British Army/Government Accountability in Ireland?

A Dub in Glasgo

Peter McBride

I remember the murder well, I remember the campaign here in Scotland to get the murderers out and try and reverse the conviction as it was only an Irishman who they killed and their soldiers were 'good lads' in a 'difficult' situation. I remember the disbelief (of some people) and the jubilation (of some people) when the British Government decided that these convicted murderers should stay in the British Army (to continue with their crimes?). I remember the brave fight of Jean McBride to try and get some kind of answer to the question 'Why are the British Government rewarding murderers?

It is certainly an insult to the family of Peter McBride that their son's life apparantly does not matter.

Were the British Army/Government really accountable for their own actions during the 'troubles'? I think not.

British Army continues to insult Mc Bride family


In Belfast on 4th September 1992 the British Army stopped 18-year-old father of two Peter McBride. An identity check showed that he was not wanted and a body search found him unarmed. Peter McBride panicked and ran away from the soldiers. Scots Guardsmen Mark Wright and James Fisher chased him, shot him in the back and killed him.

In February 1995 the two soldiers were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Both guardsmen remained in the army even while in jail. In September 1998 they were released from prison under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

On 3rd November 1998 an Army Board, including General Mike Jackson (of Bloody Sunday notoriety) and John Spellar (current Northern Ireland Minister who is responsible for human rights) decided they could continue to serve in the army under an “exceptional reasons” clause. This was justified by the Army Board coming to the conclusion that the Scots Guardsmen had committed an “error of judgement”.

The family are currently awaiting judgement in the latest legal challenge which is aimed at forcing the MoD to dismiss the soldiers. Two courts have ruled that the MoD had no legal justification for retention of the soldiers.

Jean Mc Bride, the mother of murdered Belfast teenager Peter Mc Bride, has released the following statement:

"Our family has watched events unfold over the past week as three soldiers were prosecuted and found guilty of the humilation and abuse of civilians in Basra, Iraq in 2003. General Mike Jackson has apologised to the Iraqi people and said that the actions of these soldiers has brought shame on the British Army. Most people would agree and our family. more than most welcomes the fact that these soldiers have been thrown out of the armed forces. They were dismissed within hours of sentencing, since according to the court they had 'disgraced' the army.

"The soldiers who murdered my son have been allowed to remain in the British Army. Peter was not suspended from the prongs of a forklift truck nor was he forced to stimulate sexual acts. Instead he was shot in the back in broad daylight in a North Belfast street and then finished off as he tried to pull himself up. According to a court of law two Scots Guards, Mark Wright and James Fisher, were guilty of murdering my son. They knew that Peter was unarmed and was no threat to them. But despite their convictions the Ministry of Defence has allowed both convicted murderers to stay on in the army. General Mike Jackson sat on the Army Board that made this decision as did John Spellar MP. Now, finally, I understand why. According to this government the two soldiers who shot my son in the back did not bring 'disgrace' on the army. What other explanation is there?

"Guardsmen Wright and Fisher were stationed in Basra in May 2003 when the humiliation and torture of civilian prisoners took place. I said at the time and I repeat it today: What message did that send to other soldiers in Iraq when they found themselves serving alongside convicted murderers?

"Maybe Geoff Hoon MP can explain why the humiliation of prisoners warrants immediate dismissal from his armed forces while the murder of an unarmed 18 year boy does not? One of those convicted of murdering Peter has since been promoted. While I have a breadth left in my body I'll fight to have these soldiers dismissed."

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/latestnews.htm

http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=57254&pt=n

pogoń

Very topical.

I mean real up to the date stuff this .....................

The McBride killing occurred in 1992, and was the last fatality caused by any member of the British security services to a Catholic in Northern Ireland.

Since when Republicans (largely on ceasefire) have been responsible for over 100 deaths.

shltter

pogo&#324 wrote:

Very topical.

I mean real up to the date stuff this .....................

The McBride killing occurred in 1992, and was the last fatality caused by any member of the British security services to a Catholic in Northern Ireland.
.

who killed Aidan McAnespie in 1988

sean downes in 1984

karen oreilly 1990

pogoń

Next time how about you just address the topic rather than being immature - Gandalf.

Your other posts deleted.

shltter

i can name more

Tuesday 15 January 1985
Paul Kelly (17), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by the Ulster Defence Regiment


Sunday 18 February 1986
Francis Bradley (20), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by undercover British soldiers at the back of a farmhouse, near Toome, County Derry


thomas reilly august 1983

pogoń

From CAIN web-site:

IRA killed 2,157 lost 397
British Army killed 301 lost 503
UDR killed 8 lost 206
RUC (boo hiss evil sectarian bastards) killed 50 lost 303

The IRA killed more Catholics than any other armed group.

