2 Dead several others shot outside Army base Antrim

neil_hosey · 09-03-2009 06:13PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Funny thing about the trooubles, there is a lot of things that have been said so many times they have drifted into folklore.

What you were replying to is in fact, well... fact. Its has not drifted into "folklore" like you suggested?? what is that supposed to even mean!!?? , your trying to say collusion never happened?? or that the dublin monaghan bombings?

Ill put another in there for you who I had direct relations involved in, the Falls Road Curfew..

The British Army were the biggest terrorists in Northern Ireland, not all them, but enough.. They have killed more innocent people than any terrorist organisation in the world. I dont condone this type of violence as its counter productive, but they shouldnt have been there in the first place.

corkhero · 09-03-2009 06:18PM

neil_hosey wrote: »

have killed more innocent people than any terrorist organisation in the world. I dont condone this type of violence as its counter productive, but they shouldnt have been there in the first place.

Although i agree they shouldnt be there.

To say they killed more innocent people than any terrorist organisation in the world is possibly the strangest comment iv ever seen

ejmaztec · 09-03-2009 06:18PM

Biggins wrote: »

Possibly a troll and/or advocating violence on the forum and on the country.

Either case - not wanted here on this island soil!

Says a lot when they only now number a 100+ on an island of millions!

The murderers speak only for themselves - no one else.

No doubt they'll be whining about human rights' abuses when those other psychos, the SAS, track them down.

Whatever these people do, the Brits won't pull out. There are not going to be peace negotiations each time a splinter group doesn't get what it wants.

midlandsmissus · 09-03-2009 06:21PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Funny thing about the trooubles, there is a lot of things that have been said so many times they have drifted into folklore.

You might want to get a few facts right. Firstly, as you appear to be a bit confused, there is no such thing as the English government.

Secondly, the european court found that the SAS used excessive force, not that they were unlawfully killed. It dismissed the claim for compensation by the families because the three were engaged in terrorist activities

Lastly, the IRA admitted that the three were there "On Active Service".

Please, find out a bit about the UK before posting any more.

Au contraire Fratton Fred, I hasten to contradict you.

I called them the English governement as I wanted to differentiate between the English government and the Northern Ireland government. Call it what you want, but there are two different governments in the UK so there is no one overall 'UK government'.

Obviously they were there to do something, they weren't on a holiday were they, but active service can mean anything from gathering intelligence to using force.

The point was they were unarmed at the time, so why the sas didn't just arrest them instead of gunning them down in cold blood is the point here. They are only meant to kill if there is an imminent threat. There clearly wasn't here.

Excessive force, that's odd, because looking up documents on the european court's direct site, the term 'unlawfully killed' is very clear to be seen. Maybe you should do a bit more research?

And finally I note you didn't dispute that the british army made up a big lie about the bomb present in the car. Why would they do that if they thought they hadn't done anything wrong?

I was born in England myself, but I am clear minded enough not to take bias due to my roots. The facts of that matter are clear and plain to see.

irishgrover · 09-03-2009 06:27PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Au contraire Fratton Fred, I hasten to contradict you.

I called them the English governement as I wanted to differentiate between the English government and the Northern Ireland government. Call it what you want, but there are two different governments in the UK so there is no one overall 'UK government'.

Obviously they were there to do something, they weren't on a holiday were they, but active service can mean anything from gathering intelligence to using force.

The point was they were unarmed at the time, so why the sas didn't just arrest them instead of gunning them down in cold blood is the point here. They are only meant to kill if there is an imminent threat. There clearly wasn't here.

Excessive force, that's odd, because looking up documents on the european court's direct site, the term 'unlawfully killed' is very clear to be seen. Maybe you should do a bit more research?

And finally I note you didn't dispute that the british army made up a big lie about the bomb present in the car. Why would they do that if they thought they hadn't done anything wrong?

I was born in England myself, but I am clear minded enough not to take bias due to my roots. The facts of that matter are clear and plain to see.

in all fairness midlandsmissus, do you seriously, and I really mean this, do you seriously one one ounce of anything in your heart, head, soul etc, believe that the G3 were there for any purpose other than kill as large a number of British Soldiers as possible, within hours or days of their own execution?

stovelid · 09-03-2009 06:29PM

Any truth in the rumour that it was a surgical operation by volunteers O' Dea and Hanafin, intended to strike a fatal blow to the cross-border shopping regime?

