"UK govt regret at McAnespie killing"

Hagar

I have heard it said the the British Army are the best trained army in the world. If that is true why wasn't the safety catch on?

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

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

<snip>

Make up your own mind.

I've still seen a lot more instances closer to the first than the second. I'm not making up my mind, I am professionally curious as to why the HET report says what it does.

Hagar wrote: »

I have heard it said the the British Army are the best trained army in the world. If that is true why wasn't the safety catch on?

My guess is that it's because the Guardsman screwed up. Would not have been the first ND in British Army history, nor the first fatal one.

Show me an army that has never had an ND, I'll show you an army that hadn't figured out gunpower weapons.

NTM

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've still seen a lot more instances closer to the first than the second. I'm not making up my mind, I am professionally curious as to why the HET report says what it does.

So this post doesn't setup any alarms in your head?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61371774&postcount=81

anonymous_joe

dlofnep wrote: »

So this post doesn't setup any alarms in your head?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61371774&postcount=81

Sadly 21 years on, nothing will ever be done.

How many Iraqis, Palestinians, Americans, Brits, Israelis, etc have died in similar circumstances?

It's easy to forget that this was a war situation for those soldiers, and some people will do terrible things in such times. And genreally, their governments will cover up for them.

dlofnep

anonymous_joe wrote: »

It's easy to forget that this was a war situation for those soldiers, and some people will do terrible things in such times. And genreally, their governments will cover up for them.

War doesn't excuse the cold blooded murder of civilians. The families should certainly be able to seek a genuine apology for the action, and any such coverup should be investigated.

anonymous_joe

dlofnep wrote: »

War doesn't excuse the cold blooded murder of civilians. The families should certainly be able to seek a genuine apology for the action, and any such coverup should be investigated.

Well duh.

However, I can't think of a single war in which there wasn't any cold blooded murder of citizens in human history. From the classical period through to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 'collateral damage' or whatever euphenism is de jour have been a grim reality.

Instant Karma

I'm not sure what some people think happened up here during the troubles, but most people went about their lives in completely normal fashion. There were no gunbattles or snipers sitting in every tree taking potshots at eachother. Sure in the 70's Belfast was rough, Derry to an extent too early on but after that it was 99.999% normality for most people, there was no war. Sure we had army patrols on the streets and a few bases and checkpoints here and there. I was born into the troubles and I guess you could say they ended when I was about 25, in all that time I witnessed one attack (by loyalists) and heard a couple of bombs going off in towns close by (no casualties thankfully). Sure there were hoaxes from time to time that were inconvenient but as I say the vast majority of people during the 80's lived completely normal lives, this is the context of the Aiden McAnespie murder, it's not as if those soldiers were hunkered down in their sanger expecting an imminent attack from some flying column.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

So this post doesn't setup any alarms in your head?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61371774&postcount=81

Not really, no. (Was that Guards unit even on the same island 15 months earlier? How long was a Northern Ireland tour?).

So they were jackasses. There's a bit of a jump between that and outright killing locals. There's a huge jump between that and outright killing them on a calm day with feck-all else going on and a whole bunch of witnesses. And if there's a 'coverup', sure as hell they're going to come up with a more 'acceptable to the public-at-large' story than 'I lost my grip and sent a burst downrange.'

I see nothing unfeasible about a pure accident. I have seen nothing thus far to indicate that it isn't a perfectly viable cause, PSNI theories about statistics notwithstanding. I want to know why PSNI doesn't think it to be particularly likely, hence, like most people, I'd be happy to read the report instead of snippets.

NTM

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

I see nothing unfeasible about a pure accident. I have seen nothing thus far to indicate that it isn't a perfectly viable cause,

So you've totally disregarded the plethora of threats made by British soldiers to the deceased?

Instant Karma

Calm day? as far as I'm aware, this is the one & only incident during the troubles in Aughnacloy.

jonsnow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

They picked on and harassed lots of nationalists out of the blue because the troops on the ground viewed them as the enemy.The soldier just happened to kill this one.He fired the shot to frighten him but it flukely ricocheted.I,d say the soldier had no intention of killing him and was just a bored ###hole.Still manslaughter though.