More members of the IRA were killed by other members of the IRA than by the British army.

Regarding collusion more Republicans were assassinated by Republicans than loyalists.

I think this puts all the killings in the proper perspective.

What a stupid bloody waste.

Undefeated 'army' my arse.

Is there anything in these figures to be proud of?

pogoń

shltter wrote:

so you dont have an answer you said peter mcbride was the last catholic killed by british security services

And so he was.

i have named three more after that date

All the people you have named were killed before that date.

A Dub in Glasgo

pogo&#324 wrote:

Very topical.

I mean real up to the date stuff this .....................

It is very topical.... Peter McBrides mother issued a statement yesterday (yes that is the 28th February 2005) asking the British Army why her sons muderers are are still in the payroll of the British taxpayer when the 3 guys convicted of the recent charges of abuse in Iraq have all been kicked out of the British Army.

Did you even bother to read the piece?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is very topical.... Peter McBrides mother issued a statement yesterday (yes that is the 28th February 2005) asking the British Army why her sons muderers are are still in the payroll of the British taxpayer when the 3 guys convicted of the recent charges of abuse in Iraq have all been kicked out of the British Army.

It's not right that they are.
I'd hazzard a guess and for want of a better way of putting it, it's séxy at the moment to have strong views against what is the occupation of Iraq and what was the Iraq war. British people won't stand for their army being involved in war crimes out there and the tabloids know this so are willing to run with stories about it.
It's current too which helps.
They have an extreme disinterest in events of 20 yrs ago or 10 years ago in Northern Ireland.
If there was another Karen O' Reilly or Peter McBride, in NI today though, I suspect that it would be different and there would be moral outrage.
Peter McBrides mother was right to issue a statement and look for answers but tiz unlikely to get a response unless the public is morally outraged by it and the chances are as I say at this stage they are disinterested unless its in the here and now that it happened.

Its a symptom of changing times really-Go back 20 or 30 years in Ireland and theres a lot of things that would provoke anger then that wouldnt bat an eyelid now and vice versa.

ionapaul

Another reason for lack of interest or concern may be the way in which the campaign for justice is being run - Dub in Glasgow might elaborate here, as I have no idea. The British authorities, and the British army in particular, might find it galling to be lectured by the 'usual suspects' of SF and other anti-British army organisations (troops out movement?) on their sins and their obligations. This shouldn't necessarily weaken the calls for justice, but in reality it does - we can see the same with regard to the 'Bring the Bird-Watchers Home' campaign, if SF are leading the charge most of the rest of us switch off.

I would like to see the British army deal with this issue and remove the men immediately.

A Dub in Glasgo

ionapaul wrote:

Another reason for lack of interest or concern may be the way in which the campaign for justice is being run - Dub in Glasgow might elaborate here, as I have no idea. The British authorities, and the British army in particular, might find it galling to be lectured by the 'usual suspects' of SF and other anti-British army organisations (troops out movement?) on their sins and their obligations. This shouldn't necessarily weaken the calls for justice, but in reality it does - we can see the same with regard to the 'Bring the Bird-Watchers Home' campaign, if SF are leading the charge most of the rest of us switch off.

I would like to see the British army deal with this issue and remove the men immediately.

AFAIK, the campaign is being run by the McBride family. The TOM wesite just carried the statement from Jean McBride and provided a bit of backround detail.

FTA69

pogo&#324 wrote:

More members of the IRA were killed by other members of the IRA than by the British army.

Absolute rubbish, even including the number of people shot dead as touts.

true

pogo&#324 wrote:

From CAIN web-site:

IRA killed 2,157 lost 397
British Army killed 301 lost 503
UDR killed 8 lost 206
RUC (boo hiss evil sectarian bastards) killed 50 lost 303

The IRA killed more Catholics than any other armed group.

More members of the IRA were killed by other members of the IRA than by the British army.

Regarding collusion more Republicans were assassinated by Republicans than loyalists.

I think this puts all the killings in the proper perspective.

What a stupid bloody waste.

Undefeated 'army' my arse.

Is there anything in these figures to be proud of?

Good post. As usual the shinners / provo groupies will deny it.

pogoń

FTA 69:

Absolute rubbish etc

(Referring to the fact that the IRA killed more members of the IRA than the British Army).

According to the Sutton Index of deaths:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/index.html

The British Army killed 123 members of the IRA.

