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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

Options
  • 21-11-2013 11:45am
    #1
    padma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭


    What captured my eye most about this article in anticipation of tonights BBC's panarama episode is the use of Drive-by shootings by British Army personnel in west Belfast. Did these actions prompt the drive-bys that were carried out by loyalists continuously throughout the conflict.

    On top of this I don't understand why Rte mentions at the end of the article about the cost of running the legacy enquiries, surely the North deserves a coming clean to deal with the trauma.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1121/488078-undercover-army-unit-shot-civilians-in-belfast/

    Soldiers from a British army undercover unit in Northern Ireland have admitted shooting unarmed IRA suspects in Belfast 40 years ago.
    Former members of the unit told the BBC's Panorama programme, to be broadcast tonight, that they also carried out drive-by shootings of nationalists, even though there was no independent evidence any of them were IRA members.
    Speaking publicly for the first time, ex-members of the Military Reaction Force said they had been tasked with "hunting down" IRA members in Belfast.
    The unit operated for 18 months before being disbanded in 1973 and its records have since been destroyed.
    The British Ministry of Defence said it had referred the disclosures to police.
    The reaction force had around 40 hand-picked men from across the British army who addressed each other by first name and dispensed with ranks and identification tags.
    They operated at the height of the Troubles in the early 1970s, when bombings and shootings by paramilitaries occurred almost daily.
    Another ex-member said it was part of his mission to draw out the IRA and minimise its activities.
    "If they needed shooting they'd be shot," he said.
    The British army has a series of rules known as the Yellow Card, which guides when a soldier can open fire lawfully.
    Generally, lethal force was only lawful when the lives of members of the security forces or others were in immediate danger.
    Another soldier said: "If you had a player who was a well-known shooter who carried out quite a lot of assassinations... it would have been very simple, he had to be taken out."
    According to the Panorama programme, seven former members of the force believed the Yellow Card did not apply to them and one described it as a "fuzzy red line", meaning they acted as they saw fit.
    Some said they would shoot unarmed targets.
    The MRF's records have been destroyed but the soldiers denied they were part of a death or assassination squad.
    Tony Le Tissier, a major in the Royal Military Police, said: "They were playing at being bandits, they were meant to be sort of IRA outlaws.
    "That's why they were in plain clothes, operating plain vehicles and using a Thompson sub machine gun (favoured by the IRA)."
    In the early 1970s, nationalists would man barricades in west Belfast aimed at preventing troops from entering.
    Some soldiers said they would drive by and open fire, even if they did not see anybody brandishing a gun.
    Among those they killed in May 1972 was father-of-six Patrick McVeigh.
    His daughter Patricia said: "We want the truth. We don't want to stop until we get the truth."
    The programme comes the day after Northern Ireland Attorney General John Larkin suggested drawing a line under all murders carried out before 1998.
    He advocated ruling out further inquests and inquiries into the crimes committed during the 30-year conflict, insisting a line should be drawn on offences perpetrated before the signing of the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement.
    There was almost universal negative reaction to that proposal.
    British Prime Minister David Cameron made clear that his government had no plans to legislate on any form of amnesty.
    Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the Government would wait for recommendations by US diplomat Dr Richard Haass on Northern Ireland before a Dáil debate on any amnesty for crimes committed before 1998.
    A new report published this morning estimates the cost of attempting to deal with legacy issues over the next five years will run to £190m (€227m).


«134567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    Just like the Glenanne gang who were responsible for at least 120 murders of whom most were innocent civilians, these MRF killings were acts of terror by the British state against innocent unarmed civilians. This mass murder is the primary reason why the British do not want a Truth Commission.


  • Options
    #3
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    How often you hear the term Army of a legimate Government as if they're on some sort of moral high ground.


  • Options
    #4
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    The really shocking thing about all this is just how not shocked everyone is. The only explanation for stories like this and Anne Cadwallader's Lethal Allies book receiving such little coverage and such little outrage is that everybody knew this was going on, which raises questions itself. if everybody knew this was happening why is it only coming out now and why arent inquiries and inquests being demanded.
    Can you imagine people reacting like this if it came out in any other country that the police and army, with the support of, if not acting under direct orders from the government, engaged in a campaign of murder against people it claims were its own citizens.
    There would be uproar. Heads would roll, trials would be held, governments would collapse.


