Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Twenty years on – Peter McBride’s killer remains in British army

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    You dont think its worth a try, and that some good would come of it? I think we would see a lot of truth, not everything perhaps, but more than we have now. And in years to come when the players re dead people can look back and say that everything was done to establish the truth.

    But in advancing this supposed desire to see a truth and reconciliation programme you only ever seem to post about the atrocities of the British? Where is your 'Justice for Jean McConville's family' thread? I don't particularly disagree with a truth commission, although I share Fratton Fred's pessimism about it's worth. It is the totally one-sidedness with which you go about expressing this aim that I disagree with.


  • Options
    #33
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Who gets to decide on what truth we see and what truth we don't?
    The way things stand now do you think we are going to get the truth for lots of things which happened during the troubles?

    Do you think some people (at least) would engage with a truth and reconciliation forum and thus more truth will be known?

    Not everyone will engage. That fact isnt a good argument against it. Those who dont will still be in the same position they are now(liable to prosecution etc), so I dont see how anyone loses out.


  • Options
    #34
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    If only a handful of people come forward it would still be worthwhile. What is there to lose?
    Quite a lot, actually. With the ratification of the Good Friday Agreement, the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, North and South, decided that enough was enough – time to draw a line under the past and move forward. A “peace and reconciliation forum” would undo all of that and it would inevitably descend into a heavily politicised “whataboutery” forum.

    Besides, when a resolution to a conflict has been reached, it makes absolutely no sense to commence a forensic examination of said conflict. There is absolutely no way a sufficient level of “truth” could possibly be reached that would satisfy all parties. There will always be individuals who will demand that more digging needs to be done, because atrocities never occur in isolation - there is always a chain of events with no distinct starting point.


  • Options
    #35
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Quite a lot, actually. With the ratification of the Good Friday Agreement, the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, North and South, decided that enough was enough – time to draw a line under the past and move forward. A “peace and reconciliation forum” would undo all of that and it would inevitably descend into a heavily politicised “whataboutery” forum.

    Besides, when a resolution to a conflict has been reached, it makes absolutely no sense to commence a forensic examination of said conflict. There is absolutely no way a sufficient level of “truth” could possibly be reached that would satisfy all parties. There will always be individuals who will demand that more digging needs to be done, because atrocities never occur in isolation - there is always a chain of events with no distinct starting point.
    But thats not happening, you still have people being prosecuted for actions during the troubles, and these prosecutions are selective and one sided.


  • Options
    #36
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    ....you still have people being prosecuted for actions during the troubles...
    "Prosecuted" is an extremely broad term.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    The message to British soldiers is 'don't worry too much if you murder a native - you'll be out in two years and pick up where you left off'.


  • Options
    #38
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    But thats not happening, you still have people being prosecuted for actions during the troubles, and these prosecutions are selective and one sided.

    Like who? Martin Corey and Marian Price? Michael Stones licence was also revoked by the secretary of state. And other loyalists licences would be too. Can you give me examples of loyalists released under the terms of the GFA who reengaged in paramilitarism whose licences were not revoked? Do you have information about released loyalists not distancing themselves from violent groups? If so contact the PSNI, because you are right they should be treated the same.

    Trying to treat the reimprisonment of a convicted terrorist with this British soldier who was never convicted and so has no terms of licence (nor is he engaged with dissidents) receiving a pension is not as easily equatable


  • Options
    #39
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    If I came from anywhere in the UK I would have serious questions to ask, and expect proper justice to be delivered because this is the army.
    If they ('we') hold out the same expectations as those applied to 'terrorist murders' than it seriously damages the reputation of the British army. The RIRA don't and won't care how they are perceived.

    Stories like this raises serious questions about the BA and its workings and I think exposes them poorly.

    Maybe a few long after the fact prosecutions would start to clear the way for many Nationalists to see the BA differently, it would send out a clear message to everyone. British soldiers murdering British civilians on British streets is not acceptable.

    If renegade BA officers had been dealt with properly over the last 40 years the troubles could have had a very different and probably less murderous past.


  • Options
    #40
    Varied
    Closed Accounts Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Varied


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    The message to British soldiers is 'don't worry too much if you murder a native - you'll be out in two years and pick up where you left off'.

    Nobody cares about that part.

    "shure the ira are terrorists but the Army are just doin their jobs, derpy derp".


  • Options
    #41
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Varied wrote: »
    Nobody cares about that part.

    "shure the ira are terrorists but the Army are just doin their jobs, derpy derp".

    People with that view are quite one-sided. Which poster thinks that?

    The IRA were terrorist thugs and many in the British Army were just as terrorising and thuggish.

