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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Warrenpoint: A case of a Paramilitary force against a conventional army.

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Indeed. I wonder f the republic ever made formal complaints about BA trespassing?


    there were "several map reading errors". the eighties saw more co operation between the two states. very few incursions were publicised at it would have enarged public opinion.

    if the british estalishment was behind dublin and monaghan and this could have been proven it would have meant a declartion of war between UK and ireland. hence the unwillingness of teh Irish government to investigate.

    teh governemnt complained about torture and that was it. they won their case at Strasbourg.


  • #103
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »

    Several times in the early 70's the Brits for up to an hour fired live bullets into the village from the northern side all "jus for a lauf" which I'm sure happened along many other towns and villages along the border.

    Total ****e.

    tac


  • #104
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    The British weren't supposed to cross the border but they regulairly did. But that was by no means theri worst offence south of the border. I have relations in the county Leitrim village of Kiltyclogher which is about half a mile on the southern side with a river dividing county's Leitrim and Fermanagh ( the bridge between the two counties was blown up by the Brits in the early 70's, just like most of the other bridges and road crossings along the border with devasting economic results for the shop keepers, farmers etc in the area - If that's not terrorism what the f*** is :mad: ).

    Several times in the early 70's the Brits for up to an hour fired live bullets into the village from the northern side all "jus for a lauf" which I'm sure happened along many other towns and villages along the border. And ofcourse our great heros in the Dail would at best express " concern " :rolleyes:. Indeed their is a monument in the middle of the village dedicated to 1916 volunteer and signature of the Proclaimation Sean McDiarmuid, which was shot at by the Brits several times, the bullet marks still there to see.

    As I said, if that's not terrorism what the f*** is :mad: ).

    I thought we were only discussing the military prowess of the Warrenpoint massacre?


  • #105
    Alpha Papa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭Alpha Papa


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Yes the paras thought that they were under gun fire as the ammunition in the lorry was going off due to the fire caused by the explosion. The English civilian killed by the paras on the Irish side of the border by coincidence was the son of a coachman at Buckingham Palace. Not that this was the first or last civilain murder by the trigger happy Parachute regiment, however no OBE was given out of for this particuliar murder.

    I know im late joining this disscussion but interesting topic, when the British soldier fired across the border into the Republic and killed a civilian. Did he go under trial for murder or was he prosecuted by the MOD in the uk?

    I didnt see mention of it so far.

    Sorry for being off topic just curious of the legal aspect.

    Cheers

    AP


  • #106
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Alpha Papa wrote: »
    I know im late joining this disscussion but interesting topic, when the British soldier fired across the border into the Republic and killed a civilian. Did he go under trial for murder or was he prosecuted by the MOD in the uk?

    I didnt see mention of it so far.

    Sorry for being off topic just curious of the legal aspect.

    Cheers

    AP

    Surely anyone has the right to defend hemselves, regardless of where a shooter is firing from. If there was a tragic mistake made, then i don't see why anyone should be prosecuted, presuming that it was indeed a tragic mistake.

    As has already been made clear, the BA thought they were being fired on, so it is not unreasonable for them to return fire and if they genuinely and reasonably thought the person killed was a player, then i don't see why they should stand trial.


  • #107
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Surely anyone has the right to defend hemselves, regardless of where a shooter is firing from. If there was a tragic mistake made, then i don't see why anyone should be prosecuted, presuming that it was indeed a tragic mistake.

    As has already been made clear, the BA thought they were being fired on, so it is not unreasonable for them to return fire and if they genuinely and reasonably thought the person killed was a player, then i don't see why they should stand trial.
    Because they violated an international border and killed and wounded innocent people?

    Although it is understandable why they shot, doesn't mean they should have though.


  • #108
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Because they violated an international border and killed and wounded innocent people?

    Won't wash. If they honestly believed that they were under attack from the other side of the border, they can shoot across the border. The right to defend yourself trumps everything else. Now, that doesn't mean that they can cross the border in pursuit.