  • Options
    #5
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    I wonder are the BBC aware of the fact that this is the day in history (21st November 1920) when Michael Collins took out 'The Cairo Gang', a group of British Military Intelligence sent to prepare and execute a hit list of suspected IRA men and women in Dublin.


  • Options
    #6
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    moxin wrote: »
    these MRF killings were acts of terror by the British state against innocent unarmed civilians.
    You can't really say that unless you know the operations were official ones. All armies have their rogue units who operate outside the rules. You can't claim the actions of a rogue unit are representative of their state.
    This mass murder is the primary reason why the British do not want a Truth Commission.
    I imagine there's quite a bit of stuff from the 70s that they've been fighting to keep covered up alright. Probably plenty of activities not dissimilar from what the US have been doing with Guantanamo.
    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    The really shocking thing about all this is just how not shocked everyone is. The only explanation for stories like this and Anne Cadwallader's Lethal Allies book receiving such little coverage and such little outrage is that everybody knew this was going on, which raises questions itself. if everybody knew this was happening why is it only coming out now and why arent inquiries and inquests being demanded.
    Can you imagine people reacting like this if it came out in any other country that the police and army, with the support of, if not acting under direct orders from the government, engaged in a campaign of murder against people it claims were its own citizens.
    There would be uproar. Heads would roll, trials would be held, governments would collapse.
    Well you see, this is where things become hazy. If you take the standpoint that this was a war, then the specific execution of belligerent targets within the field of battle is a common and legitimate act.
    If you take the view that it was civil unrest, then of course the proper course of action is arresting these individuals, not executing them.
    Obviously the North fell somewhere between the two, hence why people aren't that shocked when they hear about war-like actions which have been carried out in NI.
    Plus there's a relativity issue. You're looking at this from a 2013 perspective, not a 1970s one. The western world has become a whole lot less tolerant towards barbaric behaviour in the last 40 years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    seamus wrote: »
    The western world has become a whole lot less tolerant towards barbaric behaviour in the last 40 years.

    Yeh, just ask any Afgan or Iraqi about that.


  • Options
    #8
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yeh, just ask any Afgan or Iraqi about that.
    I didn't say it's not done, but the behaviour of US troops abroad has never been under more scrutiny.
    The US military gets destroyed every time a video appears of an artillery strike on a civilian vehicle or building.

    How many times did that happen in Vietnam and Korea, with nobody blinking an eye?

    That's my point - not that war has become "softer", but that we're now a lot less likely to say, "All's fair in love and war", and actually condemn the slaughter of innocents in war.


  • Options
    #9
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    seamus wrote: »
    I didn't say it's not done, but the behaviour of US troops abroad has never been under more scrutiny.
    The US military gets destroyed every time a video appears of an artillery strike on a civilian vehicle or building.

    How many times did that happen in Vietnam and Korea, with nobody blinking an eye?

    That's my point - not that war has become "softer", but that we're now a lot less likely to say, "All's fair in love and war", and actually condemn the slaughter of innocents in war.

    The conviction of a Royal Marine for killing a captured a severely wounded Taliban fighter would support this.


  • Options
    #10
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    seamus wrote: »
    I didn't say it's not done, but the behaviour of US troops abroad has never been under more scrutiny.
    The US military gets destroyed every time a video appears of an artillery strike on a civilian vehicle or building.

    How many times did that happen in Vietnam and Korea, with nobody blinking an eye?

    That's my point - not that war has become "softer", but that we're now a lot less likely to say, "All's fair in love and war", and actually condemn the slaughter of innocents in war.


    You said that 'The western world has become a whole lot less tolerant towards barbaric behaviour in the last 40 years'

    I say, no it hasn't, certainly not among those with the ability to change barbaric behaviour. Do you think the Irish Government will be withdrawing diplomatic representation tomorrow until those who ordered this and those who shot civillians are brought to justice? I'll tell you what Enda will do, he will 'tolerate' it, same as every government since Jack Lynch's (who knew full well what was going on) did.


