Shoot to Kill

Exile 1798 · 05-09-2011 01:22PM

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html

You have to create the tables yourself, they can't be linked to directly. Eat your heart out.

cruasder777 · 05-09-2011 01:33PM

Exile 1798 wrote: »

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html

You have to create the tables yourself, they can't be linked to directly. Eat your heart out.

The PIRA killed more Catholics then the British army fact.

The BA killed 258 Catholics (this would have included PIRA members, accidental deaths etc), the PIRA 338 Catholics.

(1)Organisation, (2)Total Killings, (3)Protestant, (4)Catholic, (5)not from NI

(1)IRA (2)1696 (49%)(3) 790 (4)338 (5)568

UVF 396 (11%) 89 265 42

British Army 299 (9%) 32 258 9

(unknown loyalist) 212 (6%) 50 212 7

UFF 149 (4%) 17 132 0

INLA 110 (3%) 55 33 22

UDA 102 (3%) 41 58 3
(unknown) 77 27 42 8

RUC 56 9 44 3

Official IRA 51 7 24 20

PAF (loyalist) 37 0 37 0

'Real' IRA 29 11 13 5

(others) 117 27 87 3

Exile 1798 · 05-09-2011 01:37PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Stop trying to spin the truth the British army killed 9 % in total of those killed during the troubles. The PIRA 49 %.

The BA killed 258 Catholics (this would have included PIRA members, accidental deaths etc), the PIRA 338

(1)Organisation, (2)Total Killings, (3)Protestant, (4)Catholic, (5)not from NI

IRA (2)1696 (49%)(3) 790 (4)338 (5)568

UVF 396 (11%) 89 265 42

British Army 299 (9%) 32 258 9

(unknown loyalist) 212 (6%) 50 212 7

UFF 149 (4%) 17 132 0

INLA 110 (3%) 55 33 22

UDA 102 (3%) 41 58 3
(unknown) 77 27 42 8

RUC 56 9 44 3

Official IRA 51 7 24 20

PAF (loyalist) 37 0 37 0

'Real' IRA 29 11 13 5

(others) 117 27 87 3

cruasder777 wrote: »

The PIRA killed more Catholics then the British army fact.

You really have trouble sticking to the point at hand don't you. This is the claim I responded to:

getz wrote: »

i still find it hard to understand why people living in the south of the ireland,still support a group of terrorists who have murdered more catholics/republicans than the BA /police/and loyalist terror groups put together,

Very specific, nothing to do with total causalities, or percentages there off.

getz · 05-09-2011 01:45PM

Exile 1798 wrote: »

You really have trouble sticking to the point at hand don't you. This is the claim I responded to:

Very specific, nothing to do with total causalities, or percentages there off.

http://topdocumentryfilms.com/provos

Exile 1798 · 05-09-2011 02:01PM

getz wrote: »

http://topdocumentryfilms.com/provos

Sorry this link is no longer available

Would it really matter if it was available, getz?

CAIN - which is maintained by the University of Ulster, is the most comprehensive & reliable database of Troubles casualties. It states that the BA/RUC/Loyalists combined killed 1030 Catholics during the Troubles and that the IRA killed 343.

So your claim is not only wrong but spectacularly so. Being so remarkably incorrect it's a rather odd claim, which I've only ever seen made on occasion by certain Loyalists. I wouldn't rely on such people for "information" on the Troubles, the IRA or life in general if I were you.

kabakuyu · 05-09-2011 04:19PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Let's have a little less patronising please, Goldie.

NTM

To be honest MM I did not find him patronising, I just found him to be totally devoid of the knowledge to answer my query.His attempt at condescension was quite immature and lacked impact;).

Best Regards,
KK

HellsAngel · 05-09-2011 06:02PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

And you dont think it odd that families whos loved ones were serving in NI and suddenly had killed in a car crash in Germany on their death cert would not want answers, never mind collegues, wondering how the guy they were serving with that day was suddenly in a car crash in Germany etc ? :rolleyes:

Such a conspiracy would have involved dozens of people, funny how no journalist has never got wind of it.

Maybe because its such an idiotic conspiracy theory its actually laughable.