    NTM


  • #109
    Alpha Papa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭Alpha Papa


    Just out of curiousity was there many instances of this occuring either the NI security forces firing across the border or the Irish Army/Gardai doing the same.

    Honestly never heard of this happening much in the history books?


  • #110
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    RMD wrote: »
    It was a great military victory, 18 killed without 1 Ira member even being wounded. Sadly people always seem to forget the 2 innocent tourists shot by the BA after the initial bomb, one later died.

    The reason the Ira thrived in Northern Ireland is because they were fighting in their own backgarden so to speak, quite often these were local lads who knew the lay of the land better than any foreign soldiers.

    I don't know how you can liken this to a military victory. A military victory is when something meaningful is achieved by one side or the other. The Battle of Waterloo was a military victory. Warrenpoint was nothing more than a successful ambush. There was no defeat of the British army, no territory was denied to them nor was their a change of civilian administration in the area. As we all know, it was politics and not ambushs that led to meaningful change in Northern Ireland.

    One has to ask, in retrospect was Warrenpoint a spectacular military failure by the provos?


  • #111
    troubleshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 311 ✭✭troubleshooter


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    it was a well planned and well executed opertaion. The Brits were unprepared for it and the IRA could predict how they would react.

    the Brits counteracted like the americans i.e shooting all directions at antything that moved and in the process shot an innocent English tourist who happened to be bird watching.

    there were up to 30,000 british soldiers in the province and the active element of the IRA could have numbered as little as 200.

    bombs could be assembled on farms using legal farming equipment. every catholic was a suspect, but it would be impossile to monitor them all


    Thats just more anti BA propaganda, not based on what occurred.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562283/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-relives-IRA-Paras-bombs.html

    ....."Convinced they were being shot at from the other side of the water, surviving soldiers opened fire, killing an innocent tourist and wounding another. One soldier spotted movement behind a roadside wall; pointing his gun, he shouted an order to come out with hands up. Several shocked children appeared; they had been picnicking with their mother."........


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    troubleshooter wrote: »
    Thats just more anti BA propaganda, not based on what occured.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562283/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-relives-IRA-Paras-bombs.html

    ....."Convinced they were being shot at from the other side of the water, surviving soldiers opened fire, killing an innocent tourist and wounding another. One soldier spotted movement behind a roadside wall; pointing his gun, he shouted an order to come out with hands up. Several shocked children appeared; they had been picnicking with their mother."........


    good old Gen sir mIke. his testimony is not always the most reliable.

    according to him terrorists were shot at bloody sunday after his men had been fired upon.

    in any other country if an army fired at another state that country's army would have returned fire.

    surely trained soldiers can recognise from where the firing is coming from and not just shoot the first person they see. what kind of equipment did the birdwatcher have that the BA thought he was firing at them?


  • #113
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    in any other country if an army fired at another state that country's army would have returned fire.

    so in your view, the IRA should be able to stand six feet over the border and fire at the British Army without any chance of the British Army firing back and if they did, the Irish army would be entitled to return fire?

    Wow, great way to start a war.


  • #114
    troubleshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 311 ✭✭troubleshooter


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    good old Gen sir mIke. his testimony is not always the most reliable.

    according to him terrorists were shot at bloody sunday after his men had been fired upon.

    in any other country if an army fired at another state that country's army would have returned fire.

    surely trained soldiers can recognise from where the firing is coming from and not just shoot the first person they see. what kind of equipment did the birdwatcher have that the BA thought he was firing at them?


    Of course your account is far more reliable then Gen. Jacksons who commanded the incident response at Warrenpoint :rolleyes:

    Read the thread all this has been gone over. There were no "birdwatchers".


  • #115
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    tac foley wrote: »
    Total ****e.

    tac
    Yeah, and the Brits didn't shoot civil rights marchers or arm and direct the loyalists. Total sh!te from tac as usual.