  • Options
    #11
    EireGreg
    Registered Users Posts: 86 ✭✭EireGreg


    lets hope theres justice for the victims,
    32


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Do you think the Irish Government will be withdrawing diplomatic representation tomorrow until those who ordered this and those who shot civillians are brought to justice? I'll tell you what Enda will do, he will 'tolerate' it, same as every government since Jack Lynch's (who knew full well what was going on) did.
    That's because it happened 40 years ago. And in a different country. I fail to see what a drastic over-reaction would achieve.

    If we were hearing that British troops last week carried out drive-by shootings in NI, you can be damn sure the reaction would be much greater. Does that mean the deaths are less important because they happened 40 years ago? No, of course not. But any reasonable individual recognises that things were different 40 years ago than they are now, and things which wouldn't be tolerated now were knowingly let fly under the radar then.

    That doesn't mean we should pretend it didn't happen, but it also means we don't treat it like a current event. Chances are the majority of people involved, from the squaddies up the government ministers, are dead or retired.


  • Options
    #13
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    seamus wrote: »
    You can't really say that unless you know the operations were official ones. All armies have their rogue units who operate outside the rules. You can't claim the actions of a rogue unit are representative of their state. I imagine there's quite a bit of stuff from the 70s that they've been fighting to keep covered up alright. Probably plenty of activities not dissimilar from what the US have been doing with Guantanamo.

    Well you see, this is where things become hazy. If you take the standpoint that this was a war, then the specific execution of belligerent targets within the field of battle is a common and legitimate act.
    If you take the view that it was civil unrest, then of course the proper course of action is arresting these individuals, not executing them.
    Obviously the North fell somewhere between the two, hence why people aren't that shocked when they hear about war-like actions which have been carried out in NI.
    Plus there's a relativity issue. You're looking at this from a 2013 perspective, not a 1970s one. The western world has become a whole lot less tolerant towards barbaric behaviour in the last 40 years.

    What happens when the rogue units are established with the specific intentions of being rogue units.

    On your second point the British never acknowledged that the troubles were anything more than internal strife. The policy was towards criminalisation and therefore leaves the charge of extra-judicial executions a valid one.

    On the relativity issue, I think that is a bogus point. We have witnessed shocking barbaric behaviour over the last decade and a half and none of it shocks at all anymore. Journalism is also in a state of decay


  • Options
    #14
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    seamus wrote: »
    That's because it happened 40 years ago. And in a different country. I fail to see what a drastic over-reaction would achieve.

    If we were hearing that British troops last week carried out drive-by shootings in NI, you can be damn sure the reaction would be much greater. Does that mean the deaths are less important because they happened 40 years ago? No, of course not. But any reasonable individual recognises that things were different 40 years ago than they are now, and things which wouldn't be tolerated now were knowingly let fly under the radar then.

    That's handy when it's the British involved, if Enda didn't take every opportunity in the Dail to bring up events from 40 years ago then your point might have something in it. The fact is that the Irish Government (who btw 40 years ago had a constitutional claim on NI), stood idly by, knowing this type of thing was happening to Irish people.
    That doesn't mean we should pretend it didn't happen, but it also means we don't treat it like a current event. Chances are the majority of people involved, from the squaddies up the government ministers, are dead or retired.
    Hardly, given that soldiers involved are interviewed in the programme.


  • Options
    #15
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    The really shocking thing about all this is just how not shocked everyone is. The only explanation for stories like this and Anne Cadwallader's Lethal Allies book receiving such little coverage and such little outrage is that everybody knew this was going on, which raises questions itself. if everybody knew this was happening why is it only coming out now and why arent inquiries and inquests being demanded.
    Can you imagine people reacting like this if it came out in any other country that the police and army, with the support of, if not acting under direct orders from the government, engaged in a campaign of murder against people it claims were its own citizens.
    There would be uproar. Heads would roll, trials would be held, governments would collapse.

    Maybe they were economic targets, or maybe they.tried to phone through a warning about shooting these people but the phone box had been vandalised?

    We'll find out soon if innocent civilians were killed or.if it is just ex squadie bravado. As it stands, we only know they killed.unarmed people, some of whom they had no independent evidence to show they.were in the IRA.

