things

 

[Knave of Hearts]

But you don't question the killing by the IRA, the bombs targeting innocent civilians. You excuse it by referring to the terrorists as freedom fighters.

You are terrorist supporting scum.

Fillystine yet again makes unfounded accusations based on his false premise.
It was I that sadi that terrorists can just as easily be referred to as freedom fighters. It's just a politically motivated label. they both serve the same function, and it's merely the labelling person;s ideology that causes the confusion.
It wasn't morqthana who introduced the concept of freedom fighter.

So even after being asked by morqthana to assure yourself of the accuracy of your accusation, you commit the exact same faux pas again.

I wonder why you think it's OK to join in a discussion when you can't be bothered to do an even borderline competent job of reading.
.....
Well - typical of you to go for personal insults when you find yourself unable to discuss things rationally.

 

[fillyboy]

Fillystine yet again makes unfounded accusations based on his false premise.
It was I that sadi that terrorists can just as easily be referred to as freedom fighters. It's just a politically motivated label. they both serve the same function, and it's merely the labelling person;s ideology that causes the confusion.
It wasn't morqthana who introduced the concept of freedom fighter.

Dissociative Identity Disorder.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

The Famine is not irrelevant in the context of the struggle for Irish independence. ...

That is true, but the topic of the thread is not about whether Ireland is justified in struggling for unity with NI.
The topic of the thread is a discussion about the not guilty verdict on Soldier F recently delivered in court.
I'll happily discuss either concept, but they are separate and should be kept separate. otherwise certain factions will seek to derail, divert or conflate the issues.
My opinion is that a) of course soldiers should not be protected from prosecution. We've seen recently the war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza, and USA blowing up boats in international waters.

Maybe,as a sovereign country we should introduce a similar crime as that existing in UN war crimes, where countries, regiments, etc can be charged with war crimes.
I think on that basis, the relevant para regiment would have been found guilty of murder. The evidence was insufficient to convict one soldier. But I believe the evidence would have been overwhelming to convict a group, or a regiment, or a squad, or whatever.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Dissociative Identity Disorder.

Oh, don't start ruining yet another important discussion.
Is your embarrassment so bad over your infantile repetitive accusations of anti Semitism, and presentation of disinformation that you feel the need to ruin several threads in pointless attempts to rescue your reputation?
You're not rescuing your reputation, you're damaging it even further.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Shut up sloppy.

Your first contribution to this thread is abusive.
Is there some mental condition that you have that prevents you from participating in an intellectual discussion?

 

[Highway Man]

That is true, but the topic of the thread is not about whether Ireland is justified in struggling for unity with NI.
The topic of the thread is a discussion about the not guilty verdict on Soldier F recently delivered in court.
I'll happily discuss either concept, but they are separate and should be kept separate. otherwise certain factions will seek to derail, divert or conflate the issues.
My opinion is that a) of course soldiers should not be protected from prosecution. We've seen recently the war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza, and USA blowing up boats in international waters.

Maybe,as a sovereign country we should introduce a similar crime as that existing in UN war crimes, where countries, regiments, etc can be charged with war crimes.
I think on that basis, the relevant para regiment would have been found guilty of murder. The evidence was insufficient to convict one soldier. But I believe the evidence would have been overwhelming to convict a group, or a regiment, or a squad, or whatever.

Shut up you treacherous little troll.

 

[Vinty]

It was the right decision in the circumstances but not justice

Soldier F found not guilty of murder and attempted murder on Bloody Sunday

Thirteen people were shot dead and at least 15 others injured on Bloody Sunday in January 1972 at a civil rights demonstration in the Bogside area of Derry.

www.bbc.co.uk

It was justice for the accused, he was victim of a malicious prosecution.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Regardless to any political views. No soldier who is sent to serve anywhere in the world should have to face prosecution for doing his job. Unless that soldier opened fire on his own accord and committed a war crime by doing so. Leave them alone to get on with their jobs and take the politicians to court.

Your comment suggests that the legal court process should not occur unless the soldier is guilty of a crime.
Just like the Knave of Hearts trial: "sentence first then the verdict."

The process of the charging and subsequent prosecution is to determine whether the soldier acted under orders, or was acting unilaterally.
That is the process.
You can't determine whether he/she should be guilty without the due process of the court.