SAS Operating in Ireland (Republic of)

RMD

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

They didn't shoot any people because they were disarmed due to the extreme bravery of the civilians before they got a chance to

Patsy I'm not trying to kick up some personal row but we both know that statement is complete and utter horseshít, watch the video of the event happening and you'll see there was plenty of time to shoot civilians. They fired a warning shot and that was it, if they did want to shoot civilians they could have unloaded a whole magazine into the crowd before they were disarmed.

Dogwatch

Funfair wrote: »

You can clearly see in the Video the guns being taken off the Corporal's at the window of the car..

RMD wrote: »

Patsy I'm not trying to kick up some personal row but we both know that statement is complete and utter horseshít, watch the video of the event happening and you'll see there was plenty of time to shoot civilians. They fired a warning shot and that was it, if they did want to shoot civilians they could have unloaded a whole magazine into the crowd before they were disarmed.

I refer you to the above post. Why oh why do people not see the evidence in front of them or selectively quote from it.

Every faction made mistakes and people died but now is the time to see it with open eyes and minds and not just take on side of the story. There is plenty of information avaliable for a balanced view to seen but have enough people the courage to say that the other factions may have had a point and some legitimacy in what the wanted. Their methods may be questionable but no one is perfect.

Continuing to promote the propoganda of one faction is no longer a legitimate way to debate the Troubles. Take a few steps back and look at it from a different viewpoint, maybe even the viewpoint of those whom you dislike so much. I hope you might learn something from it.

Funfair

Dogwatch wrote: »

I refer you to the above post. Why oh why do people not see the evidence in front of them or selectively quote from it.

Every faction made mistakes and people died but now is the time to see it with open eyes and minds and not just take on side of the story. There is plenty of information avaliable for a balanced view to seen but have enough people the courage to say that the other factions may have had a point and some legitimacy in what the wanted. Their methods may be questionable but no one is perfect.

Continuing to promote the propoganda of one faction is no longer a legitimate way to debate the Troubles. Take a few steps back and look at it from a different viewpoint, maybe even the viewpoint of those whom you dislike so much. I hope you might learn something from it.

What I said was you can clearly see a gun being taken off the Soldiers how is that promoting the propoganda of any side when you can see it ?

What RMD is saying is also true, the Soliders could have got more then a warning off if they suspected what was going to happen to them. They obviously didn't expect to be draged from the car, when they realised it was more sinister then a few people kicking the car it was too late.

No propoganda in either post if you ask me..

RMD

Dogwatch wrote: »

I refer you to the above post. Why oh why do people not see the evidence in front of them or selectively quote from it.

Every faction made mistakes and people died but now is the time to see it with open eyes and minds and not just take on side of the story. There is plenty of information avaliable for a balanced view to seen but have enough people the courage to say that the other factions may have had a point and some legitimacy in what the wanted. Their methods may be questionable but no one is perfect.

Continuing to promote the propoganda of one faction is no longer a legitimate way to debate the Troubles. Take a few steps back and look at it from a different viewpoint, maybe even the viewpoint of those whom you dislike so much. I hope you might learn something from it.

If you knew my history of posts in these type of topics you'll find I'm pretty much unbiased and if anything anti-Republican supporters. I'm not taking any side of the story, I'm viewing it completely down the middle with a hint of anti-armchair Republicanism.

Take a few step backs and read through the topic before jumping to conclusions.

Dogwatch

RMD: Sorry, I Apologise.

I was referring Funfair to your post as an example of seeing the whole video and not picking a small few seconds to quote.
Your comments are very fair and considered. Thank you

RMD

Dogwatch wrote: »

RMD: Sorry, I Apologise.

I was referring Funfair to your post as an example of seeing the whole video and not picking a small few seconds to quote.
Your comments are very fair and considered. Thank you

Ah I see, I sounded a like a bit of a dick in my reply to you so sorry for that, misunderstood your post.

Dogwatch

Funfair wrote: »

What I said was you can clearly see a gun being taken off the Soldiers how is that promoting the propoganda of any side when you can see it ?

What RMD is saying is also true, the Soliders could have got more then a warning off if they suspected what was going to happen to them. They obviously didn't expect to be draged from the car, when they realised it was more sinister then a few people kicking the car it was too late.

No propoganda in either post if you ask me..

Yes that bit is clear but why only mention this part as there is a lot more footage available to view including the part where the defenceless men were beaten to death and then shot with their own weapons.

They would have been well aware of what was going to happen to them, given the area they were in and the reputation for PIRA in meting its own version of justice.

If they had shot civilians, they outcry would have been deafening and rightly so. They restrained themselves and as a result only two people died instead of several more.

