Irish Mercenary Killed in Bolivia

seamus

Instant Karma wrote: »

That's one massive assumption in fairness.

Assuming the opposite is also a massive assumption.

Instant Karma

oscarBravo wrote: »

For which, presumably, he should have been arrested and tried. It's not like it was a closely-guarded secret that he was staying there.

Yes, but the point is that he was not in this country, and when in Rome etc.

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

For which, presumably, he should have been arrested and tried. It's not like it was a closely-guarded secret that he was staying there.

Actually that may not be true. In one report I read that Flores told his former employer and friend that his plan was to sneak across the border to enter Bolivia.

RedPlanet

Any theories on why Dwyer was shot dead while 2 others were able to surrender?
If it were an execution then why are 2 of them in custody?
Doesn't really make sense.

gandalf

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why would Mr. Flores bother to hire Dwyer as a bodyguard?

Well according to some reports from Hungary Mr Flores had a heart attack last year so maybe that has something to do with it?

Presumedly Dwyer couldn't even speak the language so exactly what good could he have been?

This just occurred to me. Did he speak the language because if he didn't he would not have had a clue what was going on.

He hadn't nearly the experience of his boss.
That explanation is bizarre to say the least.

Agreed but if the reports of a heart attack are true then it would make sense.

Like I was saying, it's more likely he fancied himself a soldier-of-fortune and sleptwalk into a dangerous situation among dangerous people.

Well what is true is he did get into a situation that proved fatal. What he was told or what he believe we may never know.

Gruffalo

gandalf wrote: »

No weapon, no evidence of a struggle, in his underwear, kill shots, evidence of one of the other dead men having bound hands which I don't believe is standard practice for corpses. That leads me to believe it was an execution and therefore murder of an Irish citizen.

Two prisoners taken alive. The opportunity to surrender is likely to have been offered, other wise these men would be dead.

Have you even seen the photos of the corpses in the rooms. At this point none of the hands were tied. Take a look, examine the evidence. One man's hands appear to be tied when they get to the morgue. The most likely excuse for this is that it was done for ease of transportation.

As regards your comments on the tattoo, the people saying that its a SS one. Thats just their opinion, its not a fact until the tattoo artist who did it confirms the fact (Michael Dwyer can't because he was shot down unarmed). You are obviously in that camp. I do not agree that it is and find the motives of people posting information of this type along with pictures of Stormtroopers and other Nazi related insignia (as I have seen on another prominent Irish discussion board) when nothing has been proven about Michael Dwyer, his motives or his politics disgusting and extremely premature. My opinion is he got a tribal tattoo.

Back your opinion up. If it is a tribal tatoo, show us one that is the same. You dismissed the opinions of others, which they have supported, with an idle comment that your friends have similar tatoos. Yet you are not prepared to back it up. You expect your opinion to be taken as fact.

Now I never insulted you directly so I am at a loss as to why you could not rebuff my opinion without stooping to the level of personal insults.

I call a spade a spade. Toughen up.

I am at a loss to understand why people insist on defending a young fella who thought that playing toy soldiers in Tipperary was ideal preparation for joining up with a gang of mercenaries.

Flores, a man whom he had been knocking around with, for months, was a renowned international mercenary. He had on more than one occasion stated his purpose for going to Bolivia. The kid was not in the presence of angels.

seamus

gandalf wrote: »

This just occurred to me. Did he speak the language because if he didn't he would not have had a clue what was going on.

This is the problem with not knowing the info. If he was picked up specifically to protect that guy, then why would they choose someone with no language and no real experience? On the other hand, if he was out there "training", then it may have been a case of, "This is an easy one - the guy you're protecting is in no real danger and only needs a minder cos he has a heart condition". One of the other guys probably spoke English. In fact, if they were causing trouble, they may have preferred someone who didn't understand them. If he doesn't know what they're saying, he can't betray them to the cops.