And Nairac was never an SAS member, trained by the SAS yes, but then so are/were many units from the Met Police and RUC to various military units, but never badged.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/nairac-an-undercover-hero-or-a-maverick-fool-13903699.html#ixzz1Wz19yRQJ

A former UDR officer who worked with Nairac tells Stephen Gordon of his disturbing memories of the SAS-trained soldier and how his cavalier ways alarmed him... Ex-UDR officer 'Dan' will never forget his first meeting with Grenadier Guardsman Robert Nairac.

It was during that meeting in 1975 that Nairac asked the Co Armagh-based soldier if he knew any UDR men who wanted to "take on the IRA at their own game".

Their first journey into south Armagh followed an order by his operations officer to take a new 'MILO' (Military Intelligence Liaison Officer) on a 'familiarisation' tour of the Battalion area.

"I first saw Bob Nairac when he arrived at my home near Portadown, parked his car in the drive, walked up to the front door and introduced himself as Captain Charlie McDonald. He said he was based at Castledillon.

"He wanted me to take him around the area, point out known 'players', that sort of thing. But he insisted on using his car, not mine!"

Nairac was driving what the military referred to as a 'Q' car - or covert vehicle - that had a military radio fitted behind the ordinary radio and a microphone beneath the seat so the operator did not have to use a handset.

Dan said that from the outset it was obvious Nairac was well trained in counter-surveillance techniques.

"He knew the ropes. He was clearly no ordinary 'MILO'. He was much sharper than any others I had met. He asked very different questions. I soon realised this guy was not the 'rookie' he wanted me to think he was.

Nairac was particularly interested in loyalist paramilitaries like Robin 'The Jackal' Jackson from Lurgan.

Two weeks after their initial meeting Nairac contacted Dan and asked him and a second UDR NCO to meet at Castledillon military base.

"Nairac was based in a separate unit there. It had its own quarters, separate signals equipment, weapons, the lot. It even had its own guards inside the compound - I knew then this was some kind of specialist covert unit.

"He took us into a bar at the base. I remember the bar front had been painted like a deck of cards."

Later that night Nairac took Dan and his UDR colleague out in his car and headed towards the Armagh/Monaghan border.

"He again asked if we knew of any UDR soldiers who would be interested in 'helping him out," said Dan.

"He was particularly interested in UDR men living in or close to south Armagh. He said they could play a vital role in targeting IRA suspects."

Dan said they had been driving for some time along narrow border roads when he spotted a road sign.

"The bloody thing was in Irish. We were inside the Republic and each of us carrying military weapons."

Nairac was unfazed.

"He knew every inch of those roads. Don't forget, most of them had been blocked off by the Army at that time, but he knew exactly where he was."

Eventually Nairac drove into Monaghan and stopped outside a house on the Dublin Road.

"He got out of the car, told us to wait and went inside. We were in a cold sweat. Two UDR soldiers in Monaghan were dead meat at that time."

Nairac was in the house for about 10 minutes before he returned to the car.

"He got back in and said: 'That's a useful contact and I have to keep him sweet'. He then drove us back through the Irish Customs to Castledillon'.

Later that night Dan and his colleague agreed they wanted nothing more to do with the maverick Nairac.

"I told my ops officer Nairac was a loony and I wanted nothing more to do with him. I only saw him again a couple of times after that - once at a joint Army/RUC meeting in Mahon Camp, Portadown, the second time when he drove through a UDR checkpoint near Silverbridge."

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/nairac-an-undercover-hero-or-a-maverick-fool-13903699.html#ixzz1Wz19yRQJ

I'm not going to try again

goldie fish · 05-09-2011 08:21PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Let's have a little less patronising please, Goldie.

NTM

You call it patronising, but I will continue to mock and berate everyone who comes onto a military forum, which this is supposed to be, and attempts to compare acts of terrorism to military acts, while at the same time trying to pass off disinformation, lies and rumour as truth.

I served this state, I had a colleague killed by the PIRA. I have to read people like some posters here **** on the reputation of this man. The wording of the initial post is laughable. I didn 't realise we were expected to take this sort of revisionist propaganda seriously.