    Demonising the IRA and lionising the BA is wrong. Likewise demonising the BA and lionising the IRA is wrong, and far more common on these boards. Also the IRA claimed to act in my name and many who had links with them now want to represent me in the Dail. I don't have that connection to the BA.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Laminations wrote: »
    People with that view are quite one-sided. Which poster thinks that?

    The IRA were terrorist thugs and many in the British Army were just as terrorising and thuggish.

    Demonising the IRA and lionising the BA is wrong. Likewise demonising the BA and lionising the IRA is wrong, and far more common on these boards. Also the IRA claimed to act in my name and many who had links with them now want to represent me in the Dail. I don't have that connection to the BA.

    So thats cleared up then. The British Army has the same morals are the IRA. Had always thought the BA represented a sovereign nation and abided by the law.

    The actions of the BA might not represent you but they represent British posters on this thread nevermind 60million UK citizens, killing kids in their name and getting away with it.


  • Options
    #43
    DipStick McSwindler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #44
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gurramok wrote: »
    So thats cleared up then. The British Army has the same morals are the IRA.
    Nothing’s been “cleared up”. Nobody is defending the British Army.
    gurramok wrote: »
    Had always thought the BA represented a sovereign nation and abided by the law.
    Haven’t the IRA always made similar claims?
    IrishFeeney92 wrote: »
    I am by no means defending either side in this. the fact is it was WAR.
    Actually, it wasn’t. The Troubles have never been classified as anything other than an internal conflict.


  • Options
    #45
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    IrishFeeney92 wrote: »
    Cut the moral high ground bulls*it. the IRA are terrorists who bombed civilians. and oh btw do you remember Omagh 15th August 1998 a pregnant woman with her unborn child?

    I am by no means defending either side in this. the fact is it was WAR. Sh*t happens in war. the war is over and people need to move on and quit blaming one side over another. both sides were just as bad. but the fact is its over now and we need to move on.

    Its important to remember the past, but its also important not to get hung up on it.

    No argument about IRA's low morals, the topic is about the BA's lack of morals and specifically Peter McBride's killers having a lovely time in the army after the murder.

    Don't you remember the British Army also slaughtered civilians? A few hundred from kids to mothers to priests were murdered in Britain's name, you not outraged at the injustice like the lack of justice we know about for the IRA's victims?
    djpbarry wrote:
    Haven’t the IRA always made similar claims?

    Do you not even know the difference between the two? British army represents the British state in the name of the British people, the IRA were classified as terrorists representing no-one, outlaws.


  • Options
    #46
    DipStick McSwindler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #47
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    Went on after 88.


  • Options
    #48
    DipStick McSwindler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #49
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gurramok wrote: »
    Do you not even know the difference between the two?
    Yes, I do, thanks.
    gurramok wrote: »
    ...the IRA were classified as terrorists representing no-one, outlaws.
    Is that how they classified/classify themselves?
    IrishFeeney92 wrote: »
    I know your a mod, but your completely wrong when you say that.
    I don’t know what me being a mod has to do with anything, but no, I’m not completely wrong.
    IrishFeeney92 wrote: »
    Was it between states or nations?
    Nope – the paramilitaries involved were/are not a nation or state, nor did/do they represent one.


  • Options
    #50
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Gurramok, the British army were wrong and soldiers should be held to higher standards than terrorists. I don't think there's enough disagreement around this on which to base a thread. There is little to debate.

    My point has been that rather than seeking a general debate on atrocities the OP uses this forum as a blog to highlight and disseminate British-only atrocities and then claims to want a two-way reconciliation commission. These threads are one-sided and only aim to open old wounds after the conflict has largely settled and major figures on both sides have been given reprieves.


  • Options
    #51
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    Laminations wrote: »
    Gurramok, the British army were wrong and soldiers should be held to higher standards than terrorists. I don't think there's enough disagreement around this on which to base a thread. There is little to debate.

    My point has been that rather than seeking a general debate on atrocities the OP uses this forum as a blog to highlight and disseminate British-only atrocities and then claims to want a two-way reconciliation commission. These threads are one-sided and only aim to open old wounds after the conflict has largely settled and major figures on both sides have been given reprieves.
    If someone started a thread about evil Gerry Adams and Jean McConville you would be all over it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    If someone started a thread about evil Gerry Adams and Jean McConville you would be all over it.

    If they started a thread just to rehash old crimes for the sake of it I wouldn't bother. If they did so to highlight the past (or character) of a candidate in an election who was seeking people to vote for him, I'd see value in it. If this soldier ever seeks election here I'll be happy for you to remind us all of his actions during the troubles.