The Army were well aware of events and could have sent in troops to rescue them but did nothing. In doing nothing lives were saved but what Republican would admit that?

Too many people will not look over the fence and see what happened on the other side, which is sad. Soldiers and civilians were murdered by all factions but I do see that any faction was more or less rightous than any other.
Tell the truth about what happened and not just one sides version of it.

mbiking123

They would have been well aware of what was going to happen to them, given the area they were in and the reputation for PIRA in meting its own version of justice.

If they had shot civilians, they outcry would have been deafening and rightly so. They restrained themselves and as a result only two people died instead of several more.

The Army were well aware of events and could have sent in troops to rescue them but did nothing. In doing nothing lives were saved but what Republican would admit that?

I dont understand why the guy started climbing out the window with gun in hand, personally I think it would have been safer to stay inside car and lock doors. I believe climbing out of window gun in hand is what caused the crowd to react the way they did. In fact from what I know, their initial reaction is what gave them away. I believe if they acted like two blokes who got lost they would have got out.

What was army doing in civilian clothing and car and also armed ? Army usually go on patrol etc in numbers, these two guys on their own. Seems suspicious to me.

Funfair

Dogwatch wrote: »

RMD: Sorry, I Apologise.

I was referring Funfair to your post as an example of seeing the whole video and not picking a small few seconds to quote.
Your comments are very fair and considered. Thank you

You are talking utter rubbish Dogwatch...

RMD was also talking about a few seconds when he said the Corporal's could have fired there guns. So how do you explain that what RMD said was fair and considered and mine was total horse crap?

What I said was proven on video what RMD said was more then likely and not proven but his view was "considered" and mine wasn't.. get a grip boi!!

Dogwatch

Funfair wrote: »

You are talking utter rubbish Dogwatch...

RMD was also talking about a few seconds when he said the Corporal's could have fired there guns. So how do you explain that what RMD said was fair and considered and mine was total horse crap?

What I said was proven on video what RMD said was more then likely and not proven but his view was "considered" and mine wasn't.. get a grip boi!!

First; there is no need to be abusive because someone disagrees with you. It demeans you and your argument.

Second: Here is something you could have looked up yourself but did not bother. Read this and look up the Milltown funerals for some more information.
These sordid events were well covered by television at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings.

there are many more links in both articles so you can read what happened or it will lead you other viewpoints

Video of what happened which includes your quoted photograph. The video is over 18 only and requires registering with Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I8y4iL7jQw&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dcorporal%2Bkillings%26aq%3Df&has_verified=1&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fverify_age%3Fnext_url%3Dhttp%253A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%253Fv%253D8I8y4iL7jQw%2526oref%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25252Fresults%25253Fsearch_query%25253Dcorporal%25252Bkillings%252526aq%25253Df%2526has_verified%253D1

Funfair

Dogwatch wrote: »

First; there is no need to be abusive because someone disagrees with you. It demeans you and your argument.

Second: Here is something you could have looked up yourself but did not bother. Read this and look up the Milltown funerals for some more information.
These sordid events were well covered by television at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings.

there are many more links in both articles so you can read what happened or it will lead you other viewpoints

Video of what happened which includes your quoted photograph. The video is over 18 only and requires registering with Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I8y4iL7jQw&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dcorporal%2Bkillings%26aq%3Df&has_verified=1&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fverify_age%3Fnext_url%3Dhttp%253A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%253Fv%253D8I8y4iL7jQw%2526oref%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25252Fresults%25253Fsearch_query%25253Dcorporal%25252Bkillings%252526aq%25253Df%2526has_verified%253D1

Dogwatch Apologies if I offended you with my last response but you need to lose your condescending attitude to everything I post.

Why exactly are you posting up articles and videos on this brutal killing?

And what exactly do you want me or others to read and look at?

I didn’t open either link as I don’t feel I need to; I can remember what happened, how it happened and why it happened. I also remember the tension at the time and that is something you won’t get from reading or watching videos. That month was, as said elsewhere, A brutal chapter in the sad history of the North.

You arguing with me is not going to change anything about any incident.. Thankfully it’s all confined to history and we as an Island have moved on from it.

If you’re asking if I condone the killings the answer is NO how could anyone with any sense of moral values stand over what happened to the two men .I can though understand the thinking of the time and how people can say if this or if that didn't happen then this wouldn't have happened etc.

Lastly a bit of advice not everything wrote on Wikipedia can be taken as fact. The site is very good for a lot of things but sometimes the information is not totally accurate.

Dogwatch

Funfair wrote: »

Dogwatch Apologies if I offended you with my last response but you need to lose your condescending attitude to everything I post.

Why exactly are you posting up articles and videos on this brutal killing?

