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

"UK govt regret at McAnespie killing"

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    No Sir

    Bigots Sir, People who just see one side of a cause and condemn the other side,yet fail to realise they are doing exactly the same themselves.

    People who expect, say,people like the Israelis, to accept rockets into their territory without taking action.

    If people were shooting rockets into my back yard i would expect my country to protect me.

    There are too many people out there who can only see one side of the coin and ignore cause and effect.

    They are referred to as bigots

    When did Aidan McAnespie fire a rocket at a British Soldier? What has Israel got to do with the topic at hand? The topic at hand is the death of a civilian, at the hands of a British soldier. You should probably try stick to it.

    Israel is being discussed in another thread, pop in and say hello. I'll more more than happy to debate that topic with you.


  • Options
    #63
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    No Sir

    Bigots Sir, People who just see one side of a cause and condemn the other side,yet fail to realise they are doing exactly the same themselves.

    People who expect, say,people like the Israelis, to accept rockets into their territory without taking action.

    If people were shooting rockets into my back yard i would expect my country to protect me.

    There are too many people out there who can only see one side of the coin and ignore cause and effect.

    They are referred to as bigots

    Is this directed at me? If so, I was actually referring to the 'they' in your 'As they say' phrase, and not those who 'will not see'.

    I don't think your small tirade about what or who you believe to be a bigot has much to do with the murder of an innocent civilian by a British Government agent. In any case, as you seem to labour the point of there being two sides to every argument (which is basically what it is), two traditionally diametrically opposed sides can't both be right.


  • Options
    #64
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    So Flutter, whats the soldiers 'cause' in your eyes to 'force' him to kill in this instance?

    Perhaps, the civilian was wearing the wrong jersey?! Help us out here.

    Killing unarmed civilians is reserved for the armies of third world oppressive regimes, not for Britain.
    They have an excuse to kill, that is to oppress. Whats Britains excuse?


  • Options
    #65
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,281 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Could it just so happened, that he murdered the man?

    Could be. I think it's the most unlikely option, personally. I've seen a lot more NDs in my time than deliberate unauthorised killings. Keeping someone under observation as a potential terrorist suspect is not in any way incompatible with the official story. Makes it sound all ominous, but it isn't criminal or conspiratorial. Actually, it's probably what they should be doing.

    That's why I'm looking for the details, preferably either the HET report or the original investigation. So far I've not come across anything incompatible with a simple and not uncommon weapons handling failure and would very much like to know why the HET considers a very common cause to be the least likely.
    The report finds the official story as the least likely scenario.

    Which is why I am querying it. Presumably the report knows something I don't, but I really would like to know why they decided to discount 'accident' as less likely when they're really unfortunately common occurrences. Nothing in the report that I have so far read removes any grounds to consider a simple accident as particularly feasible and to downgrade it from the starting position of 'most likely.' It just doesn't make sense to me.

    NTM


  • Options
    #66
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It just doesn't make sense to me.

    A British soldier killing an Irish civilian without cause doesn't make sense to you? It's happened before, what's to say it has not happened here?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    gurramok wrote: »
    So Flutter, whats the soldiers 'cause' in your eyes to 'force' him to kill in this instance?

    Perhaps, the civilian was wearing the wrong jersey?! Help us out here.

    Killing unarmed civilians is reserved for the armies of third world oppressive regimes, not for Britain.
    They have an excuse to kill, that is to oppress. Whats Britains excuse?


    You keep twisting this back to a single incident sir,which I have condemned.

    There are no excuses for killing an innocent person, but right minded people must look at the overall scenario here.
    Pvt Stephen Ristoreck was shot by a snyper , was there any apology for that?
    Dozens of members of the armed forces were killed in NI and that scenario in human terms would influence peoples actions,not excuse them.
    If soldiers see themselves as legitimate targets for roadside bombs, snypers ,obviously their attitude will be coloured by that scenario.

    At the end of the day all the participants are human beings and to expect them not to be influenced by the behaviour of the other "side" is naive in the extreme.

    It's common sense, really not blinkered idealism, which refuses to see any credence in the other side point of view and unfortunately is the hallmark of a true bigot which none of us wants anything to do with.


  • Options
    #68
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    No Sir

    Bigots Sir, People who just see one side of a cause and condemn the other side,yet fail to realise they are doing exactly the same themselves.

    People who expect, say,people like the Israelis, to accept rockets into their territory without taking action.