    I presume you are comfortable with unarmed members of the IRA being killed though.


  • Options
    #16
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That's handy when it's the British involved, if Enda didn't take every opportunity in the Dail to bring up events from 40 years ago then your point might have something in it. The fact is that the Irish Government (who btw 40 years ago had a constitutional claim on NI), stood idly by, knowing this type of thing was happening to Irish people.
    The Irish state also recognised the active authority in NI at the time was the UK government, so quite what they were supposed to have done is something of a mystery. The Irish government has a long record of attempting to hold UK authorities to account for various injustices, so the 'idle' thing is simply incorrect.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Hardly, given that soldiers involved are interviewed in the programme.

    Which would make them retired, like the poster suggested.


  • Options
    #17
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The Irish state also recognised the active authority in NI at the time was the UK government, so quite what they were supposed to have done is something of a mystery. The Irish government has a long record of attempting to hold UK authorities to account for various injustices, so the 'idle' thing is simply incorrect.

    Plenty of empty rhetoric and no action, and then they secured a border they constitutionlly objected to and didn't recognise and then they introduced the Heavy Gang to harass and intimidate anybody of a republican standpoint.



    Which would make them retired, like the poster suggested.

    Since when did retirement absolve you from a crime?


  • Options
    #18
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    seamus wrote: »
    Obviously the North fell somewhere between the two, hence why people aren't that shocked when they hear about war-like actions which have been carried out in NI.

    It's not so much the methods, for me at least, as it is British hypocrisy, double standards and exacerbating of the problem by publicly refusing to acknowledge the political nature of Republican violence while surreptitiously fighting the dirty war and communicating with the IRA.

    What this points to, depressingly, is that they could have brought the mad dogs of Unionism/Loyalism to heel long before they did. SF had begun to seek a political solution in the early 80's but unfortunately it wasn't until the PIRA threatened the British economy with city busting bombs in the early to mid 90's that they began to see Unionist/Loyalists as not worth the trouble. Drumcree was the British message to everyone that the days of 'never a taig about the place' Unionism/Loyalism were over.


  • Options
    #19
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Plenty of empty rhetoric and no action, and then they secured a border they constitutionlly objected to and didn't recognise and then they introduced the Heavy Gang to harass and intimidate anybody of a republican standpoint.
    I'm not seeing an answer to my question there regarding what more you wanted them to do. And what has the state's campaign against republican criminality got to do with it's relationship with the UK?

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Since when did retirement absolve you from a crime?
    Who suggested it did?


  • Options
    #20
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm not seeing an answer to my question there regarding what more you wanted them to do. And what has the state's campaign against republican criminality got to do with it's relationship with the UK?
    There was plenty they could have done, like not aiding and abetting the marginalisation of the republican voice.
    A voice they where forced to eventually listen too, just as the British did.

    Who suggested it did?
    The poster was suggesting that a different attitude to these crimes be taken because it was 40 years ago and because those involved where most likely dead or retired. Neither life events should exonerate them.


  • Options
    #21
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There was plenty they could have done, like not aiding and abetting the marginalisation of the republican voice.
    A voice they where forced to eventually listen too, just as the British did.
    The only thing they had to listen to was the concession by the Shinners that they had finally copped on to themselves. And the republican 'voice' was a marginal one, so it didn't require any help in that regard. The Irish state did what it was able to, with regard to protesting state-supported injustices in NI.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The poster was suggesting that a different attitude to these crimes be taken because it was 40 years ago and because those involved where most likely dead or retired. Neither life events should exonerate them.
    Again - who said it should?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The only thing they had to listen to was the concession by the Shinners that they had finally copped on to themselves. And the republican 'voice' was a marginal one, so it didn't require any help in that regard. The Irish state did what it was able to, with regard to protesting state-supported injustices in NI.

    Perhaps, instead of your usual one sided blame game you might comment on the subject of the thread?
    The Irish Gov. had a similar way of talking around the issues to save them from getting their hands dirty.


    Again - who said it should?
    Maybe you should be asking the original poster to clarify what they meant by the passage of time 'changing' our attitude to these crimes.