This may be compared with the 103 members of the IRA who rather sadly and unfortunately blew themselves to smithereens, and the 63 who after the customary torture involuntarily became one of those cross-border bodies SF/IRA are so keen to promote. (I'm talking about touts here).

That makes a total of 166.

These figures do not include members of the IRA who shot each other by accident or design.

Neither do they include those whose thirst for victimhood was so great that they pointlessly starved themselves to death.

FTA, you would appear to be mistaken about a great many things.

I think I'll make a list to refresh your memory.

Roisin Dubh

I share the outrage of many that convicted murderers were reinstalled in their positions in the British Army.

The justifications given by the apologists for Wright and Fisher would have some weight were it not for the fact that the British Government opposes letting former terrorists from the IRA etc. join the PSNI.

Not that I think they should let them join the PSNI (I don't). It's just hypocrisy is what I am saying.

If the Tories win the General Election we will probably see a lot more instances like this, and the abolition of the Parades Commission (which they have joined with Unionists in Westminister in criticising), which could return us to the bad 'ol days when fascist feet and banners trampled with jackboots on the rights of Irish Nationalists.

Let's hope it doesn't happen, and that Blaie throws out Wright and Fisher, as the terrorists they are.

Slutmonkey57b

Well well isn't this interesting.

I wonder why the apologists have dug up this particular issue.

Perhaps because they've been caught out on the McCarthy/Northern Bank/Columbia 3/3 little piggies in a van stories and are now looking for a cheap own goal to justify themselves.

"Ignore all that other stuff! WE'RE the victims here! WE ARE!!"

I said it in the other thread - you're not going to get much of a debate on a topic like this because there aren't any morons on the opposite side of the fence to you who are going to swear blind that the above didn't happen. We know what happened. And again, while justice may not be served (yet) the "evil killers" aren't currently threatening the family of their victim, are they? No.

pwd

Any attempt to compare a highly trained peacekeeping force with a group of murderers and organised criminals is pointless.

The British Army is supposed to conform to high moral standards. Soldiers are dismissed for using drugs. A major was dismissed for cheating on Who wants to be a millionaire. Reinstating these soldiers is a massive error of judgement.

The criminal court did not believe their testimony of believing the victim was carrying a coffee jar bomb. The Army did believe it.

At the risk of sounding naieve, would it not be possible to just not send the sort of soldiers who are into the Orange Order and that sort of thing to Northern Ireland at all? I know that Irish soldiers in the british army can ask not to be sent to Northern Ireland, so this sort of thing is not out of the question.

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Well well isn't this interesting.

I wonder why the apologists have dug up this particular issue.

Just like pogoń, you appear not to have read any of the posts that actually deal with the issue of this thread otherwise you would know why this 'issue was dug up'. As per usual anybody highlighting an abuse of human rights, a murder, an insult to some family by the British state is immediately 'shot' down as an apologist!!

You can choose to ignore the fact that the British Government appear to have a 2 (or maybe 3) tier of moral outrage when their soldiers commit crimes. This is just one instance of that fact.

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You can choose to ignore the fact that the British Government appear to have a 2 (or maybe 3) tier of moral outrage when their soldiers commit crimes. This is just one instance of that fact.

surely its, the British public and the media that have the 3 tier moral outrage?
Their government is only there at their behest and reacts likewise.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

surely its, the British public and the media that have the 3 tier moral outrage?
Their government is only there at their behest and reacts likewise.

Quite possibily although Governments are there to lead and not necessarily be led.

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Quite possibily although Governments are there to lead and not necessarily be led.

I'd say quite probably not just possibly.

Horeb

As a former Solider in both the Irish and British army 9 Years between both.

I am in favour of the Guardsmen being reinstated into the Army.

Why, they made a mistake, we all have maybe not fatal but it was an error in judgement.

The lad ran away from a Patrol, scared or not that is a very dangerous thing to do at that time, while he was not a member of any organisation, how did the men who fired not know he was trying to draw them into an ambush etc etc.

I feel sorry for the family of course but also the soldiers as they have to live with this, put should not be punished all there life for this, they did time in prison and were given a second chance.

Look at the annabells killers they are barely doing any time for a savage murder of a young lad. Maybe not the exact same but is an example they most likely will get nice big jobs and be forgotten about.

In the terms of justice Life is not life these days anyhow.

The Soldiers deserve a second chance as what good is having men tarnished for the rest of there life.

What difference also are they from the brutal murders on both sides being released under this agreement, they are tame compared to the likes of Adair etc.

And as for numbers of people dead each like the Provo's scored x amount and the Brits the other, well it does'nt matter.