FlutterinBantam

jonsnow wrote: »

They picked on and harassed lots of nationalists out of the blue because the troops on the ground viewed them as the enemy.The soldier just happened to kill this one.He fired the shot to frighten him but it flukely ricocheted.I,d say the soldier had no intention of killing him and was just a bored ###hole.Still manslaughter though.

I'd say that's not far from the definition of what happened.

Terrible event for the young man and his family but probably a product of events and circumstances which occur in conflict situations.

Sometimes things go wrong, with catastrophic results, and when it all boils down, human nature and behavior in conflict situations is probably the reason.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Terrible event for the young man and his family but probably a product of events and circumstances which occur in conflict situations.

For a guy who preaches on about terrorism apologists, you're doing your own share of apology here.

There was NO conflict situation. It was a man who was walking to a match, in 1988, when things were alot more settled than the events of the late 60's and 70's. There were no surrounding soldiers ready to open attack on that British soldier. Nothing was there to threaten them at that moment. He opened fire, and killed an innocent man.

There is absolutely no justification for the killing of this man. Not one iota.

Manic Moran

So you've totally disregarded the plethora of threats made by British soldiers to the deceased?

Yes.

Intimidation and jackassery is nothing unusual, though not particularly professional. If they wanted to manufacture a way of deliberately killing the man, they could have found a much more efficient and less controversial way of doing it. It's still a hell of a step to go from screwing with someone to shooting them.

Further, prior intimidation or not does not affect the feasibility of an accident or negligence occuring on any particular occasion.

NTM

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

For a guy who preaches on about terrorism apologists, you're doing your own share of apology here.

There was NO conflict situation. It was a man who was walking to a match, in 1988, when things were alot more settled than the events of the late 60's and 70's. There were no surrounding soldiers ready to open attack on that British soldier. Nothing was there to threaten them at that moment. He opened fire, and killed an innocent man.

There is absolutely no justification for the killing of this man. Not one iota.

I'm not apologising for anything.

You don't seem to understand the wider scheme of things,which influence events months, years, before they happen.

You seem to pick fights with people who agree with you,and beat your theory into the ground ad nauseum.

You seem to think you have the racing line on what happened, the circumstances surrounding the event,the mindset of the soldier, and the overall raison d'etre for the event.

People like you alienate others who look at thing in a slightly wider less confrontative way.

You would do your cause, whatever it it much more good if you adopted a less bigoted line and looked at the broader picture.

Buffy the bitch

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm not apologising for anything.

You don't seem to understand the wider scheme of things,which influence events months, years, before they happen.

You seem to pick fights with people who agree with you,and beat your theory into the ground ad nauseum.

You seem to think you have the racing line on what happened, the circumstances surrounding the event,the mindset of the soldier, and the overall raison d'etre for the event.

People like you alienate others who look at thing in a slightly wider less confrontative way.

You would do your cause, whatever it it much more good if you adopted a less bigoted line and looked at the broader picture.

What broader picture? The man was murdered in cold blood.

Oh yeah I see you have to look at the events before? So it was ok for the British army to murder 14 innocent people in Croke park because 14 British agents were killed by the IRA that morning :rolleyes:

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You would do your cause, whatever it it much more good if you adopted a less bigoted line and looked at the broader picture.

Less bigoted line? Where exactly did I demonstrate bigotry.

You were attempting to give credence to the killing of McAnespie, due to the surrounding events. I demonstrated otherwise, that there was nothing in the surrounding events to justify that killing. Nothing whatsoever.

So please tell me, how I've demonstrated bigotry. Is it because I'm not attempting to justify the killing, by putting it into an extremely unbalanced, and faux context?

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

Less bigoted line? Where exactly did I demonstrate bigotry.