  • #116
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    good old Gen sir mIke. his testimony is not always the most reliable.

    according to him terrorists were shot at bloody sunday after his men had been fired upon.
    troubleshooter wrote: »
    Of course your account is far more reliable then Gen. Jacksons who commanded the incident response at Warrenpoint :rolleyes:
    Yes Fuinseog, but you see troubleshooter believes that the Brits nor their apologists in the establishment media could possibly ever lie - when both are renounded liars and black propagandists throughout the world. He just googles for some quote from a Brit/RUC, posts it and then condemns anyone who doesn't swallow the BS.


  • #117
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Won't wash. If they honestly believed that they were under attack from the other side of the border, they can shoot across the border. The right to defend yourself trumps everything else. Now, that doesn't mean that they can cross the border in pursuit.

    NTM
    Well there has to be some sort of rules in place regarding firing across international borders? As in that they can only fire if they are fired upon?


  • #118
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Well there has to be some sort of rules in place regarding firing across international borders? As in that they can only fire if they are fired upon?

    Any legitimate force would have ROE set up to respect international borders, but as manic said, there more than likely was a 'defend yourself' rule.


  • #119
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Well there has to be some sort of rules in place regarding firing across international borders? As in that they can only fire if they are fired upon?

    That's probably what they were operating under.

    You can't fault them for acting on what we now believe with the benefit of hindsight to be an erroneous assumption. If they honestly thought they were being engaged from across the border, then so be it.

    NTM


  • #120
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Yeah, and the Brits didn't shoot civil rights marchers or arm and direct the loyalists. Total sh!te from tac as usual.

    Official warning.

    You have made an 'interesting' claim which at face value seems improbable. The correct response to being called on it is to back up your claim, not try to divert the thread again or insult the other poster.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    so in your view, the IRA should be able to stand six feet over the border and fire at the British Army without any chance of the British Army firing back and if they did, the Irish army would be entitled to return fire?

    Wow, great way to start a war.

    the good general was hardly neutral when it came to Norn Iron. it was the responsibility of the Irish army to intervene on the Irish side. British army shooting at the repulic is a good way to provoke an armed conflcit.

    I doubt very much teh BA would tolerate teh Irish army shooting into NI.

    i read memoirs of British generals with interest and am often dismayed with their portrayal of the Irish. Jackson was careful aout his description of events.

    his colleagues such as peter de la billiere were less careful and wrongfully labelled innocent civilians terrorists, such as John Boyle, an innocent 16 year old shot in the back by the SAS.

    the norn iron 'conflict was a war. why oh why were teh UN not sent in like in Cyprus and other parts.


  • #122
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    the good general was hardly neutral when it came to Norn Iron. it was the responsibility of the Irish army to intervene on the Irish side. British army shooting at the repulic is a good way to provoke an armed conflcit.

    I doubt very much teh BA would tolerate teh Irish army shooting into NI.
    this has been covered, but i would imagine that any member of the Irish Defence Force who wanted to take pot shots at a NI terrorist would be welcomed by the UK forces.
    Fuinseog wrote: »
    i read memoirs of British generals with interest and am often dismayed with their portrayal of the Irish. Jackson was careful aout his description of events.

    his colleagues such as peter de la billiere were less careful and wrongfully labelled innocent civilians terrorists, such as John Boyle, an innocent 16 year old shot in the back by the SAS.

    the norn iron 'conflict was a war. why oh why were teh UN not sent in like in Cyprus and other parts.

    I thought we were avoiding all that crap, or is it OK if we criticise the British Army, but not the IRA? Maybe the OP could give us some guidance on this.


  • #123
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    I thought we were avoiding all that crap, or is it OK if we criticise the British Army, but not the IRA? Maybe the OP could give us some guidance on this.

    Yeah, that was the idea. Was intended to a military discussion of the event with little regard to the politics behind it. A discussion of the successes and failures of the belligerents on that day, such as BA errors, the IRAs planning etc etc from a strictly neutral pov without the usual rubbish these threads throw up. We were discussing the BA shooting the innocents and the consensus seems to be that they thought they were under attack hence they fired. A poster esquired whether any action was taken as a result of the killing of that innocent man. I do not know, but I doubt any was.


Advertisement