    If people were shooting rockets into my back yard i would expect my country to protect me.

    There are too many people out there who can only see one side of the coin and ignore cause and effect.

    They are referred to as bigots

    You really all over the place arent you, I expect you will be invoking hitler next. You talk about apologists but as far as I can see your the only one on this thread.


  • Options
    #69
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    I can understand you have difficulty following a logical argument .


  • Options
    #70
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »

    Pvt Stephen Ristoreck was shot by a snyper , was there any apology for that?

    You just can't grasp the finer point in this debate can you? Your actually equating the IRA to the Armed forces.


  • Options
    #71
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    I can fully understand how you can't follow my argument,it's properly reasoned and not influenced by misguided idealism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Flutterin, you've been attempt to deflect the conversation. Don't pretend you haven't.


  • Options
    #73
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    No, just continuing the point I have been making all along.


  • Options
    #74
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    No, you haven't. You've been fading in and out of different debates, sometimes even confusing yourself. In one post your telling us about the IRA, the next about Israel. None of which have any bearing on the topic at hand - A soldier killing a civilian who was going to a game.


  • Options
    #75
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Oh ok, you believe that events and context had nothing to do with the killing.?

    Is that what you are saying, that the whole event should be taken in isolation and it's just like a soldier walking out of an Irish army barracks tomorrow morning and shooting someone in the back walking up Dame St.


  • Options
    #76
    Powerhouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    While not condoning the murder of Mr McAnespie, it was despicable, never heard much apology from the faceless thugs who murdered innocent people in NI on behalf of "Irish Freedom".

    Some people seem to think that responsibility is all on one side.



    It is remarkable that you see a moral equivalence between a democratically elected government and an illegal organisation and feel that apologies should be nothing more than a cat and mouse game between the two.

    And 'tis true that "some people seem to think that responsibility is all on one side" - I note you yourself don't mention anything about apologies over the victims of loyalist paramilitaries which is a prime example of the mealy-mouthedness we normally get on such matters when people are pretending that there is some moral basis to what is essentially political commentary.


  • Options
    #77
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Oh ok, you believe that events and context had nothing to do with the killing.?

    What context? The context of a man walking to a game?
    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Is that what you are saying, that the whole event should be taken in isolation and it's just like a soldier walking out of an Irish army barracks tomorrow morning and shooting someone in the back walking up Dame St.

    Yes. Why shouldn't it be? What exactly was this man doing to warrant otherwise?


  • Options
    #78
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    dlofnep wrote: »
    What context? The context of a man walking to a game?



    Yes. Why shouldn't it be? What exactly was this man doing to warrant otherwise?


    Oh dear, you obviously can't understand my point, or don't want to.

    You won't look at the broader picture,and fair enough, that's your privilege.

    maybe someone else can come on and explain it, Manic Moran got closest.


  • Options
    #79
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    You won't look at the broader picture

    Do enlighten me as to what the broader picture is.


  • Options
    #80
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »

    There are no excuses for killing an innocent person, but right minded people must look at the overall scenario here.

    Dozens of members of the armed forces were killed in NI and that scenario in human terms would influence peoples actions,not excuse them.
    If soldiers see themselves as legitimate targets for roadside bombs, snypers ,obviously their attitude will be coloured by that scenario.

    At the end of the day all the participants are human beings and to expect them not to be influenced by the behaviour of the other "side" is naive in the extreme.

    It's common sense, really not blinkered idealism, which refuses to see any credence in the other side point of view and unfortunately is the hallmark of a true bigot which none of us wants anything to do with.


    About ten posts ago


  • Options
    #81
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Actually, let's analyze the evidence for it being accidental, and for it being deliberate.

    Accidental
    • Solder's hand slips due to being wet, causing 9lbs of pressure to pull the trigger, the bullet ricochets and kills Aidan 300 metres away.

    Deliberate
    • Soldier stops father of deceased 15 months prior to his death stating: "I've a bullet here in the gun for your son Aidan"
    • McAnespie had previously claimed that he was threatened by British security forces prior to his death.
    • Aidan's sister had stated that British soldiers had threaten to kill him on a number of seperate occasions.
    • The PSNI stated that "the likelihood of a British Army's version of events is so remote that it should be disregarded."
    • HET report states that the Soldier's story was the least likely scenario

    Make up your own mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    About ten posts ago

    So because of the surrounding troubles, it gave merit to him killing a civilian who was attending a match? Is this what you are trying to say? There is no excuse for the blatant cold blooded killing of a guy who's going to watch a match. None.