And what exactly do you want me or others to read and look at?

I didn’t open either link as I don’t feel I need to; I can remember what happened, how it happened and why it happened. I also remember the tension at the time and that is something you won’t get from reading or watching videos. That month was, as said elsewhere, A brutal chapter in the sad history of the North.

You arguing with me is not going to change anything about any incident.. Thankfully it’s all confined to history and we as an Island have moved on from it.

If you’re asking if I condone the killings the answer is NO how could anyone with any sense of moral values stand over what happened to the two men .I can though understand the thinking of the time and how people can say if this or if that didn't happen then this wouldn't have happened etc.

Lastly a bit of advice not everything wrote on Wikipedia can be taken as fact. The site is very good for a lot of things but sometimes the information is not totally accurate.

I am posting up these article and videos to attempt to get posters here to look at the whole series of sad events that ended with the killing of the two corporals.

These events are over 20 years old and memory is not a good thing to rely on after that length of time.

I am not asking you to condone the killings, far from it. I am asking that you and others look at these and other events with an open mind and maybe think about it again.

I agree about the unreliablity of Wikipedia but it can provide useful links to other sources of information.

Thank you for the apology. I was not offended by your comments but again you see the need to comment about me.

Attack the post not the poster please.

RMD

mbiking123 wrote: »

What was army doing in civilian clothing and car and also armed ? Army usually go on patrol etc in numbers, these two guys on their own. Seems suspicious to me.

They had just gotten off-duty. Off-duty soldiers were often armed with handguns during the troubles as they were obviously targets to Republicans off-duty as well. Apparently they were new to their deployment and didn't no their way around West Belfast, on their way home they decided to go down the Falls road instead of taking the M1 which was suggested to them by their CO, idiotic to say the least.

Dogwatch

RMD wrote: »

They had just gotten off-duty. Off-duty soldiers were often armed with handguns during the troubles as they were obviously targets to Republicans off-duty as well. Apparently they were new to their deployment and didn't no their way around West Belfast, on their way home they decided to go down the Falls road instead of taking the M1 which was suggested to them by their CO, idiotic to say the least.

The passenger, Corporal Howes, was the relief of the driver, Corporal Wood, and a familirisation was taking place when they ran into the funeral.

Unbelievably they had not been briefed that it was happening and to stay away from the area. The driver was just ending his tour when this happened.

Wrong place,Wrong time

Here is another source for the events of that day from Saoirse32
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/03/19/the-two-corporals/

Comment No 4 is rather poignant

RMD

Dogwatch wrote: »

The passenger, Corporal Howes, was the relief of the driver, Corporal Wood, and a familirisation was taking place when they ran into the funeral.

Unbelievably they had not been briefed that it was happening and to stay away from the area. The driver was just ending his tour when this happened.

Wrong place,Wrong time

Here is another source for the events of that day from Saoirse32
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/03/19/the-two-corporals/

Comment No 4 is rather poignant

I can't find the source but I remember reading that they were advised to avoid the Falls road area and take the M1, they were on a familiarisation but if I remember right the source I read it from said their CO advised them to stay away from the Falls road area on that day. Ye simply a case of wrong place wrong time, if there was any malice in their plans they would have certainly fired more than a warning shot.

Comment 4 seems pretty bang on, comment 32 also sums up the emotions at the time well. There is a plentiful supply of backward retards posting on there to though :pac:

Dogwatch

RMD wrote: »

I can't find the source but I remember reading that they were advised to avoid the Falls road area and take the M1, they were on a familiarisation but if I remember right the source I read it from said their CO advised them to stay away from the Falls road area on that day. Ye simply a case of wrong place wrong time, if there was any malice in their plans they would have certainly fired more than a warning shot.

Comment 4 seems pretty bang on, comment 32 also sums up the emotions at the time well. There is a plentiful supply of backward retards posting on there to though :pac:

You are right. The junction where I think they made the mistake is/was a roundabout and I think they went one exit too far. It a long time ago and memory is fallable.
There are still those on this island who rejoice in what happened that day. Thankfully, they are in a shrinking minority.

whydave

you may want to read this ''The SAS in Ireland'' by Raymond Murray (thats Fr.Raymond Murray )http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAS-Ireland-Raymond-Murray/dp/1856354377/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297640257&sr=1-1

RMD

whydave wrote: »

you may want to read this ''The SAS in Ireland'' by Raymond Murray (thats Fr.Raymond Murray )http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAS-Ireland-Raymond-Murray/dp/1856354377/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297640257&sr=1-1

Supposedly it's a load of biased crap, but that really depends on what side you view it from.

whydave

try to read the book first then see if it is biased !

