Soldier F.

[Knave of Hearts]

The judge also said in his verdict that he was satisfied that soldiers had lost all sense of military discipline and opened fire with intent to kill and that “those responsible should hang their heads in shame”.
...
“The blame lies firmly with the British state, with the RUC [the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Irish police], who failed to investigate the murders on Bloody Sunday properly, or indeed at all,” McKinney said.

I agree, there should have been better processes in place when a soldier uses live fire against civilians.
When the whole squad uses live fire against civilians, there should have been an official enquiry at the time.
Its not as though this was the first time that the British Army has used live fire against unarmed civilians.
There should be some process of collective responsibility in cases like this, either the guilty person is identified and surrendered, or the colective responsibility kicks in, and someone is identified as responsible.

This whole debacle does nothing to instill a moral discipline in the Army.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

90% of the deaths in N.Ireland were caused by terrorists.

Lets not stray into using political labels for various factions. Otherwise we're gatekeeping the discussions to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

In Gaza over 90% of deaths are caused by the IDF.

Yes the occupying force were responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of the indigenous people. They had the technological ability to do so, and they did.

The British army were in N.Ireland in a policing role and not an offensive role.

If the British Army were in a policing role it was because the RUC had failed nearly 50% of the population. That had been designed into the RUC by the occupers, i.e. the British. The presence of the British Army to assist the RUC compounded the perception of the occupier increasing their subjugation of nearly 50% of the indigenous population, increasing the already unequal divide among the whole population.

But this does not address the topic of the thread.

 

[Notch7]

I agree, there should have been better processes in place when a soldier uses live fire against civilians.
When the whole squad uses live fire against civilians, there should have been an official enquiry at the time.
Its not as though this was the first time that the British Army has used live fire against unarmed civilians.
There should be some process of collective responsibility in cases like this, either the guilty person is identified and surrendered, or the colective responsibility kicks in, and someone is identified as responsible.

This whole debacle does nothing to instill a moral discipline in the Army.

if the IRA hadnt caused the conflict the British army would not have been there

ergo any deaths caused by the British army were the fault of the IRA

 

[Knave of Hearts]

At the time the police were stretched to breaking point investigating IRA murders and bombings which were happening every day.

That situation arose due to the occupier, i.e. the British in refusing to negotiate with Sinn Fein/IRA for decades, and failing to understand the inequality built into the composition of the RUC. So the RUC were seen as another arm of the occupying power.

 

[Notch7]

Lets not stray into using political labels for various factions. Otherwise we're gatekeeping the discussions to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

IRA = terrorists
Hamas = terrorists

they inflicted terror on civilian populations ergo the correct description is terrorist

 

[Notch7]

. the British in refusing to negotiate with Sinn Fein/IRA for decades

because they were terrorists

you cant bomb your way to the negotiating table ..............although you seem to think otherwise

 

[Knave of Hearts]

well thats not true because the judge ruled there was no murder

The decision of the court was that soldier F was not guilty of murder. The Judge did not say, "there was no murder".
In fact he said, "
Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the members of the Parachute Regiment who had entered Glenfada Park North had "totally lost all sense of military discipline".
They had, the judge said, shot "unarmed civilians fleeing from them on the streets of a British city".
"Those responsible should hang their heads in shame," he said.
If that's not murder, what is?

and there we have it
another example of false equivalence

It wasn't intended of equating the one with the other.
It was merely an example of a murder case that is not yet closed.

a death caused by a soldier in a conflict is not necessarily a murder

This wasn't a conflict situation.
No-one was firing at the Army. The soldiers were firing indiscriminately into the crowd,

You've only just said it was a peace keeping force. Peace keeping forces do not use live fire against unarmed civilians.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

you are the one that wants to start with the false premise of "getting away with murder"

Not at all. That was the topic for discussion put to the forum.

So do you think that British troops should be allowed to get away with murder?

And very few comments have addressed that question yet.
So does no-one want to address that question, or put forward an argument. Or has everyone already made up their mind?

My opinion is a big fat NO!. I'm happy to expand on that opinion. Although I have already said what should have happened, and if not already been addressed, processes should be in place if and when the British Army use live fire against civilians.

We already have a system for the police to investigate an incident of a police officer discharging a weapon. We ought to have had a similar process in situ, ready to go, on that occasion. To not have a system in place is a serious failing of the British Army. And therefore there ought to be some collective responsibility invoked.

What is your opinion, do you think that British troops should be allowed to get away with murder?

 

[Knave of Hearts]

yes it does

if they werent a peacekeeping force but an invading force they wouldve just killed every IRA person

So the Germans weren't an occupying force in the Channel Islands because they didn't kill every Channel Island person they encountered?
But they still faced a resistance from the civilians.
Often they killed innocent civilians.

............does not determine what they were

It isn't the number of injured or killed that determines the status of an army.
It's a political viewpoint that determines the status of an army. And that perception changes depending on your viewpoint.

When the USA police were brutally beating protesters against segregation or the Vietnam war, were they a peace keeping force? Or an instrument of the government?

 

[Knave of Hearts]

if the IRA hadnt caused the conflict the British army would not have been there

If the British hadn't been there, there would have been no need for the IRA.
An equivalence, if Israel hadn't occupied Palestine, there wouldn't be a need for freedom fighters.

ergo any deaths caused by the British army were the fault of the IRA

Including those on Bloody Sunday?
There were 350 deaths caused by state actors in NI.

Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (Ulster University and Minnesota Law School) created a database of a total of 350 people killed by state actors between 1969-1994

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/78677/html/

Only six of them were investigated and considered for prosecution,

When an occupying power occupies a region, there will be resistance. This is the natural result of the occupation. So for you to argue that the IRA were wrong to resist an occupation is beyond sensible reasoning.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

IRA = terrorists
Hamas = terrorists

"Terrorists" is a political label. Or are you going to disagree with the age old phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'?
Until you can accept that, there's no point in discussing it with you, because your awareness is limited to your personal political ideology, and you refuse to consider another.

they inflicted terror on civilian populations ergo the correct description is terrorist

in the same way that the British had subjugated the Irish for decades, and created an unequal society, which created a trickle down version of subjugation.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

because they were terrorists

A label. Nothing more. It's like you calling me a silly name. it doesn't determine what I am.

you cant bomb your way to the negotiating table ..............

They did.

although you seem to think otherwise

Oh please! Spare me the silly insults.
You don't know what I think.

 

[morqthana]

The Famine is not irrelevant in the context of the struggle for Irish independence. The Irish have long memories and view history in a different light than we do in England. Revenge killings have been a part of that history since Mick the Knife nicked Paddy McGinty's goat back in the time of Queen Medb. The IRA split into factions over the course of the Troubles and some were more bloody minded than others. Water under the bridge to us but those waters run deeper than we can see and y'all should mind where you step into them.

It is utterly, utterly, irrelevant to the question of whether British soldiers should be allowed to get away with murder.

 

[morqthana]

Shut up sloppy.

So your fantabulous cruise has done nothing to fix your problem of being unable to make reasoned contributions to discussions.

 

[morqthana]

That is the flag of the red hand commandos

No it isn't.

Can you not even try to get things right?

Or do you genuinely not GAS if you don't?