Fratton Fred · 09-03-2009 06:33PM

neil_hosey wrote: »

What you were replying to is in fact, well... fact. Its has not drifted into "folklore" like you suggested?? what is that supposed to even mean!!?? , your trying to say collusion never happened?? or that the dublin monaghan bombings?

Ill put another in there for you who I had direct relations involved in, the Falls Road Curfew..

The British Army were the biggest terrorists in Northern Ireland, not all them, but enough.. They have killed more innocent people than any terrorist organisation in the world. I dont condone this type of violence as its counter productive, but they shouldnt have been there in the first place.

what is fact, that the british army bombed Dublin and monaghan??

I've read the most recent report into both incidents and that is not said at all. I was thinking of things like the Miami Showband massacre. If you read the wiki article, it says that the man with the "Crisp British Accent" (Whatever that is) was Robert Nairac, a British officer. If you read the enquiry (The Irish one, not the British one) it quite clearly states that the surviving members of the band who saw the man said it was not Robert Nairac.

The fact there was collusion is undeniable, what resulted of that collusion is widely open to interpretation, especially by Republicans.

neil_hosey · 09-03-2009 06:35PM

corkhero wrote: »

Although i agree they shouldnt be there.

To say they killed more innocent people than any terrorist organisation in the world is possibly the strangest comment iv ever seen

Ye it is quite strange lol.. dont know why i posted that. Numbers are irrelevant though, they killed in cowardly fashion alot more than the IRA did. That in my book doesnt make them peace keepers, and the stories ive heard from relatives tell me all i need to know about what i need to know about what the brits got up to prior, during and after the troubles.

I cant obviously back that up.. but i would stand by it. People could possibly disagree but i couldnt give a sh1t..

Few other things bothering me after reading this thread.

The british army didnt just arrive when them "dirty catholics" started terrorising the upstanding loyalist community.. The brits were there long before the trouble had start in the guise of the B -Specials who were mostly made up of ex-brit-army service men who had free reign and could do whatever the fook they wanted and got away with it.

midlandsmissus · 09-03-2009 06:40PM

irishgrover wrote: »

in all fairness midlandsmissus, do you seriously, and I really mean this, do you seriously one one ounce of anything in your heart, head, soul etc, believe that the G3 were there for any purpose other than kill as large a number of British Soldiers as possible, within hours or days of their own execution?

Thank you for asking me that politely!

I work with a girl who's Dad used to be in the IRA and he said they were there for intelligence reasons. How much damage could they do, when no explosives were ever found?

Of course we can never be sure, and as they were in the IRA if they were getting intelligence, that would mean they were getting it for somebody else to come over there later and attack.

But the SAS had no right to kill three unarmed people, and then make up a cover story.

The injustice of this sparked one of worst periods in the troubles, like this:

!. The gibralter three were killed
2) At the funeral of the Gibralter three, three young men were shot to death by Michael Stone.
£ At the funeral of one of these men, two british soldiers were shot to death.

This was all thanks to what many saw as the total injustice of the cover up.

The three were not innocent, but they shouldn't have been killed. Expecially when it was proved they had no bomb on them.

neil_hosey · 09-03-2009 06:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The fact there was collusion is undeniable, what resulted of that collusion is widely open to interpretation, especially by Republicans.

EXACTLY, there was collusion, and it has been covered up to the hilt! the men involved will get away with it with their healthy british army pension.. The FACT (not folklore

still dont konw what the hell you were on about there???) that there was COLLUSION is disgraceful. They colluded with terrorists, end of story, they were scum. No better no worse then the provos. It wasnt folklore, lol, it happened.

Terry · 09-03-2009 06:41PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what is fact, that the british army bombed Dublin and monaghan??

I've read the most recent report into both incidents and that is not said at all. I was thinking of things like the Miami Showband massacre. If you read the wiki article, it says that the man with the "Crisp British Accent" (Whatever that is) was Robert Nairac, a British officer. If you read the enquiry (The Irish one, not the British one) it quite clearly states that the surviving members of the band who saw the man said it was not Robert Nairac.

The fact there was collusion is undeniable, what resulted of that collusion is widely open to interpretation, especially by Republicans.