PatsytheNazi

whydave wrote: »

you may want to read this ''The SAS in Ireland'' by Raymond Murray (thats Fr.Raymond Murray )http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAS-Ireland-Raymond-Murray/dp/1856354377/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297640257&sr=1-1

RMD wrote: »

Supposedly it's a load of biased crap, but that really depends on what side you view it from.

''The SAS in Ireland'' by Raymond Murray is the best book written on the subject. Raymond Murray has worked with Amnesty International and other human rights groups on state sponsored murder, torture etc Like an Amnesty report, the book is written in clinical and factual fashion unlike the self glofyification daring do adventure stories of how the SAS took out the ' terrorists ' while hiding in a ditch for a week surviving on rats p!ss in sub zero temperatures etc, etc

PatsytheNazi

Here's the report on the arrest of the SAS in Monaghan. It should be noted that their arrest happened 4 days after the brutal murder of 46-year-old Seamus Ludlow having picked him up as he hitched a lift out of Dundalk and dumped his body near his home.

"The alert Garda, in compliance with his duty, ordered the men to step out of the car. They were very reluctant until, unknown to the men, members of the Irish Army, rifles at the ready, stepped out of the bushes when they realised that the Garda’s instructions were not being obeyed. Surrounded in their car by Irish soldiers pointing rifles at them, the men’s attitude dramatically changed. They stepped out of the car and meekly submitted. When the Garda searched their vehicle they were surprised to discover two sub machine guns, pump action shotguns and a number of hand guns. "

" Not only that but about 20 minutes after the first two men were arrested and taken under escort to Omeath station a second vehicle, containing six men drove up to the checkpoint. They too were armed and claimed that they were searching for the first car. "

http://www.seamusludlow.com/argus030506.htm

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

''The SAS in Ireland'' by Raymond Murray is the best book written on the subject. Raymond Murray has worked with Amnesty International and other human rights groups on state sponsored murder, torture etc Like an Amnesty report, the book is written in clinical and factual fashion unlike the self glofyification daring do adventure stories of how the SAS took out the ' terrorists ' while hiding in a ditch for a week surviving on rats p!ss in sub zero temperatures etc, etc

I guess that answers the question on the neutrality of the book.

cyrusdvirus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess that answers the question on the neutrality of the book.

Oh stop poking him, you know he thrives on the attention.

Funfair

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

self glofyification daring do adventure stories of how the SAS took out the ' terrorists ' while hiding in a ditch for a week surviving on rats p!ss in sub zero temperatures etc, etc

lol Andy McNab comes to mind..

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess that answers the question on the neutrality of the book.

If anything isn't " the British army the greatest army in the World " - it's unbalanced and baised with you isn't it

cyrusdvirus

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

If anything isn't " the British army the greatest army in the World " - it's unbalanced and baised with you isn't it

Whereas with you if any thing isn't " The PIRA and their buds are brilliant and the Brits are all a bunch of bunglers in the SAS or bloodthirsty killers in the regular army" it's unbalanced and biased.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess that answers the question on the neutrality of the book.

the neutrality of the book might be questionable , yours however was never in any doubt ,

RMD

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

''The SAS in Ireland'' by Raymond Murray is the best book written on the subject. Raymond Murray has worked with Amnesty International and other human rights groups on state sponsored murder, torture etc Like an Amnesty report, the book is written in clinical and factual fashion unlike the self glofyification daring do adventure stories of how the SAS took out the ' terrorists ' while hiding in a ditch for a week surviving on rats p!ss in sub zero temperatures etc, etc

Quite true Patsy, I'll agree on that. But as much as you hate the "glorious SAS did no wrong" bias, I also hate the "IRA freedom fighters were shot indiscriminately by the SAS devil-worshiping monsters" type crap which this book is supposedly filled with. I want an unbiased book, a book which is straight down the middle and details both sides as how they were. Both were killers and scumbags, I want a book that doesn't glorify one and demonise the other.

goldie fish

RMD wrote: »

Quite true Patsy, I'll agree on that. But as much as you hate the "glorious SAS did no wrong" bias, I also hate the "IRA freedom fighters were shot indiscriminately by the SAS devil-worshiping monsters" type crap which this book is supposedly filled with. I want an unbiased book, a book which is straight down the middle and details both sides as how they were. Both were killers and scumbags, I want a book that doesn't glorify one and demonise the other.

Have you read "Big Boys Rules"?

RMD

goldie fish wrote: »

Have you read "Big Boys Rules"?

No just googled it there, certainly does look like a good read. The idea of PMCs has always interested me, the likes of Blackwater (now called Xe group) are certainly a interesting bunch to read about. I don't really see what relevance it holds though to a SAS (seemingly IRA) related thread though.