Any dead is wrong but this happens.

And when being a soldier and in the heat of the moment you act accordingly weither it correct or not. We all can comment in any form or manner as we were not there.

A soldier has to be lucky every day the terrorist or thug has only to be lucky once.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

---

You missed one tiny little fact.... the justice system did not believe them and they did not believe they made a mistake therefore they were convicted of MURDER

In other words, they knew he was no threat to them and they killed him by shooting him in the back anyway!

Horeb

The Justice System can be wrong...

As I said before I would stand by them, why as they made a mistake.

Have you been in that posistion ever as I have and it is not easy.

Don't be to quick to make judgements unless you have experience of such matters..

Most people here read a lot but actually never have been in the area's mentioned or ever saw the raw side of it..

You have your opinions and are entitled to them as I am and we all are.

Weither there right or not they are opinions.

Also do you class as murders the men who blew up 19 Paratroopers or the men who blew apart soliders in south armagh with sniper rifles, have you ever put your mate into a body bag when his head is in 10 pieces....I don't think so.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

The Justice System can be wrong...

True but I find it very very hard to believe that the British justice system would convict a British soldier of muder, when in fact those soldiers just made a mistake. On what basis are you now suggesting that the 2 soldiers did not murder Peter McBride?

As I said before I would stand by them, why as they made a mistake.

Do you ever believe that a soldier can have motives other than a mistake?

Have you been in that posistion ever as I have and it is not easy.

No I have never been in a position where I murdered someone.

Don't be to quick to make judgements unless you have experience of such matters..

I do not need to experience certain things to know that they are wrong. If we could only make comments and judgements based on our actual experience in the exact same situation, life, conversations and these forums would be dead. As you said yourself, you were in the British Army serving in NI, therefore it is more likely you are going to believe the soldiers and I think that is actually clouding your own opinion and judgement on this murder.

Most people here read a lot but actually never have been in the area's mentioned or ever saw the raw side of it..

But you were not there when the murder took place

You have your opinions and are entitled to them as I am and we all are.

Weither there right or not they are opinions.

True

Also do you class as murders the men who blew up 19 Paratroopers or the men who blew apart soliders in south armagh with sniper rifles, have you ever put your mate into a body bag when his head is in 10 pieces....I don't think so.

So because you have put a mate into a body bag, you think that all the bad things soldiers do are mistakes and nothing they do is for negative motives? Well I have been on the recieving end of one of those mistakes, a rifle butt into the shoulder from a friendly squaddie. In fact, it was such a mistake that he even told he was going to do it. In the criminal system we are in, the killings of British soldiers was a criminal act. In a conflict or war situation it was not.

Now, if you can take your belief that these soldiers did not murder Peter McBride to oneside, do you still believe that convicted murderers should retain their job in the British Army?

fragile

Horeb wrote:

The Justice System can be wrong...

Is the Army in a position to question high court decisions about justice, I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I don't think so.

Horeb wrote:

As I said before I would stand by them, why as they made a mistake.

I don't accept that, there was two of them, could they not have shot him in the leg? they had carried out a body search, they knew for a fact that he was unarmed.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Now you are getting into the lingo, don't forget to put the other mask on when it is something that you do not agree with.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

fragile

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So do think that Slobodan Milosevic should be forgiven and aquitted of all war crimes, I mean it was just a war, bad things happen right :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The lack of any smilies give no indication that what you said is not what you believe

Horeb

1.) These Soldiers are Human not Robo Soldier they Make Mistakes.

2.) Murderers they are not in my eyes, they killed but more like man-slaughter or a lesser again.. Again I do feel for the family but those soldiers are victims aswell eventhough by there own hand.


3.) I was in the City when it took place not there any I know what was in the reports, I am not saying what was correct but was not premeditated.

4.) Killing of anyone is wrong War or Not, it is against nature and the law but there are varying degrees ie. murder, manslaughter etc.. Majority of deaths accredited to the army are not murder and are by law justified (I said law) not my own opinion but sometimes as hard as it is, it has to be done.

5.) I believe people who commit CERTAIN CRIMES in this case it was a Crime but not murder in my eyes should be given a second chance.Lee Clegg was and he was doing his job and was sent down, similar case but more extreme.
Do you believe terrorists should be allowed into the PSNI,Government,Normal Life if you do then that would be my standing point.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The lack of any smilies give no indication that what you said is not what you believe

Ah now Dub , you've participated in enough of the same IRA and SF threads as Daveirl to know what his take on the subject is by now

I think what he's getting at, is questioning how you can have one standard for your views on British Army wrong do-ing and a different one if it involves Republicans...