  • Options
    #23
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Maybe they were economic targets, or maybe they.tried to phone through a warning about shooting these people but the phone box had been vandalised?

    We'll find out soon if innocent civilians were killed or.if it is just ex squadie bravado. As it stands, we only know they killed.unarmed people, some of whom they had no independent evidence to show they.were in the IRA.

    I presume you are comfortable with unarmed members of the IRA being killed though.

    Im not comfortable with any British military action in Ireland. They had/have no right to be here.
    Pretty typical of you though, yet more evidence is unveiled about the brits' dirty war here and your immediate response is "but but but the IRA."


  • Options
    #24
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Perhaps, instead of your usual one sided blame game you might comment on the subject of the thread?
    The Irish Gov. had a similar way of talking around the issues to save them from getting their hands dirty.
    It shouldn't need pointing out that it was you who introduced the Irish government into this discussion, not me. You've not managed to articulate anything that they might have done, beyond their (non-idle) response, that would have helped.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Maybe you should be asking the original poster to clarify what they meant by the passage of time 'changing' our attitude to these crimes.
    I don't need to. It's self-evident.


  • Options
    #25
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Im not comfortable with any British military action in Ireland. They had/have no right to be here.

    They had/have every right, as an instrument of the relevant state. What they didn't have was any authority to deny any citizen their human and civil rights outside the law.


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


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Im not comfortable with any British military action in Ireland. They had/have no right to be here.
    Pretty typical of you though, yet more evidence is unveiled about the brits' dirty war here and your immediate response is "but but but the IRA."

    Who mentioned the IRA?


  • Options
    #27
    padma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭padma


    What is a big issue is Britains army personnel driving by manned barricades and firing away with a machine gun. That is disgusting.


  • Options
    #28
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    It shouldn't need pointing out that it was you who introduced the Irish government into this discussion, not me. You've not managed to articulate anything that they might have done, beyond their (non-idle) response, that would have helped.
    Because I was making the point that had they reacted to the obvious trampling of the nationalist peoples human rights then we would now be in an entirely different place.
    Enda has just told the Dail that he will decide 'after watching the programme' what action to take. More subservient buffoonery from the Dail. In other words, 'lets see how my support base reacts first and how many calls Joe Duffy gets, who knows, we might be able to ignore it and still get to have a knees up in Buckingham Palace with Michael D. Steady as she goes boys'.


    I don't need to. It's self-evident.

    It's evident to me that Seamus meant we should view these crimes differently and not rock the boat, because they happened 40 years ago and because those responsible are either dead or retired.


  • Options
    #29
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Reading the posts so far I notice the people who beat heir breast when reublicans killings or bombings are highlited bend over backwards to excuse the unionist british side
    Dosen't say much about them


  • Options
    #30
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It's evident to me that Seamus meant we should view these crimes differently and not rock the boat, because they happened 40 years ago and because those responsible are either dead or retired.
    Then maybe you need to re-read it without your personal biaise.

    My point is that this is not an issue which requires the Taoiseach to cut all contact with the UK and demand heads on pikes. Clearly there is a case to be answered here. Let them answer it. It's not urgent that we drop everything and focus immediately on it, because it's not happening any more. Like I say, if we had evidence that the Army did this last week, then it's urgent. This is important, but it's not urgent. There's a difference.

    The fact that we're talking about it at all illustrates my point about how intolerant of barbarism we've become.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    seamus wrote: »
    Then maybe you need to re-read it without your personal biaise.

    My point is that this is not an issue which requires the Taoiseach to cut all contact with the UK and demand heads on pikes. Clearly there is a case to be answered here. Let them answer it. It's not urgent that we drop everything and focus immediately on it, because it's not happening any more. Like I say, if we had evidence that the Army did this last week, then it's urgent. This is important, but it's not urgent. There's a difference.

    The fact that we're talking about it at all illustrates my point about how intolerant of barbarism we've become.



    Given that there was also no pressure applied when obvious abuses where happening, I am expecting the usual ineffectual hand wringing and platitudes over this issue too.

    If the evidence is there to take court cases then it should be treated with the same urgency and seriousness as it would if it happened last week and Enda should not prevaricate on that.


Advertisement