The OP is asking, in a twisted way. The SAS killed our murdering few, but it didn't stop the murder. Weren't the PIRA great? Is this acceptable? Then we have people like the post I replied to saying he saw somewhere something on a website that backs up his assertion that a member of the British Security forces who was wounded in Loughall was smuggled off to suffer from his wounds elsewhere??? Its as credible as those who think the WTC was brought down by controlled explosion.i.e nonsense, and insulting to all the innocent victims.

I have been trained, and brought up to believe the PIRA, and all their apologists are not deserving of any of my respect. Up to 15 years ago I would have been considered, a ligitimate target, as I was a member of the security forces. And I will continue to offer this disrespect to their apologists at every opportunity, lest they believe they have hoodwinked every citizen of the state.

There is no military value to any of their actions. They were brought to the table because the people of Ireland demonstrated that they had no time for their violence. This thread ligitimises their murder. This thread attempts to suggest that the actions of the PIRA forced the "crown" to the negotiating table. It sickens me.

It is revisionism, and has no place here in my opinion.

kabakuyu · 05-09-2011 09:39PM

GOLDIE FISH- Then we have people like the post I replied to saying he saw somewhere something on a website that backs up his assertion that a member of the British Security forces who was wounded in Loughall was smuggled off to suffer from his wounds elsewhere

Once again I have to call into question your understanding of what I actually posted and I post said quote below

Another poster stated that 1 SAS soldier secreted inside the police station died in hospital on the mainland as a result of injuries he received during the blast, is this accurate?

You should now be clearly able to see I did not make any assertion but merely posed a question as to the veracity of the post I had seen on another forum, the question mark should have indicated this to you;).
I did not use the word "smuggled", the suggestion of smuggled bodies of deceased service men was made by another poster, you really need to follow the thread more closely,but I do understand that your past experiences and temperament may have caused you to confuse,who posted what.Also, you are trying to imply that I have some type of republican agenda or sympathies(not true),when I was just asking a question, thankfully someone with more knowledge of Loughgall than either you or I did answer the question.Like you said yourself "I have been trained" try using your training before labelling and categorising people who post here.
BTW I am willing to PM to Maninc Moran the details of the relevant site where I saw the quotes.It is a private forum and and is open to members only,a link posted here would have been useless.
Regards
KK.

RMD · 05-09-2011 09:51PM

Realistically speaking, they would never have put a Special Forces trained soldier into the police station when they could put a common foot soldier in. Claims that a SAS trooper died due to the bombing and it was covered up aren't feasible as they wouldn't have risked a SF trooper over a normal soldier.

goldie fish · 05-09-2011 09:58PM

kabakuyu wrote: »

Once again I have to call into question your understanding of what I actually posted and I post said quote below

You should now be clearly able to see I did not make any assertion but merely posed a question as to the veracity of the post I had seen on another forum, the question mark should have indicated this to you;).
I did not use the word "smuggled", the suggestion of smuggled bodies of deceased service men was made by another poster, you really need to follow the thread more closely,but I do understand that your past experiences and temperament may have caused you to confuse,who posted what.Also, you are trying to imply that I have some type of republican agenda or sympathies(not true),when I was just asking a question, thankfully someone with more knowledge of Loughgall than either you or I did answer the question.Like you said yourself "I have been trained" try using your training before labelling and categorising people who post here.
BTW I am willing to PM to Maninc Moran the details of the relevant site where I saw the quotes.It is a private forum and and is open to members only,a link posted here would have been useless.
Regards
KK.

I am using my training. Please PM the link to Manic Moran so he can verify it. Otherwise, reference to this unknown person on an unknown website is pointless. Propogating the lies is akin to supporting the actions.

kabakuyu · 05-09-2011 11:20PM

goldie fish wrote: »

I am using my training. Please PM the link to Manic Moran so he can verify it. Otherwise, reference to this unknown person on an unknown website is pointless. Propogating the lies is akin to supporting the actions.

You just can't resist pontificating, can you:),but I am glad you are now using your training;) it should now be clear,even to you that I was questioning the allegations as opposed to propagating a lie(as you so quaintly put it).I suppose that an acknowledgement that you were previously mistaken in relation to my post was out of the question;).Anyhow,I shall send the relevant details to MM asap.

Manic Moran · 06-09-2011 01:57AM

kabakuyu wrote: »

goldie fish wrote: »

I am using my training. Please PM the link to Manic Moran so he can verify it. Otherwise, reference to this unknown person on an unknown website is pointless. Propogating the lies is akin to supporting the actions.