You were attempting to give credence to the killing of McAnespie, due to the surrounding events. I demonstrated otherwise, that there was nothing in the surrounding events to justify that killing. Nothing whatsoever.

So please tell me, how I've demonstrated bigotry. Is it because I'm not attempting to justify the killing, by putting it into an extremely unbalanced, and faux context?

I really can't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that I give credence to the McAnespie killing.
That is bigotry,plain and simple.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

Look at the first definition friend, then look in the mirror.

FlutterinBantam

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

What broader picture? The man was murdered in cold blood.

Oh yeah I see you have to look at the events before? So it was ok for the British army to murder 14 innocent people in Croke park because 14 British agents were killed by the IRA that morning :rolleyes:

Murdered? Was anyone convicted of murder?

Now, you ,at least have grasped the substance to some extent of my reasoning.

It wasn't ok for the BA to kill 14 innocent people in Croke park because 14 british agents were killed that morning.

It wasn't ok.

But those events which happened influenced those killings, that's my point.

Not condoning or justifying it

Pure fact, like that Brazilian killed on the London Tube, events which happened previously influenced that killing.

Would the police have acted like that had there not been 50 or so people killed by suicide bombers previously?

No is the answer to that.

That's what I mean by context.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Murdered? Was anyone convicted of murder?

Nobody was convicted of murder during Bloody Sunday either, but that was cold-blooded murder just as well. How on earth do you expect to get a British soldier convicted of murder? It is next to impossible.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I really can't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that I give credence to the McAnespie killing.
That is bigotry,plain and simple.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

Look at the first definition friend, then look in the mirror.

I'm not intolerant to your opinion, I actively disagree with it. There is a difference.

FlutterinBantam

Ok, explain what you think my opinion is.

Instant Karma

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Ok, explain what you think my opinion is.

I believe what you saying is that no apology is necessary because there was a spot of trouble in NI aroundabout that time and because the IRA hasn't bothered to apologise for their murders. How close am I?

FlutterinBantam

Miles away.

Buffy the bitch

Instant Karma wrote: »

I believe what you saying is that no apology is necessary because there was a spot of trouble in NI aroundabout that time and because the IRA hasn't bothered to apologise for their murders. How close am I?

Yes they have.

Murdered? Was anyone convicted of murder?

You'd be a good man if you could find any British solider charged with a murder in Ireland.

FlutterinBantam

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes they have.



You'd be a good man if you could find any British solider charged with a murder in Ireland.

That may well be so, but until the courts try and convict someone of murder, it's only a persons opinion.

The opinion may well be right, but courts decide this, not someones opinion.

Instant Karma

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Miles away.

I don't doubt it at all, your reasoning is diffuclt to follow at best. You begin by saying that you havn't heard much from the thugs fighting for Irish freedom, you talk about the war, apologists for terrorism, accuse other posters of biggotry, you have even covered Israel and Palastine.

Now you keep speaking of context, now I've tried to illustrate the context of the time but you seem either happier to ignore or dismiss it. What exactly are you saying in that case?

FlutterinBantam

Instant Karma wrote: »

I don't doubt it at all, your reasoning is diffuclt to follow at best. You begin by saying that you havn't heard much from the thugs fighting for Irish freedom, you talk about the war, apologists for terrorism, accuse other posters of biggotry, you have even covered Israel and Palastine.

Now you keep speaking of context, now I've tried to illustrate the context of the time but you seem either happier to ignore or dismiss it. What exactly are you saying in that case?

Look buddy, Iv'e posted upwards of twenty post on this thread, if you can't figure out my reasoning, I can't help you any more.

Buffy got the gist of it first go.

Buffy the bitch

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That may well be so, but until the courts try and convict someone of murder, it's only a persons opinion.

The opinion may well be right, but courts decide this, not someones opinion.

Right so if I go out tonight and murder someone and don't get brought before a court it isn't murder

FlutterinBantam

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Right so if I go out tonight and murder someone and don't get brought before a court it isn't murder

You are pleading guilty:D

Life for you Buffy;)