  • Options
    #83
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    make up my own mind on what??


  • Options
    #84
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    You keep twisting this back to a single incident sir,which I have condemned.

    There are no excuses for killing an innocent person, but right minded people must look at the overall scenario here.
    Pvt Stephen Ristoreck was shot by a snyper , was there any apology for that?
    Dozens of members of the armed forces were killed in NI and that scenario in human terms would influence peoples actions,not excuse them.
    If soldiers see themselves as legitimate targets for roadside bombs, snypers ,obviously their attitude will be coloured by that scenario.

    At the end of the day all the participants are human beings and to expect them not to be influenced by the behaviour of the other "side" is naive in the extreme.

    It's common sense, really not blinkered idealism, which refuses to see any credence in the other side point of view and unfortunately is the hallmark of a true bigot which none of us wants anything to do with.
    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    You won't look at the broader picture,and fair enough, that's your privilege.

    maybe someone else can come on and explain it, Manic Moran got closest.

    Broader picture!

    You have not answered my questions about whether you see it as murder or manslaughter or neither.

    Lets see, those soldiers through the threat of legitimate targets for roadside bombs, snypers use that excuse to kill an unarmed civilian without any accountability. There, i said it for you, that wasn't hard.

    And then you equate the IRA to the British army through moral irresponsibility, and anyone who disagrees with this has a bigoted view?!

    Do you realise what you are emphasising? You are equating the 'professional' British Army to the illegal organisation the IRA.

    And the then this:
    Dozens of members of the armed forces were killed in NI and that scenario in human terms would influence peoples actions,not excuse them.

    Hundreds of unarmed innocent civilians have been murdered by the British Army/RUC/UDR in NI without any conviction for wrongdoing and some people wonder why the IRA have had a recruiting ground.

    And i have news for you. Aidan McAnespie had nothing to do with Republicans, he simply wanted to watch a football match. Right minded people would see the difference.


  • Options
    #85
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    make up my own mind on what??

    On whether it was a accidental or deliberate killing. All evidence points to the latter.


  • Options
    #86
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So because of the surrounding troubles, it gave merit to him killing a civilian who was attending a match? Is this what you are trying to say? There is no excuse for the blatant cold blooded killing of a guy who's going to watch a match. None.


    I have said that at least five times


  • Options
    #87
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I have said that at least five times

    With stipulations. Don't try con me Mr. Flutterin. This is exactly what you said.
    Of course it was wrong to kill Mr mcAnespie of course it was,but..


  • Options
    #88
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    dlofnep wrote: »
    On whether it was a accidental or deliberate killing. All evidence points to the latter.

    Probably deliberate in my opinion.

    What I am doing is setting out a reason why a soldier might have done that.
    And the events of the past and the history of the engagement and the atrocities on both sides could have a bearing on a soldiers behaviour

    Not a merit ,as you say, or any justification, but a scenario of events which lead a person to do such a thing.

    One can't totally isolate tragic events such as this down to cut and dried reasons, there are always other influences which colour the event.


  • Options
    #89
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    What I am doing is setting out a reason why a soldier might have done that.

    That's grand.

    So why do you feel the soldier killed him? Because he was a catholic/nationalist? Because he was angry? Is this really the context I am supposed to empathize with?


  • Options
    #90
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    I'd still like to know why the Army decided to pick on one particular guy, out of the blue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Incorrect sir.

    Why was that soldier there in the first place??

    To suppress terrorism,that's the nub of my argument.

    Of course it was wrong to kill Mr mcAnespie of course it was,but to isolate that from the history of what went on before, the army involvement, the training the soldier received, the casualties suffered by the security forces and his army colleagues at the hands of terrorists.

    If you are going to quote me ,quote the full passage

    No intelligent person can isolate an incident and not look at the greater context.Take the Brazilian person who was shot on the London tube for example.
    That's not excusing it or condoning it, just basically putting it in it's proper context.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    That's grand.

    So why do you feel the soldier killed him? Because he was a catholic/nationalist? Because he was angry? Is this really the context I am supposed to empathize with?

    I don't expect you to emphatise with anything.

    I have no interest in what you emphatise with really.

    I have absolutely no idea why the soldier killed him,only the soldier knows that.
    I am merely pointing out some of the reasons which might have led the soldier to do such a thing.


Advertisement