I guess until his employer comes forward or it can be confirmed that Flores directly contracted him, we can only guess as to why he was there.

gandalf

Gruffalo wrote: »

I call a spade a spade. Toughen up.

Well then I suggest you go to the gardening forum

I am at a loss to understand why people insist on defending a young fella who thought that playing toy soldiers in Tipperary was ideal preparation for joining up with a gang of mercenaries.

Defending him and questioning why he was executed are two different things. Because he likes airsofting doesn't means he deserves to be shot down in cold blood. Again the actual reason those men were there is not confirmed the last utterance from the prosecutor in Bolivia is they had not found any evidence that there was a plot to kill Morales.

Flores, a man whom he had been knocking around with, for months, was a renowned international mercenary. He had on more than one occasion stated his purpose for going to Bolivia. The kid was not in the presence of angels.

Again no reason to kill without making an effort to capture him which they obviously did not do.

I would be interested if a man who in Ireland was involved in the Shell to Sea protests was visiting a country with a Right Wing Government, who was hanging out with a bunch of Communist activists who were mouthing off publicly about revolution, he had a vaguely socialist tattoo before he got killed in the same way would you be singing from a different hymn sheet?

Instant Karma

seamus wrote: »

This is the problem with not knowing the info. If he was picked up specifically to protect that guy, then why would they choose someone with no language and no real experience? On the other hand, if he was out there "training", then it may have been a case of, "This is an easy one - the guy you're protecting is in no real danger and only needs a minder cos he has a heart condition". One of the other guys probably spoke English. In fact, if they were causing trouble, they may have preferred someone who didn't understand them. If he doesn't know what they're saying, he can't betray them to the cops.

I guess until his employer comes forward or it can be confirmed that Flores directly contracted him, we can only guess as to why he was there.

If this were the case, a quick google search would have given Dwyer all he needed to know about Flores, and since we know Dwyer had facebook/bebo profiles it's fair to say he had internet access.

seamus

Instant Karma wrote: »

If this were the case, a quick google search would have given Dwyer all he needed to know about Flores, and since we know Dwyer had facebook/bebo profiles it's fair to say he had internet access.

That doesn't mean he'd think of googling his employer. For all he knew, Flores just seemed like a regular wealthy guy. That Dwyer had a bebo page doesn't mean that he used the web for anything other then bebo. Now that you mention it, I haven't googled my boss in the 2.5 years I've worked for her. "He had Google" seems a bit ridiculous. Unless you're paranoid or nosey, most people don't go around googling those they come into contact with.

Instant Karma

seamus wrote: »

That doesn't mean he'd think of googling his employer. For all he knew, Flores just seemed like a regular wealthy guy. That Dwyer had a bebo page doesn't mean that he used the web for anything other then bebo. Now that you mention it, I haven't googled my boss in the 2.5 years I've worked for her. "He had Google" seems a bit ridiculous. Unless you're paranoid or nosey, most people don't go around googling those they come into contact with.

Nonsense, does you boss have photo's on their blog in bed with assault rifles, does she tell stories about fighting in the balkans?, are you around weapons? are you in Bolivia doing security?

If im going to be in that situation in a foreign country, I'm going to ask a few questions and know where I stand, you protray Mr Dwyer as a blithering idiot, just blindly following some kind of pied piper.

RedPlanet

seamus wrote: »

That doesn't mean he'd think of googling his employer. For all he knew, Flores just seemed like a regular wealthy guy.

If that's the case then why did Dwyer pay his own flight?

seamus

Instant Karma wrote: »

Nonsense, does you boss have photo's on their blog in bed with assault rifles, does she tell stories about fighting in the balkans?, are you around weapons? are you in Bolivia doing security?

If im going to be in that situation in a foreign country, I'm going to ask a few questions and know where I stand, you protray Mr Dwyer as a blithering idiot, just blindly following some kind of pied piper.