You just can't resist pontificating, can you:),but I am glad you are now using your training;) it should now be clear,even to you that I was questioning the allegations as opposed to propagating a lie(as you so quaintly put it).I suppose that an acknowledgement that you were previously mistaken in relation to my post was out of the question;).Anyhow,I shall send the relevant details to MM asap.

Do I have access to such a forum? Would uploading a screen shot of such a post not work as well?

NTM

kabakuyu · 06-09-2011 04:08PM

relevant passage

goldie fish · 06-09-2011 07:58PM

kabakuyu wrote: »

relevant passage

To be fair, it doesnt say much really does it? As far as confirming a source? It could be someones opinion or interpretation of events, albeit erroneously.
The fact that this is the first time I have heard it mentioned EVER, would lead me to suggest that this is a mistake, error or other on the part of the poster in the british medal forum, whoever they are.

kabakuyu · 06-09-2011 08:59PM

goldie fish wrote: »

To be fair, it doesnt say much really does it? As far as confirming a source? It could be someones opinion or interpretation of events, albeit erroneously.
The fact that this is the first time I have heard it mentioned EVER, would lead me to suggest that this is a mistake, error or other on the part of the poster in the british medal forum, whoever they are.

You want to be fair?:rolleyes:First you insinuated the forum and post did not exist,then you said that I dreamt the whole thing up and that I was part of some insidious campaign to disrespect dead service personell.
I posted exactly what was posted on the BMF and asked on this forum "is this accurate" I did not state that I had a reputable source for the information, I was just seeking others opinions on this forum with regards to the veracity of the specualtion, straight away,you choose to display a belligerent and caustic stance towards me and tried to question my honesty and integrity in making the post( I think I am now vindicated).You failed to comprehend what I was asking and decided to lecture me on the morality/immorality of the Irish Question. In doing so,you displayed the same characteristics and traits that you allegedly abhor in the rabid Republicans that post here.
Now,because you have been proven wrong you want to cast aspersions on the reputation of the BMF( we all know who uses that tactic, don't we;)) I don't need to defend the BMF, but I will state that serving and retired personell from the British Armed Forces,various Commonwealth nations,various Nato members ,US forces,Russia,and other non alligned countries contribute to the forum.There are even a few PDF and RDF personell on it as well.Some members are also well respected authors in their fields and in general military history.
To finish, you challenged me "to put up or shut up" I have now put up,but I respectfully suggest that is you Sir,who should "shut up".

goldie fish · 06-09-2011 09:14PM

kabakuyu wrote: »

You want to be fair?:rolleyes:First you insinuated the forum and post did not exist,then you said that I dreamt the whole thing up and that I was part of some insidious campaign to disrespect dead service personell.
I posted exactly what was posted on the BMF and asked on this forum "is this accurate" I did not state that I had a reputable source for the information, I was just seeking others opinions on this forum with regards to the veracity of the specualtion, straight away,you choose to display a belligerent and caustic stance towards me and tried to question my honesty and integrity in making the post( I think I am now vindicated).You failed to comprehend what I was asking and decided to lecture me on the morality/immorality of the Irish Question. In doing so,you displayed the same characteristics and traits that you allegedly abhor in the rabid Republicans that post here.
Now,because you have been proven wrong you want to cast aspersions on the reputation of the BMF( we all know who uses that tactic, don't we;)) I don't need to defend the BMF, but I will state that serving and retired personell from the British Armed Forces,various Commonwealth nations,various Nato members ,US forces,Russia,and other non alligned countries contribute to the forum.There are even a few PDF and RDF personell on it as well.Some members are also well respected authors in their fields and in general military history.
To finish, you challenged me "to put up or shut up" I have now put up,but I respectfully suggest that is you Sir,who should "shut up".

Bollox.
The link says as I said earlier some anonomous person on some website somewhere, which does exist..I'll give you that.. said something which is a pile of ****.
Do you want to be patted on the back for repeating that?

kabakuyu · 06-09-2011 09:38PM

goldie fish wrote: »

Bollox.
The link says as I said earlier some anonomous person on some website somewhere, which does exist..I'll give you that.. said something which is a pile of ****.
Do you want to be patted on the back for repeating that?