Yeah, but it's also open to interpretation by others.
Especially the loyalists. But especially by the Republicans. But especially by the loyalists ad infinitum.

midlandsmissus · 09-03-2009 06:41PM

stovelid wrote: »

Any truth in the rumour that it was a surgical operation by volunteers O' Dea and Hanafin, intended to strike a fatal blow to the cross-border shopping regime?

I heard Biffo was actually seen running away from the scene

neil_hosey · 09-03-2009 06:42PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Thank you for asking me that politely!

I work with a girl who's Dad used to be in the IRA and he said they were there for intelligence reasons. How much damage could they do, when no explosives were ever found?

Of course we can never be sure, and as they were in the IRA if they were getting intelligence, that would mean they were getting it for somebody else to come over there later and attack.

But the SAS had no right to kill three unarmed people, and then make up a cover story.

The injustice of this sparked one of worst periods in the troubles, like this:

!. The gibralter three were killed
2) At the funeral of the Gibralter three, three young men were shot to death by Michael Stone.
£ At the funeral of one of these men, two british soldiers were shot to death.

This was all thanks to what many saw as the total injustice of the cover up.

The three were not innocent, but they shouldn't have been killed. Expecially when it was proved they had no bomb on them.

What the british army done in Gibraltar is just as cowardly as what the RIRA lads done over the weekend, both are disgusting.

stovelid · 09-03-2009 06:43PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I work with a girl who's Dad used to be in the IRA and he said they were there for intelligence reasons.
.

Why send Provos then?

javaboy · 09-03-2009 06:44PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I heard Biffo was actually seen running away from the scene

Biffo running? I call bull****.

stovelid · 09-03-2009 06:48PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I heard Biffo was actually seen running away from the scene

With an abundance of spilled pizza still in the vicinity? Hardly likely.

midlandsmissus · 09-03-2009 06:53PM

stovelid wrote: »

With an abundance of spilled pizza still in the vicinity? Hardly likely.

True I think he just really really wanted a pizza. That would be more like our Biffo

Fratton Fred · 09-03-2009 06:54PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Au contraire Fratton Fred, I hasten to contradict you.

I called them the English governement as I wanted to differentiate between the English government and the Northern Ireland government. Call it what you want, but there are two different governments in the UK so there is no one overall 'UK government'.

Obviously they were there to do something, they weren't on a holiday were they, but active service can mean anything from gathering intelligence to using force.

The point was they were unarmed at the time, so why the sas didn't just arrest them instead of gunning them down in cold blood is the point here. They are only meant to kill if there is an imminent threat. There clearly wasn't here.

Excessive force, that's odd, because looking up documents on the european court's direct site, the term 'unlawfully killed' is very clear to be seen. Maybe you should do a bit more research?

And finally I note you didn't dispute that the british army made up a big lie about the bomb present in the car. Why would they do that if they thought they hadn't done anything wrong?

I was born in England myself, but I am clear minded enough not to take bias due to my roots. The facts of that matter are clear and plain to see.

There is a government in Westminster, this governs all of the UK and has Members of Parliament from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In addition, there is the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland assembly. Ironically there is no English Government (Personally I am looking forward to the day England becomes “Devolved”.) you may want to read up on these to get a better understanding of how the United kingdom is governed.

Think what you like about the Gibraltar killings, but ask yourself one question, when was the last time the IRA didn't shoot to kill?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 09-03-2009 06:59PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Thank you for asking me that politely!

I work with a girl who's Dad used to be in the IRA and he said they were there for intelligence reasons. How much damage could they do, when no explosives were ever found?

Ah here. First we don't know if you just made that up. If we decide you didn't then we also have to trust your friend who isn't even posting.

More importantly, the IRA worked in cells. The only ones who would have known what the mission was for would be the council and the ASU's superiors. So unless your friends dad was one of those(which would be very coincidental) he's not gonna know any more than anyone who reads the news.

It might well have been for intelligence, though they could also have been waiting on explosives to arrive. Either way, I have much more sympathy for the two lads murdered on saturday

midlandsmissus · 09-03-2009 07:00PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is a government in Westminster, this governs all of the UK and has Members of Parliament from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In addition, there is the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland assembly. Ironically there is no English Government (Personally I am looking forward to the day England becomes “Devolved”.) you may want to read up on these to get a better understanding of how the United kingdom is governed.

Think what you like about the Gibraltar killings, but ask yourself one question, when was the last time the IRA didn't shoot to kill?