Actually, you're the one portraying him as such and assuming that everyone has the savvy and wherewithall to do these kinds of checks beforehand. To assume that someone would perform these kinds of prechecks is, to quote yourself, one massive assumption in fairness.

If that's the case then why did Dwyer pay his own flight?

What relevance does that have? I know plenty of people who've paid to fly to work for a person or a company who were stupidly rich.

gandalf

RedPlanet wrote: »

If that's the case then why did Dwyer pay his own flight?

Claimed it back as expenses, I know I have done that in the past in previous jobs for travel.

Instant Karma

seamus wrote: »

Actually, you're the one portraying him as such and assuming that everyone has the savvy and wherewithall to do these kinds of checks beforehand. To assume that someone would perform these kinds of prechecks is, to quote yourself, one massive assumption in fairness.
What relevance does that have? I know plenty of people who've paid to fly to work for a person or a company who were stupidly rich.

So by being of the opinion that Mr Dwyer, given his current circumstances would have had the sense to do a few checks on a person he would have to protect is portraying him as an idiot?

seamus

No, assuming that everyone *except* an idiot would do these kinds of checks is essentially what you're saying. IMO, the vast vast majority of people wouldn't even think of googling someone they were working for.

gandalf

Instant Karma wrote: »

So by being of the opinion that Mr Dwyer, given his current circumstances would have had the sense to do a few checks on a person he would have to protect is portraying him as an idiot?

Not the first time someone would have been naive. Saying he may have been an idiot is a bit strong though.

Instant Karma

Well, to be honest I do think he made some idiotic decisions in his life that culminated in an early death.

gandalf

Instant Karma wrote: »

Well, to be honest I do think he made some idiotic decisions in his life that culminated in an early death.

Again wouldn't go as far to say idiotic but unfortunately you're right they did contribute to the fatal situation he got caught up in.

Gruffalo

gandalf wrote: »

Defending him and questioning why he was executed are two different things.

You have no evidence that he was executed. He is dead, so is my grandad but he was not executed.

Because he likes airsofting doesn't means he deserves to be shot down in cold blood.

He was shot in a police raid. You have not evidence to support your "cold blood" garbage.

Again the actual reason those men were there is not confirmed the last utterance from the prosecutor in Bolivia is they had not found any evidence that there was a plot to kill Morales.

Flores has made it very clear why he went to Bolivia i.e. to form a Milita and fight against the Government. It is a matter of record.

Again no reason to kill without making an effort to capture him which they obviously did not do.

Is there an end to your blatant lies? Again, you have no evidence to support your "obviously" garbage. They succesfully captured two men, unharmed, which supports the theory that the opportunity to surrender was offered, and two men took it.

I would be interested if a man who in Ireland was involved in the Shell to Sea protests was visiting a country with a Right Wing Government, who was hanging out with a bunch of Communist activists who were mouthing off publicly about revolution, he had a vaguely socialist tattoo before he got killed in the same way would you be singing from a different hymn sheet?

What hymn sheet am I singing from? You have made everything up so far. I have supported my claims with evidence.

Stop trying to play down the fact he was in the company of an internationally renowned mercenary. Check out Flores' history.

gandalf

Gruffalo wrote: »

You have no evidence that he was executed. He is dead, so is my grandad but he was not executed.

Did your Grandfather die from gunshot wounds inflicted by a South American Police Assault squad? I doubt it. I assume like so many other old people he expired because of a heart attack or died in his sleep without the aid of bullets.

Dwyer was unarmed, he was unclothed. The shots were massed in the chest area and apparently the back of the head. In my opinion and of a lot of others he was executed.

He was shot in a police raid. You have not evidence to support your "cold blood" garbage.

See above unarmed etc etc etc.

Flores has made it very clear why he went to Bolivia i.e. to form a Milita and fight against the Government. It is a matter of record.

Yes but that doesn't mean the Authorities go in all guns blazing now does it, especially when they were well prepared knew where the people they were looking for in advance.

