[Deleted User] wrote: » So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable? No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant. Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....
janfebmar wrote: » Wrong yet again, Francie. The police fired rubber bullets in Dorchester in 2002, hitting someone, and last time I looked Dorchester was in Britain.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Correct, my apologies. I should have said they fired 98,503 rubber and plastic bullet rounds up to 1983 in northern Ireland, killing 17 people, 8 of them children and injuring countless more, they fired 1 in Britain, they hit a 'hostage taker' who survived. Keep defending this stuff with pedantry, it is you who looks immoral.
janfebmar wrote: » That was one of the extremely small % of fatalities out of close to 100.000 fired.
janfebmar wrote: » If you take just one of those killed in Northern Ireland for example, a television cameraman captured a rioter running up behind a security force person and raising a large bar over his head to bring down on the security force person, who turned around just in time to see the rioter attacking him. On impulse, he fired his plastic bullet at close range, and the attacker died. If he had waited a second later, he would have been hit by the bar or plank or whatever the attacker was wielding. That was one of the extremely small % of fatalities out of close to 100.000 fired.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Jesus, the moral bankruptcy in that sentence.
janfebmar wrote: » You (Davycc) are the one who is morally bankrupt in that you condoned some of the paramilitaries in other threads.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I believe it was ALL wrong from the get go. Nice try in shifting the focus off your pathetic immoral defence.
downcow wrote: » You realise they could not possibly have stopped 10,000 people walking down garvaghy road without plastic bullets. What would you propose they should have done.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They managed fine without them here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Toxteth_riotshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Brixton_riot .
janfebmar wrote: » And indeed the population of Toxteth and Brixton did not include large numbers of people who wanted to and did kill large numbers of people. That's the difference Francie, but you probably knew that already.
In all, the rioting lasted nine days during which 468 police officers were injured, 500 people were arrested, and at least 70 buildings were damaged so severely by fire that they had to be demolished. Around 100 cars were destroyed, and there was extensive looting of shops. Later estimates suggested the numbers of injured police officers and destroyed buildings were at least double those of the official figures
That evening, the police lost control of the area for approximately 48 hours. In the subsequent riot, severe injuries were sustained by both sides, with police injured as they were attacked by young black and white youths equipped with bricks and wooden stakes.[1][2] After further skirmishes, the rioters built a defensive wall out of upturned cars across the Brixton Road, which were set alight at various times. From behind this wall, the rioters threw petrol bombs at the police, and looted local shops.[1][2][8] Police later stated that they made 149 arrests that evening, mostly for violence, 20 for burglary and theft and two for petrol bombing.[2]
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sure jan...sure. :rolleyes: Toxteth Brixton
janfebmar wrote: » My point exactly. How many people security people / police / civilians did the people of Toxteth or Brixton set out to kill, or kill? Zero is the answer to both questions, Francie. Did paramilitaries hide among civilians in Brixton? A whole different ball game.
Mark Durkan, SDLP wrote: These papers confirm that the British government really knew just how unsafe, unreliable, injurious and lethal these weapons could be. "At one level, the victims of these bullets and their families have felt and suspected something of this order all along. At another level it is grossly shocking to find that cynical malevolence corroborated in government papers.
janfebmar wrote: » We also saw that the people in England will do nothing like kill 2 police officers, one catholic and one protestant, like they did in Derry 2 days before Bloody Sunday. Lessons have been learnt, policing of marches and riots now is nothing like it was half a century ago.
citytillidie wrote: » Still ignoring the other posts i see
FrancieBrady wrote: » Quite clear now that neither downcow or janfebmar believe the following: If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court. Countless times now they have tried to vindicate what soldiers have unlawfully done in Ireland.
citytillidie wrote: » I say those 3 police officers run over could easily have been killed
janfebmar wrote: » I assume you are talking about cases like where the Irish army soldier tried to stop a car containing "the Border Fox",at a checkpoint in Co. Kilkenny in the eighties, and when it did not stop the car was fired on and the driver killed after a firefight. I thought cases like that were lawful, and there was no enquiry or anything? I have always said soldiers should uphold and act according to the law. I do not believe the law was broken in cases like the above.
downcow wrote: » You see francie it would be easy for me to say it is always wrong, but I try to have integrity and be honest. I will say it’s complex and certainly to be avoided if at all possible.
Now it have answered you. Can you answer me a similar question. When the ira murdered people was it “wrong, fundamentally wrong,” in every case. ??
FrancieBrady wrote: » Now you throw denseness into the debate. If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.
janfebmar wrote: » I assume you are talking about cases like where the Irish army soldier tried to stop a car containing "the Border Fox",at a checkpoint in Co. Kilkenny in the eighties, and when it did not stop the car was fired on and the driver killed after a firefight. I thought cases like that were lawful, and there was no enquiry or anything? I have always said soldiers should uphold and act according to the law. I do not believe the law was broken in cases like the above. Could have. My aunt could have been my Uncle if ..... The point was nobody set out to kill or maim in London. Nobody was killed in those disturbances, accidentally or otherwise.
janfebmar wrote: » lol. You will not answer questions, the only case you want to talk about is Bloody Sunday and you keep repeating the same sentence. And you accuse others of denseness!
citytillidie wrote: » How do you know? Did you go around and ask all those part of it?
janfebmar wrote: » I know nobody died in the Brixton riots because if they had, it would have been reported in the media.
citytillidie wrote: » Just because no one died does not mean people did not set out to kill someone. .
FrancieBrady wrote: » How many BA soldiers died in riots in Northern Ireland?