  • Options
    #53
    DipStick McSwindler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #54
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    On this point:
    Laminations wrote:
    If this soldier ever seeks election here I'll be happy for you to remind us all of his actions during the troubles.

    Their masters were politicians who publicly supported the troops, happily condemning IRA atrocities but giving 110% support to their own troops who were engaged in similar savagery. Hypocrisy.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Is that how they classified/classify themselves?
    .

    Yes they did, the law on both sides of the border disagreed. But protectors of the law of the NI state killed unarmed civilians without the threat of prosecution especially in the 70's which leads to my summation below.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Gurramok, the British army were wrong and soldiers should be held to higher standards than terrorists. I don't think there's enough disagreement around this on which to base a thread. There is little to debate.

    Fromthetrees earlier post sums it up. If there was justice served to soldiers who shot people, the support for the IRA would not have been as strong as the community would have seen acting within the law at the time was the right way to seek justice rather than take up arms.


  • Options
    #55
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gurramok wrote: »
    Their masters were politicians who publicly supported the troops, happily condemning IRA atrocities but giving 110% support to their own troops who were engaged in similar savagery. Hypocrisy.
    You realise that you're arguing with yourself, yes? Once again, nobody is defending the British Army.
    gurramok wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    gurramok wrote: »
    British army represents the British state in the name of the British people, the IRA were classified as terrorists representing no-one, outlaws.
    Is that how they classified/classify themselves?
    Yes they did...
    I'm confused. The IRA classified/classify themselves as terrorists and outlaws?


  • Options
    #56
    getzls
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 806 ✭✭✭getzls


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    No, I'm saying that there should be an amnesty and a truth and reconciliation forum for everyone.

    What I'm against is one side being treated differently than the other which is happening atm.

    You say there should be an amnesty. May be out of kilter with most Unionists here, but i agree with you. :eek:

    This amnesty will happen one day i think.

    The other part about truth and rec. can't happen when the DFM for example seems to forget every thing.:cool:


  • Options
    #57
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You realise that you're arguing with yourself, yes? Once again, nobody is defending the British Army.

    Alot of shrugging of the shoulders from the same posters who are quick to condemn civilian murders by the IRA in other threads but not by the BA and also don't care if their soldiers are not convicted "as the BA does not represent them in the Dail". There should be no picking and choosing which murder to condemn and no cherrypicking on which ones to call for a conviction on.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm confused. The IRA classified/classify themselves as terrorists and outlaws?

    You're easily confused somehow. No they didn't, you know that.


  • Options
    #58
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    With your hand on your heart, do you honestly believe that a truth and reconciliation programme would work?

    Do you honestly believe the people behind the Omagh bombing would happily come forward? or the people who carried out the Miami Showband atrocity?

    The onus is on democratically elected governments to be honest and law abiding regardless of how others are behaving. We the citizens demand that when we elect them. You cannot maintain your position on higher moral ground if you implicity sanction this kind of behaviour or turn a blind eye to the fact that it happened in the past. All your condemnations are hollow and even more useless as a result.
    You cannot have state sanctioned illegality and then ask others to observe the law.


  • Options
    #59
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gurramok wrote: »
    There should be no picking and choosing which murder to condemn and no cherrypicking on which ones to call for a conviction on.
    Shouldn’t that comment be directed at the OP?

    Most people are not cherrypicking. Most people have drawn a line under everything.
    gurramok wrote: »
    You're easily confused somehow. No they didn't, you know that.
    Obviously, they didn't. They claimed they represented a sovereign nation at war, didn't they? So they and their supporters can have no qualms about others pointing out that they didn't exactly follow the "rules of engagement", did they?


  • Options
    #60
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Shouldn’t that comment be directed at the OP?

    Most people are not cherrypicking. Most people have drawn a line under everything.

    No they haven't, certain posters are not even handed when it comes to NI victims.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Obviously, they didn't. They claimed they represented a sovereign nation at war, didn't they? So they and their supporters can have no qualms about others pointing out that they didn't exactly follow the "rules of engagement", did they?

    They were not recognised as an army by both jurisdictions. The BA is, quite a difference. Agents of the state are not supposed to kill unarmed civilians(that "rules of engagement" thing), they are supposed to abide by the law, not like outlaws.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Obviously, they didn't. They claimed they represented a sovereign nation at war, didn't they? So they and their supporters can have no qualms about others pointing out that they didn't exactly follow the "rules of engagement", did they?

    Dereliction of duty/cowardice on the part of the 'Irish Army' from 1969-1999 is a more shameful stain for this Islands history than any action of the Provisional IRA.

    And the IRA avenged Peter McBride. OP, take your pick of any foreign soldier killed between 92-98 in Ulster.


Advertisement