Is there an end to your blatant lies? Again, you have no evidence to support your "obviously" garbage. They succesfully captured two men, unharmed, which supports the theory that the opportunity to surrender was offered, and two men took it.

Well thats your theory so not its not a fact, the basic fact is an unarmed Irish man was shot down. The facts do not support the THEORY that he was given an opportunity to surrender. If the police had followed the established Bolivian procedure for an operation like this and had the local prosecutor with them then maybe we would have a clearer and truer indication of what actually happened. The fact they omitted informing the prosecutor of the operation and then restricted him from access to the scene for hours afterwards suggests that something untoward happened.

I could quite easily say to you that your assertion that all the men were given an opportunity to surrender is balderdash of the highest order.

The two that survived could have lead the authorities to the others.

RedPlanet

gandalf wrote: »

Dwyer was unarmed, he was unclothed. The shots were massed in the chest area and apparently the back of the head. In my opinion and of a lot of others he was executed.

... the basic fact is an unarmed Irish man was shot down. The facts do not support the THEORY that he was given an opportunity to surrender.

It is not a fact that Dwyer was unarmed.
That is speculation.

Gruffalo

gandalf wrote: »

Did your Grandfather die from gunshot wounds inflicted by a South American Police Assault squad?
I doubt it. I assume like so many other old people he expired because of a heart attack or died in his sleep without the aid of bullets.

Nice guys generally do. The point is you are assuming that because Dwyer is dead, he was executed or murdered or whatever drama queen garbage you come up with next.

Dwyer was unarmed,

Speculation and even if it was true, lack of gun does not mean he was not a threat.

he was unclothed.

Irrelevant, inane, pointless nonsense.

The shots were massed in the chest area

So what? That just suggests that the gun was pointed at chest level. Not an unreasonable expectation of a cop entering a room where a perceived dangerous mercenary is waiting.

and apparently the back of the head.

More pointless speculation. Having seen the photos of his corpse, his head looks alright to me.

In my opinion and of a lot of others he was executed.

I know people who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, just like you they have not got the evidence to prove it.



See above unarmed etc etc etc.

Speculation



Yes but that doesn't mean the Authorities go in all guns blazing now does it, especially when they were well prepared knew where the people they were looking for in advance.

You are right, they did know what Flores was like. Take a look at the following link. You will see a picture of Flores on his bed with 2 guns. Does this tell you what the cops might have had good reason to expect?

http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs/61194-irish-involved-bolivia-assassination-attempt-142.html

Well thats your theory so not its not a fact, the basic fact is an unarmed Irish man was shot down.

Unarmed is not a fact. My theory is a theory but unlike your garbage it is supported by facts e.g. two prisoners were taken alive which clearly suggests that there was an opportunity to surrender. Flores in his own words, stated his purpose for going to Bolivia.


The facts do not support the THEORY that he was given an opportunity to surrender.

Yes they do, see above. You have no facts to refute it.

If the police had followed the established Bolivian procedure for an operation like this and had the local prosecutor with them then maybe we would have a clearer and truer indication of what actually happened. The fact they omitted informing the prosecutor of the operation and then restricted him from access to the scene for hours afterwards suggests that something untoward happened.

Read Flores interview, see who he says asked him to form his Militia, you will see a clear suggestion as to why a local prosecutor was not present. See the interview with the vice president, where he gives his reason. Stop pretending to be an expert on Bolivian law.

I could quite easily say to you that your assertion that all the men were given an opportunity to surrender is balderdash of the highest order.

You could but you would be a fool who cannot back it up. Two men were taken alive which suggests that there was an opportunity to surrender. They are currently in prison. The fact that two are still alive clearly eliminates any suggestion that they went there with the intention to kill all five.

The two that survived could have lead the authorities to the others.

But according to you they are innocent men, so what purpose would they have for leading the police there?