What you're saying about the British government is debatable and also a moot point.

I'm not in favour of the old IRA.

I say the IRA, unionist paramilitaries, and british army were as bad as each other back then.

Fratton Fred · 09-03-2009 07:01PM

I thought the debate was around the article in the newspapers about the army diffusing a bomb, when in fact a car packed with semtex was found over the border in Spain?

Terry · 09-03-2009 07:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Think what you like about the Gibraltar killings, but ask yourself one question, when was the last time the IRA didn't shoot to kill?

Kneecappings.

neil_hosey · 09-03-2009 07:02PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Think what you like about the Gibraltar killings, but ask yourself one question, when was the last time the IRA didn't shoot to kill?

That solely depends on what branch of the IRA you talking about. If its the stickies, never.

The brits employed a shoot to kill policy for years regardless of whether they knew you were a paramilitary or a civilian, if there was even a sniff, you were a gonner. Ironically, during the shoot to kill policy time, only one loyalist was killed under these circumstances where as i can think of atleast ten ( obviously alot more) republicans killed.

midlandsmissus · 09-03-2009 07:03PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Ah here. First we don't know if you just made that up. If we decide you didn't then we also have to trust your friend who isn't even posting.

More importantly, the IRA worked in cells. The only ones who would have known what the mission was for would be the council and the ASU's superiors. So unless your friends dad was one of those(which would be very coincidental) he's not gonna know any more than anyone who reads the news.

It might well have been for intelligence, though they could also have been waiting on explosives to arrive. Either way, I have much more sympathy for the two lads murdered on saturday

I really wouldn't go to the bother of making anything up. What's the point? As I've said before I work in the area of resolving conflict in Northern Ireland, so I know what I'm talking about. Half the people up here over a certain age were either in the IRA or the UDA/UDF and they're not shy about talking. What's the point in keeping secrets now? I have sympathy for the two lads on Sunday aswell

stovelid · 09-03-2009 07:07PM

neil_hosey wrote: »

That solely depends on what branch of the IRA you talking about. If its the stickies, never.

?

The Officials claimed plenty of hits, including civilians, if that's what you mean?

gurramok · 09-03-2009 07:07PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Think what you like about the Gibraltar killings, but ask yourself one question, when was the last time the IRA didn't shoot to kill?

Do you see what you are doing there?

You are equating the British Army to the IRA. One who is suppose to uphold the law and the other was outside the law unless you think they're equal like shoot to kill unarmed people no matter who they are?

The former is suppose to have a justice system, not a kangerooo system like the latter.
Your posts are too blind to see it and then you wonder why people disagree with you.

Fratton Fred · 09-03-2009 07:07PM

neil_hosey wrote: »

That solely depends on what branch of the IRA you talking about. If its the stickies, never.

The brits employed a shoot to kill policy for years regardless of whether they knew you were a paramilitary or a civilian, if there was even a sniff, you were a gonner. Ironically, during the shoot to kill policy time, only one loyalist was killed under these circumstances where as i can think of atleast ten ( obviously alot more) republicans killed.

How many "Loyalist" paramilitaries were attacking British soldiers? probably not many.

neil_hosey · 09-03-2009 07:10PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How many "Loyalist" paramilitaries were attacking British soldiers? probably not many.

The killings im talking about were ALL UNARMED! so none of them were.

irishgrover · 09-03-2009 07:17PM

neil_hosey wrote: »

The killings im talking about were ALL UNARMED! so none of them were.

Funnily enough, just like the vast vast majority of British soldiers, RUC men, guards, prison officers, customs officers, delivery men, builders, catholics, protestants, pizza men, cleaners, children, dogs in the street, the the (insert any break away letter you want)IRA considered to be and still consider to be ligit targets

neil_hosey · 09-03-2009 07:20PM

irishgrover wrote: »

Funnily enough, just like the vast vast majority of British soldiers, RUC men, guards, prison officers, customs officers, delivery men, builders, catholics, protestants, pizza men, cleaners, children, dogs in the street, the the (insert any break away letter you want)IRA considered to be and still consider to be ligit targets

why are you telling me? im replying to Fred about his comment. I dont care, i dont condone the killing of ANY person. If you bothered reading my posts you would have seen i dont condone what the RIRA done at the weekend so what are you trying to tell me?

2 Dead several others shot outside Army base Antrim

Comments