Look at your ALL your previous posts.You insinunated "I" was some fantasist trying to stir it up and I quote you
"It has been speculated on a website you claim to have seen but have not provided a link to=it never happened, you dreamt it".

Now you try to wiggle away from your own words,You're not doing yourself any favours there.You suggest you had training,did you miss the comprehension module.All my posts were focused on the question I asked, in response you tried to be condescending(and failed ).Now you try to justify the childlike position you took towards me by trying to attack me again.Get over it lad ,you lost this one,I did'nt dream it but I do wonder about you.;)

goldie fish · 06-09-2011 09:46PM

kabakuyu wrote: »

Look at your ALL your previous posts.You insinunated "I" was some fantasist trying to stir it up and I quote you
"It has been speculated on a website you claim to have seen but have not provided a link to=it never happened, you dreamt it".

Now you try to wiggle away from your own words,You're not doing yourself any favours there.You suggest you had training,did you miss the comprehension module.All my posts were focused on the question I asked, in response you tried to be condescending(and failed ).Now you try to justify the childlike position you took towards me by trying to attack me again.Get over it lad ,you lost this one,I did'nt dream it but I do wonder about you.;)

You can go round and round in circles all you like, but all that happens is I continue to derail this nonsense terrorist wankfest thread.
I love that you are engaging. It is nice to know there is someone out there more childlike than me :P

kabakuyu · 06-09-2011 10:08PM

goldie fish wrote: »

You can go round and round in circles all you like, but all that happens is I continue to derail this nonsense terrorist wankfest thread.
I love that you are engaging. It is nice to know there is someone out there more childlike than me :P

The only thing you have derailed here is your own reputation,you could not formulate a coherent defence of your post where you said I was making it up(you called me a liar,you are quite clearly wrong )A bigger man would have acknowledged his mistake, but maybe I expect too much of you:( People in entrenched positions are never conciliatory and losers can be very resentful.

goldie fish · 06-09-2011 10:22PM

kabakuyu wrote: »

The only thing you have derailed here is your own reputation,you could not formulate a coherent defence of your post where you said I was making it up(you called me a liar,you are quite clearly wrong )A bigger man would have acknowledged his mistake, but maybe I expect too much of you:( People in entrenched positions are never conciliatory and losers can be very resentful.

My life would be very very empty if I relied on the INTERNET for my reputation.

However in the real world, by reputation is safe.
love and kisses.

kabakuyu · 06-09-2011 10:28PM

goldie fish wrote: »

My life would be very very empty if I relied on the INTERNET for my reputation.

However in the real world, by reputation is safe.
love and kisses.

I dunno Goldie, I have a sneaking suspicion that the internet and various forums are your life.;)Anyways,thanks for the joust even if it did end badly for you.

goldie fish · 06-09-2011 11:11PM

kabakuyu wrote: »

I dunno Goldie, I have a sneaking suspicion that the internet and various forums are your life.;)Anyways,thanks for the joust even if it did end badly for you.

I didn't realise you stalk me on the interweb. Is it fulfilling?

savagecabbages · 07-09-2011 08:20PM

goldie fish wrote: »

all that happens is I continue to derail this nonsense terrorist wankfest thread.

At least you'll admit to derailing threads. The question is why...

iceage · 07-09-2011 09:38PM

So where were we..?

HellsAngel · 08-09-2011 03:48PM

goldie fish wrote: »

You call it patronising, but I will continue to mock and berate everyone who comes onto a military forum, which this is supposed to be, and attempts to compare acts of terrorism to military acts, while at the same time trying to pass off disinformation, lies and rumour as truth.

I served this state, I had a colleague killed by the PIRA. I have to read people like some posters here **** on the reputation of this man. The wording of the initial post is laughable. I didn 't realise we were expected to take this sort of revisionist propaganda seriously.

The OP is asking, in a twisted way. The SAS killed our murdering few, but it didn't stop the murder. Weren't the PIRA great? Is this acceptable? Then we have people like the post I replied to saying he saw somewhere something on a website that backs up his assertion that a member of the British Security forces who was wounded in Loughall was smuggled off to suffer from his wounds elsewhere??? Its as credible as those who think the WTC was brought down by controlled explosion.i.e nonsense, and insulting to all the innocent victims.