Besides that is just more idle speculation with nothing to support it. Remember that these two men are still in jail. Now if they were to be released without charge that might support your theory. Until then it is just rubbish like most of what you have said.

seamus

Speculation and even if it was true, lack of gun does not mean he was not a threat.

Oh really? So someone with 5 or ten weapons pointed at him while he stands there completley unarmed and in his boxers poses a "threat"? I suppose someone'll claim, "He could have been a kung-fu master" now. Whatever happened to beating someone into submission? It might not be PC-friendly either but at least the guy wouldn't be dead.

Irrelevant, inane, pointless nonsense.

Actually, it's one of the key pieces of evidence. The police claimed they were in a running shootout with these guys before they cornered and shot them in the hotel. So, did they strip off in anticipation of their impending death and discard their weaponry? That makes sense, really. The pictures show that these guys were shot clearly after having jumped out of bed, the police didn't strip them.

So what? That just suggests that the gun was pointed at chest level. Not an unreasonable expectation of a cop entering a room where a perceived dangerous mercenary is waiting.

Actually it suggests that the shots were taken carefully and from a very close range. However, it is not unlikely for an experienced marksman to shoot this accurately, even when threatened.

You are right, they did know what Flores was like. Take a look at the following link. You will see a picture of Flores on his bed with 2 guns. Does this tell you what the cops might have had good reason to expect?

Again, not a rare picture - plenty of very law-abiding citizens in the US would have tonnes of pictures of themselves with their ridiculously lethal weapons. Does this mean the SWAT team should break in to enforce a parking violation? As the evidence clearly shows that these men were not prepared for any kind of assault, the police were obviously overreacting for what they were doing.

Unarmed is not a fact.

Actually it is. The Bolivian police themselves have all but confirmed it. They claim there were weapons found "nearby" or in another building or whatever. If they had found a weapon on Dwyer, they would have said so. The fact that they haven't claimed to have found a weapon on Dwyer is close enough to evidence for me. After all, if they just said, "Dwyer had a weapon when he was shot", this would all be over, case closed.

Yes they do, see above. You have no facts to refute it.

You have no facts to prove it. That two men were captured doesn't logically follow that any of them were given an opportunity to surrender. For all you know, the two captured men weren't given an "opportunity" to surrender either, but were just grabbed by the cops for information.

Gruffalo

seamus wrote: »

Oh really? So someone with 5 or ten weapons pointed at him while he stands there completley unarmed and in his boxers poses a "threat"? I suppose someone'll claim, "He could have been a kung-fu master" now.

Have you ever heard of somone killing with a weapon other than a gun?


Actually, it's one of the key pieces of evidence. The police claimed they were in a running shootout with these guys before they cornered and shot them in the hotel.

Keep yourself up to date like a good man. In an interview a couple of days back the vice president said otherwise i.e. the Bolivian Government are no longer claiming the story you are yapping on about, if they ever did in the first place.

So, did they strip off in anticipation of their impending death and discard their weaponry? That makes sense, really. The pictures show that these guys were shot clearly after having jumped out of bed, the police didn't strip them.

The pictures do not show that any of them were ever in bed. As above you are basing what you say on a story that the Bolivian Government are not pushing, so why they were in boxers is utterly irrelevant.

Actually it suggests that the shots were taken carefully and from a very close range. However, it is not unlikely for an experienced marksman to shoot this accurately, even when threatened.

Police in these countries often are highly trained marksmen, so why would you be surprised that they are a good shot?

Again, not a rare picture - plenty of very law-abiding citizens in the US would have tonnes of pictures of themselves with their ridiculously lethal weapons. Does this mean the SWAT team should break in to enforce a parking violation? As the evidence clearly shows that these men were not prepared for any kind of assault, the police were obviously overreacting for what they were doing.