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Ah now Dub , you've participated in enough of the same IRA and SF threads as Daveirl to know what his take on the subject is by now

I think what he's getting at, is questioning how you can have one standard for your views on British Army wrong do-ing and a different one if it involves Republicans...

Let me clarify......

The killing of innocent people is a crime and both sides should be subject the same rule of law. Very straight forward but there are plenty who will not agree with that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

1.) These Soldiers are Human not Robo Soldier they Make Mistakes.

Everybody can make mistakes but this murder was no mistake. On what basis are you claiming that this murder was a mistake?

2.) Murderers they are not in my eyes, they killed but more like man-slaughter or a lesser again.. Again I do feel for the family but those soldiers are victims aswell eventhough by there own hand.

So, in your eyes, a soldier who knowingly kills a defenceless man and that soldier is not in danger or there is no danger to anybody else is not guilty of murder? Do you think that soldiers do not have malice in them or are they all either doing their jobs or making mistakes?

3.) I was in the City when it took place not there any I know what was in the reports, I am not saying what was correct but was not premeditated.

Premeditated in the sense that they set out to kill an innocent Irishman as they left their barracks - No

Premeditated in the sense that they searched the guy and seen that he was unarmed then when the guy runs in fear, the soldiers take aim and shoot him in the back when the guy was posing no danger to themselves or others - Yes

4.) Killing of anyone is wrong War or Not, it is against nature and the law but there are varying degrees ie. murder, manslaughter etc.. Majority of deaths accredited to the army are not murder and are by law justified (I said law) not my own opinion but sometimes as hard as it is, it has to be done.

Yet you do not accept the laws view on this murder and claim higher knowledge.

5.) I believe people who commit CERTAIN CRIMES in this case it was a Crime but not murder in my eyes should be given a second chance.Lee Clegg was and he was doing his job and was sent down, similar case but more extreme.
Do you believe terrorists should be allowed into the PSNI,Government,Normal Life if you do then that would be my standing point.

Do you believe that the soldiers convicted of abuse in Iraq (obviously wrongly!!) should have been thrown out of the British Army?

Horeb

You did not answer my question about terrorists attaining jobs mmmmmmm

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Let me clarify......

The killing of innocent people is a crime and both sides should be subject the same rule of law. Very straight forward but there are plenty who will not agree with that.

You'll have to clarify further there Dub because you are not making it clear whether you think Detective Garda MCCabe falls into the category of innocent for you and that his killers should be treated to the same rule of law as any other killer.

If you are making distinctions then there is a double standard being applied given that if you(and you are entitled to) have a view of the IRA that they were at "war" with the British Army, then you must give equal lattitude to the British Army when they have been in this case subjected to due process.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

You did not answer my question about terrorists attaining jobs mmmmmmm

Hmmm indeed

If anybody commits murder and they are in any job, I would fully expect them to be turfed out of that job.

That is not the same thing as saying

If a former murderer was offered a job, he should not get it because he is a former murderer although the specific circumstances will depend on the job. I would not expect a convicted murderer to get a job the policeforce or the army. Obviously, you do.

These 2 soldiers were in a job, commited murder whilest on the job, done time and still kept their job. There is a difference.

Now how about some of those little questions I posed?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

You'll have to clarify further there Dub because you are not making it clear whether you think Detective Garda MCCabe falls into the category of innocent for you and that his killers should be treated to the same rule of law as any other killer.

The McCabe killing was murder. What I believed was that the convictions should come under the GFA just like all the other convictions including this one.

If you are making distinctions then there is a double standard being applied given that if you(and you are entitled to) have a view of the IRA that they were at "war" with the British Army, then you must give equal lattitude to the British Army when they have been in this case subjected to due process.

There are people on both sides who give latitude to either side killing civilians and I am not one of them. I am asking that both sides be treated consistantly with the rule of law.

clarified

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Just like pogoń, you appear not to have read any of the posts that actually deal with the issue of this thread otherwise you would know why this 'issue was dug up'. As per usual anybody highlighting an abuse of human rights, a murder, an insult to some family by the British state is immediately 'shot' down as an apologist!!

You can choose to ignore the fact that the British Government appear to have a 2 (or maybe 3) tier of moral outrage when their soldiers commit crimes. This is just one instance of that fact.

No, you're shot down as an apologist for pretending that the IRA is a legitimate entity with a purpose.