I have been trained, and brought up to believe the PIRA, and all their apologists are not deserving of any of my respect. Up to 15 years ago I would have been considered, a ligitimate target, as I was a member of the security forces. And I will continue to offer this disrespect to their apologists at every opportunity, lest they believe they have hoodwinked every citizen of the state.

There is no military value to any of their actions. They were brought to the table because the people of Ireland demonstrated that they had no time for their violence. This thread ligitimises their murder. This thread attempts to suggest that the actions of the PIRA forced the "crown" to the negotiating table. It sickens me.

It is revisionism, and has no place here in my opinion.

Do you consider murdering civil rights marchers and helping the UVF to blow up shoppers in Dublin military acts ?

BTW, you or the other SAS fan boys haven't addressed the questions of in the SAS/RUC/Brits/UDR etc 'war against the terrorists' -

(A) How many loyalists in the North Armagh/East Tyrone were killed in operations by the above ??

(B) How many Catholics were mown down by British directed UVF gangs in the North Armagh/East Tyrone area ?

08-09-2011 07:38PM

It's simple.

There are four organisations authorised to use lethal force in the administration of their duties on the island of Ireland, which are the forces of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement, voted in by popular mandate on both sides of the border.

1. An Garda Siochana
2. The Police Service of Northern Ireland
3. The Irish Defence Forces
4. Her Majesty's Armed Forces

Anyone else, no matter who/where/what/why who threatens life on this island, is unauthorised to do so.

I wish them either incarceration or a bullet caused, blood-spattered death.

I don't care what flag they cling to, they are criminals in this day and age. If they threaten life, theirs is forfeit.

Dave Joyce · 08-09-2011 08:11PM

It's simple.

There are four organisations authorised to use lethal force in the administration of their duties on the island of Ireland, which are the forces of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement, voted in by popular mandate on both sides of the border.

1. An Garda Siochana
2. The Police Service of Northern Ireland
3. The Irish Defence Forces
4. Her Majesty's Armed Forces

Anyone else, no matter who/where/what/why who threatens life on this island, is unauthorised to do so.

I wish them either incarceration or a bullet caused, blood-spattered death.

I don't care what flag they cling to, they are criminals in this day and age. If they threaten life, theirs is forfeit.

People like you amaze me because on one hand "these heinous terrorists who commit murders, bombings etc" but on the other hand it's perfectly fine for the forces of law and order :rolleyes: to summarily execute (for those that have been IGNORING that comment in previous posts, perhaps its that they don't understand the term so I'll elaborate, shoot them dead while lying wounded a speciality of the SAS) wounded Volunteers.....no contradiction there so:rolleyes:

savagecabbages · 08-09-2011 11:08PM

Dave Joyce wrote: »

People like you amaze me because on one hand "these heinous terrorists who commit murders, bombings etc" but on the other hand it's perfectly fine for the forces of law and order :rolleyes: to summarily execute (for those that have been IGNORING that comment in previous posts, perhaps its that they don't understand the term so I'll elaborate, shoot them dead while lying wounded a speciality of the SAS) wounded Volunteers.....no contradiction there so:rolleyes:

There are no rules in war. Killing someone is killing someone, so no contradiction there. If the PIRA played by the rules they'd have been wiped out. So why would anyone expect the British Army to play by the rules??

I'd be executing my enemy if i were fighting a war.

HellsAngel · 09-09-2011 12:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's simple.

There are four organisations authorised to use lethal force in the administration of their duties on the island of Ireland, which are the forces of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement, voted in by popular mandate on both sides of the border.

1. An Garda Siochana
2. The Police Service of Northern Ireland
3. The Irish Defence Forces
4. Her Majesty's Armed Forces

Anyone else, no matter who/where/what/why who threatens life on this island, is unauthorised to do so.

I wish them either incarceration or a bullet caused, blood-spattered death.

I don't care what flag they cling to, they are criminals in this day and age. If they threaten life, theirs is forfeit.

But what happens when said forces don't obey their own rules or international ones. A "my, my, tut, tut" and carry on regardless if not promotion in the British forces and maybe an knighthood or OBE thrown in ??

Shoot to Kill

Comments