The evidence shows no such thing. It shows three corpses not how came to be corpses. Most of these people in the US that you speak of do not have a record as an international mercenary, Flores does. They have not admitted that they were there to form a militia and to fight against the Government, Flores has.


Actually it is. The Bolivian police themselves have all but confirmed it.

So they have not confirmed then. Then how can it be a fact?

They claim there were weapons found "nearby" or in another building or whatever. If they had found a weapon on Dwyer, they would have said so.

No, they found a stash of weapons nearby, which there are photos of, this does not mean that there were no weapons at the hotel.


The fact that they haven't claimed to have found a weapon on Dwyer is close enough to evidence for me. After all, if they just said, "Dwyer had a weapon when he was shot", this would all be over, case closed.

No it would not because people like you would still be making up facts based on what people are not saying or on what they "all but said".

You have no facts to prove it. That two men were captured doesn't logically follow that any of them were given an opportunity to surrender.

Now that is absolutely laughable. I have not claimed it is a fact, I have said that there is factual evidence to "support" the theory that the opportunity to surrender was offered. Two men are still alive, they were neither harmed or killed. It does not prove that Dwyer was offered the opportunity but it certainly supports the theory. It also clearly states that the cops were not there to kill everybody.

For all you know, the two captured men weren't given an "opportunity" to surrender either, but were just grabbed by the cops for information.

A possibility, but why did they pick those two? And if they were just an innocent group of lads as you are trying to portray, why would the cops need information? Wouldn't they be better off if they killed all of them and left no witness of any sort.

There is evidence that Dwyer was hanging around with a highly dangerous man, a man who by his own word was there to form a militia to fight his Government, he has paid the ultimate price for doing so.

seamus

Have you ever heard of somone killing with a weapon other than a gun?

"Unarmed", i.e. not carrying a weapon. If he had a weapon, then why didn't they say, "He had a weapon"?

Keep yourself up to date like a good man. In an interview a couple of days back the vice president said otherwise i.e. the Bolivian Government are no longer claiming the story you are yapping on about, if they ever did in the first place.

The pictures do not show that any of them were ever in bed. As above you are basing what you say on a story that the Bolivian Government are not pushing, so why they were in boxers is utterly irrelevant.

"Why" is not that relevant. The fact that they were, is. As it's strong evidence that they were unarmed and defenceless.
Are you not even the least bit suspicious that the Bolivians would claim one story, then when the evidence blatantly showed them to be lying, they backpedalled? You're basing your firm belief of Dwyer's guilt or culpability on the evidence of a Government who were very quickly shown to be lying or at least attempting to invent stories to cover themselves.

Police in these countries often are highly trained marksmen, so why would you be surprised that they are a good shot?

I'm not. Read that bit again.

So they have not confirmed then. Then how can it be a fact?

I was countering your argument that it was "speculation" that Dwyer was unarmed. Well until someone officially claims the opposite, it's safe to take is as fact that he was unarmed.

No, they found a stash of weapons nearby, which there are photos of, this does not mean that there were no weapons at the hotel.

But surely if there were weapons in the hotel, they would have said so? And an eyewitness would have confirmed it?

Now that is absolutely laughable. I have not claimed it is a fact, I have said that there is evidence to "support" the theory that the opportunity to surrender was offered. Two men are still alive, they were neither harmed or killed. It does not prove that Dwyer was offered the opportunity but it certainly supports the theory. It also clearly states that the cops were not there to kill everybody.

And that we have pictures of 3 unarmed men lying dead without any weapons and no reports whatsoever of police or civilian injuries provides equal supports the theory that no surrender was offered.

Gruffalo

seamus wrote: »

"Unarmed", i.e. not carrying a weapon. If he had a weapon, then why didn't they say, "He had a weapon"?

Did they say that he did not have a weapon? No they did not but you here you are making up your facts again.

"Why" is not that relevant. The fact that they were, is. As it's strong evidence that they were unarmed and defenceless.