The point I made, that you're carefully avoiding, is that the reason this issue has been dragged out is classic SF spinning - SF are up to their necks in sh!t so in true style someone "just happens" to step forward to bleat about some ancient issue that SF can look good talking about while simultaneously painting the British Government as the ultimate villans of everything.

Again, through the whole thread, you haven't got one dissenting voice - everyone admits the killing was wrong and that the killers should be punished. The closest you've got to a dissenter is a soldier who points out that life on the front line isn't always as clear cut as we'd like it to be, and that once they've served their time there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to continue in the army.

Seeing as the GFA allows terrorists on both sides of the fence to get pardoned and live normal lives despite never having been punished for any of their crimes, I don't think it's that difficult a request to make.

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

No, you're shot down as an apologist for pretending that the IRA is a legitimate entity with a purpose.

Really? So it is left to you to raise issues like this I take it?

The point I made, that you're carefully avoiding, is that the reason this issue has been dragged out is classic SF spinning - SF are up to their necks in sh!t so in true style someone "just happens" to step forward to bleat about some ancient issue that SF can look good talking about while simultaneously painting the British Government as the ultimate villans of everything.

Very active imagination there... are you in the local drama group

This is a topical issue or does the plea from Jean McBride not matter? If I 'am not allowed' to raise similar issues, who will? You?

Again, through the whole thread, you haven't got one dissenting voice - everyone admits the killing was wrong and that the killers should be punished.

There are plenty of voices trying to pull the thread somewhere else though

Seeing as the GFA allows terrorists on both sides of the fence to get pardoned and live normal lives despite never having been punished for any of their crimes, I don't think it's that difficult a request to make.

What request?

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Really? So it is left to you to raise issues like this I take it?

You're confusing yourself there - calling you an apologist has nothing to do with whether or not anybody should be dragging up this issue.

Very active imagination there... are you in the local drama group
This is a topical issue or does the plea from Jean McBride not matter? If I 'am not allowed' to raise similar issues, who will? You?

Nothing imaginative about it - it's all very repetetive and standard SF spin practice.

Please point me in the direction of anyone who said you weren't allowed to post something? I certainly didn't. I did, however say that the post serves very little purpose other than for a SF supporter to get up on a soapbox to talk about something that he knows won't end up blowing up in his face, unlike everything else that SF has been faced with recently.

And frankly, no this isn't "topical". If there had been some sort of substatial development, or new evidence, or a new trial, then it would be topical. As things are, it is merely Mrs McBride making the same comments she's been making for 10 years. No that doesn't mean, before you jump gleefully down my throat, that her comments or suffering are irrelevant - just not topical.
And, as I say, suspiciously timed given that SF are desperate for something to whack the British Government with and get the press off their backs.

There are plenty of voices trying to pull the thread somewhere else though
What request?

The request (or should I say statement) that the soldiers are just as entitled to live a normal life as the terrorists now are. The terrorists have been given an automatic pardon - but apparantly the soldiers shouldn't be?

And where else is there for the thread to go - as I keep saying, you don't have any dissenters telling you that the murder was A O.K., do you? So it shouldn't be a suprise if people end up discussing something else.

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

You're confusing yourself there - calling you an apologist has nothing to do with whether or not anybody should be dragging up this issue.

No confusion here... The sort of people who want to shoot down the thread starter as some kid of apologist are the ones which try to discredit the message by shooting the messenger. Exactly what you have attempted to do.

Nothing imaginative about it - it's all very repetetive and standard SF spin practice.

I suppose you are right, it is the usual line spouted by someone who wishes to attempt to discredit the message... go for the messenger.

Please point me in the direction of anyone who said you weren't allowed to post something? I certainly didn't. I did, however say that the post serves very little purpose

Almost every thread here serves very little purpose at the end of the day. It is only the internet where ideas and opinions are discussed. You, however, seem to have a problem with this type of idea and opinion and will try and 'shoot down' the messenger. Have I broken any guidelines or criteria for posting (apart from in your fantasyland)?

other than for a SF supporter to get up on a soapbox to talk about something that he knows won't end up blowing up in his face, unlike everything else that SF has been faced with recently.

And I ask again, who is going to raise issues like this if you think like that? You, of course, are entitled to start anythread you wish that is within the rules..... and so am I and it is merely your opinion on why this thread was started.

And frankly, no this isn't "topical". If there had been some sort of substatial development, or new evidence, or a new trial, then it would be topical.

I believe it is topical..... there are plenty of threads in this very forum which are not topical if you take your criteria for posting a thread. Do you keep a list or is it just this one? You seem to have a problem with the subject matter rather than the 'topicalness'.

As things are, it is merely Mrs McBride making the same comments she's been making for 10 years. No that doesn't mean, before you jump gleefully down my throat, that her comments or suffering are irrelevant - just not topical.

As I said, pleas provide me with the guidelines that says threads here must be a breaking news story. I assume you also have alist of other non-topical threads you have challenged or is it really the message you want to attack but don't have the testicles to do that.

And, as I say, suspiciously timed given that SF are desperate for something to whack the British Government with and get the press off their backs.

Jean Mcbride must be in on this fantasy of yours

The request (or should I say statement) that the soldiers are just as entitled to live a normal life as the terrorists now are. The terrorists have been given an automatic pardon - but apparantly the soldiers shouldn't be?

I have already explained the difference in a post above

And where else is there for the thread to go

Obviously, in your eyes, into the bin as it is not relevant/topical/you do not like it.

- as I keep saying, you don't have any dissenters telling you that the murder was A O.K., do you?

Apart from one obvious and one suspect case

So it shouldn't be a suprise if people end up discussing something else.

Like you, who would rather enter threads you do not agree with and apparantly have no interest in, to put some additional fantasy citeria on the subject matter of threads in this forum. I take all threads started by your good self have been breaking news stories or am I totally missing the point as to why you have posted here with your 'advice'.

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

No confusion here... The sort of people who want to shoot down the thread starter as some kid of apologist are the ones which try to discredit the message by shooting the messenger. Exactly what you have attempted to do.

Where exactly have I had a go at the messenger? Nowhere. I've merely stated that the thread exists for spinning purposes, not debating purposes.

Almost every thread here serves very little purpose at the end of the day. It is only the internet where ideas and opinions are discussed. You, however, seem to have a problem with this type of idea and opinion and will try and 'shoot down' the messenger. Have I broken any guidelines or criteria for posting (apart from in your fantasyland)?

Where did I say you did? Where did I say you shouldn't be allowed to post? Nowhere. I merely stated my reasoning for why the posting of the thread was suspiciously good opportunity for a bit of SF chest-thumping in a couple of weeks where they've had very bad press indeed.

I believe it is topical..... there are plenty of threads in this very forum which are not topical if you take your criteria for posting a thread. Do you keep a list or is it just this one? You seem to have a problem with the subject matter rather than the 'topicalness'.

Where have I criticised the subject matter? Have I suggested Mrs McBride's claims or grievences aren't true? No. Has anyone else? No.

As I said, pleas provide me with the guidelines that says threads here must be a breaking news story. I assume you also have alist of other non-topical threads you have challenged or is it really the message you want to attack but don't have the testicles to do that.

There aren't any - and as I said above, I have no need to attack the message at all. Merely why the message is being used at a specific time for whose benefit other than Mrs McBride.

Who's attacking the poster now?

Apart from one obvious and one suspect case

Name and shame please, I've just read through the thread again and can't see a single person disagreeing with the sentiments Mrs McBride expressed. I see one ex-soldier who has posted that life at a checkpoint is a difficult, stressful and hazardous place where if a mistake gets made someone can end up dead, and thinks that the soldiers have earned as much right as the terrorists to lead a normal life once they've served their time. Note he doesn't think the boy deserved to die. He gave his reasons why he thinks the shooting might have happened, that's all.

I take all threads started by your good self have been breaking news stories or am I totally missing the point as to why you have posted here with your 'advice'.

i don't think you're missing the point but I do think there's a good chance you're choosing to misunderstand it, like you've been choosing to misunderstand Horeb and Daveirl.

Horeb wrote:

Have you been in that posistion ever as I have and it is not easy.

No I have never been in a position where I murdered someone.

Like that example - you knew exactly what Horeb was saying - namely "have you ever been at a checkpoint" and chose to misunderstand him.

FTA69

pogo&#324 wrote:

This may be compared with the 103 members of the IRA who rather sadly and unfortunately blew themselves to smithereens

And that is considered as the IRA "killing each others"? By that logic the British soldiers who shot themselves in the foot can be counted as "injured by the British Army" and the latest Brit fatalities (a helicopter crash last year) were killed by the British Army.

Volunteers accidentally killing themselves is just that, an accidental happening. They do not classify as being "killed by the IRA".

pogoń

Referring again to the Sutton index of deaths the figures are as follows:

Number of deaths of IRA members: attributed to IRA 132
to British Army 96

I don't know exactly what methodology he uses to obtain these figures, but they are the ones most generally accepted even by Republicans
(and I've been on plenty of Republican boards).

By comparison the British Army are responsible for the deaths of 5 of their own people.