No it is not. It is strong evidence that they were in their boxers. That is all. Look back at the photo of Flores, He is in his boxers and armed.

Are you not even the least bit suspicious that the Bolivians would claim one story, then when the evidence blatantly showed them to be lying, they backpedalled?

On another forum, I was one of the first to point out the inaccuracies of the Police story. However, the Government do not appear to have pushed that story (I could be wrong here). However, the fact that he was shot by police does not mean they murdered him, it means they killed him.

You're basing your firm belief of Dwyer's guilt or culpability on the evidence of a Government who were very quickly shown to be lying or at least attempting to invent stories to cover themselves.

I have not said that he is guilty. I have shown that the claims that he was murdered in cold blood cannot be proven. I base my opinion of him on the fact that the leader of the group, Flores, was an international mercenary who had clearly stated his purpose for being in Bolivia. Dwyer had been in his company for months and someone was paying for the lavish lifestyle i.e. the bmw he boasted about, the fancy hotels they were living in.

I'm not. Read that bit again.

Grand so, we agree on something

I was countering your argument that it was "speculation" that Dwyer was unarmed.

It is speculation

Well until someone officially claims the opposite, it's safe to take is as fact that he was unarmed.

No it is not and your statement clearly shows that you do not know what a fact is.

But surely if there were weapons in the hotel, they would have said so? And an eyewitness would have confirmed it?

Has an eyewitness claimed stated that they know for certain that there were no guns present?

And that we have pictures of 3 unarmed men lying dead without any weapons

They released photos of the bodies. Therefore you would expect to see the bodies, and you do. Still not evidence that no guns were present.

and no reports whatsoever of police or civilian injuries provides equal supports the theory that no surrender was offered.

No it doesn't. There are no reports of civilians being present at the shootings, so it would be difficult to injure one. The fact that no cop got injured suggests that they were efficient. The fact that 2 men were taken alive shows that they were given the chance to surrender, and supports the theory that they may all have gotten the opportunity (though does not prove it).

Could Dwyer have been given the opportunity, but not have understood it? Did he have good Spanish? Any sudden movement which led the police to feel threatened would have given them the right to defend themselves. (now that is just speculation).

Thanks to Flores, the police had every reason to believe that this group were a dangerous group. He had clearly stated his objectives. What was Dwyer doing with him? Was he just the tea boy? I find it hard to believe the story that he was a bodyguard for Flores, why would Flores hire an incompetent bodyguard from Tipperary?

Some people seem to think that Dwyer being Irish makes him innocent. It does not. The truth may yet come out, and if it does, given the company he was keeping, I think it is unlikely to look good for Dwyer.

Rebelheart

Of course if the poor fellow had the intelligence to try to overthrow the native government while dressed up in a uniform of the British Army he would now be lauded as a "hero" and a soldier for "democracy" and "freedom" by a certain imperialist/fascist section in Irish society.

And of course leading Irish intellectuals like Joe Duffy would be shedding crocodile tears on some RTÉ tv show or a Sunday Independent article and speaking of his "bravery".

And, who knows, if he just put that uniform on and became a mercenary of the British state taking the euphemism "soldier" on him he could even get to write his own diary in The Irish Times recounting his daily struggles against the "barbarous wretches" that live in places like Afghanistan.

The gob****e. Kill as many as you like, but for the love of God just do it under the British flag of civilisation and democracy and you'll be represented as a hero.

nice_guy80

again, there is no way Mick Dwyer was involved in terrorist activities. just an ordinary Irish lad who got caught up in something

when that is proved i will be back here and will remind some of ye of the ridiculous ****e that ye spouted on this thread about him.

just be glad none of ye have to go and attend the funeral in the next few days

Capt'n Midnight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7707847.stm
Boliva has half the worlds supply of Lithium. It is used for batteries for electric cars so demand will skyrocket. But they don't want to hand it over to big business because of the way they got screwed before over Gold, silver, tin, oil and gas.