From the same source I discovered the number of Protestant IRA casualties ............... 3.

By contrast the number of Irish Catholic casualties in the Crown security services was 53.

Now what might this tell us (in case we didn't know) about sectarianism within the British security services and Republicanism?

FTA69

I don't know exactly what methodology he uses to obtain these figures, but they are the ones most generally accepted even by Republicans
(and I've been on plenty of Republican boards).

Not by any Republicans here. You even pointed out how the vast majority of those listed as "IRA killed by IRA" died, they were killed by their own bombs.

This may be compared with the 103 members of the IRA who rather sadly and unfortunately blew themselves to smithereens

Now, how can you say that accidents of the above nature are equated with the IRA killing Volunteers? Its a ridiculous notion akin to a British Army private who shot himself in the foot blaming the British Army for shooting him.

Now what might this tell us (in case we didn't know) about sectarianism within the British security services and Republicanism?

Absolutely nothing at all, you need to try harder a chara.

true

FTA69 wrote:

Absolutely nothing at all, you need to try harder a chara.

I think it is you who will have to try harder, a chara. Perhaps if you put in a little more effort you may be able to extract something from the figures, instead of closing your eyes to reality.

Here are the figures again , courtesy of the previous poster.


Referring again to the Sutton index of deaths the figures are as follows:

Number of deaths of IRA members: attributed to IRA 132
to British Army 96

I don't know exactly what methodology he uses to obtain these figures, but they are the ones most generally accepted even by Republicans
(and I've been on plenty of Republican boards).

By comparison the British Army are responsible for the deaths of 5 of their own people.

From the same source I discovered the number of Protestant IRA casualties ............... 3.

By contrast the number of Irish Catholic casualties in the Crown security services was 53.

Now what might this tell us (in case we didn't know) about sectarianism within the British security services and Republicanism?

pogoń

The figures (from Sutton's database of deaths) are the ones most generally accepted by Republicans.

FTA69 wrote:

Not by any Republicans here.

I have seen Sutton's figures used in the following Republican web-sites:
IAUC, Noraid, Murderers Pretending to be Victims www.relativesforjustice.com

I have seen the same figures widely quoted by members of the following bulletin boards:

www.dannymorrison.com/forum

Irish Republican Psychopath Bulletin Board www.irbb.rr.nu (which you are a member of)

If (unlike other Republicans) you don't accept Sutton's figures, in that case whose figures do you accept?

And why don't you accept Sutton's figures?

Now, how can you say that accidents of the above nature (IRA bombs killing IRA members) are equated with the IRA killing Volunteers? Its a ridiculous notion akin to a British Army private who shot himself in the foot blaming the British Army for shooting him.

If a British Army bomb kills a British Army soldier then clearly the British Army (and no-one else) are responsible.

If the British Army shoot members of the British Army then clearly it is the British (and not the Japanese army) which is at fault.

Deaths to IRA members caused by IRA bombs and bullets are the responsibility of the IRA and no-one else.

(What is the significance of the fact that there have been 3 fatalities of Protestant Republicans compared with 53 Irish Catholic fatalities in the British Security Services)?

Absolutely nothing at all, you need to try harder a chara.

I believe you were anxious to prove that Republicanism was non-sectarian in character, and that many Protestants were Sinn Fein/IRA supporters/members.

I also believe that you regard organisations such as the RUC as being fundamentally sectarian in character.

However on the basis of the figures above Catholics in Northern Ireland were 15 X more likely to die in the service of the British state than Protestants to die for Republicanism.

Which, of course, demonstrates your claims to be complete and utter balls.

FTA69

The figures (from Sutton's database of deaths) are the ones most generally accepted by Republicans.

I mean that while the figures themselves might be accepted the slant that IRA accidental deaths are akin to the IRA killing their own members are not.

Irish Republican Psychopath Bulletin Board www.irbb.rr.nu (which you are a member of)

You were a member of it long enough yourself.

If the British Army shoot members of the British Army then clearly it is the British (and not the Japanese army) which is at fault.

But if a brit shoots himself in the foot with his own gun by accident he has no-one but himself to blame. Likewise with an IRA Volunteer and a bomb.

However on the basis of the figures above Catholics in Northern Ireland were 15 X more likely to die in the service of the British state than Protestants to die for Republicanism.

Again, this proves nothing. I never denied that Catholics fought for the state, what I am saying is that religion is inconsequential to Republicanism and as such there are people with a wide range of religious backgrounds within it. The amount of religious people in an organisation does nothing to prove or disprove the inherent sectarianism of a force.