Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Mercenary Killed in Bolivia

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    the why of it was why was he there

    No thats a side issue. The question is why was he gunned down when he could have been subdued easily where he would have been more use if there was an actual assassination plot for questioning.

    The question is why was an Irish Citizen gunned down in cold blood by authorities who do not appear to have followed their own procedures for an operation of this type.

    Again his politics, his religion, his body decoration, the type of clothing he likes, whether he is a yellow or red m&m eater, what football team he supports, and all the other trival stuff that can be thrown at this have NOTHING to do with the central question which is why was this man killed when he was unarmed, undressed, asleep and taken by surprise.


  • Options
    #153
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    gandalf wrote: »
    No thats a side issue. The question is why was he gunned down when he could have been subdued easily where he would have been more use if there was an actual assassination plot for questioning.

    The question is why was an Irish Citizen gunned down in cold blood by authorities who do not appear to have followed their own procedures for an operation of this type.

    Again his politics,     his religion, his body decoration, the type of clothing he likes, whether he is a yellow or red m&m eater, what football team he supports, and all the other trival stuff that can be thrown at this have NOTHING to do with the central question which is why was this man killed when he was unarmed, undressed, asleep and taken by surprise.


    Thats simply not the case though. If the chap was a right wing extremist, and an SS tattoo would point in that direction, a great deal would be clearer as a result.

    The idea that because this chap was an average skin from Tipp that he couldn't be up to no good is laughable


  • Options
    #154
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    What people are saying is that the cops acting in the way they did to neutralise the threat does not automatically mean there was no threat.

    Because the plod acted beyond the pail does not mean that the people killed were not acting illegally. If anything it should point to the opposite.
    Drawing an exact parallel: it's reasonable to assume that the people who were attacked by Gardaí on May Day did something to provoke that reaction?


  • Options
    #155
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Thats simply not the case though. If the chap was a right wing extremist, and an SS tattoo would point in that direction, a great deal would be clearer as a result.

    The idea that because this chap was an average skin from Tipp that he couldn't be up to no good is laughable

    No thats fluff, it doesn't matter if this guy was a Nazi, Scientologist, , Raging lefty communist, tax collector etc etc. The question is why was he killed when he could have been easy captured. If you are suggesting that he deserved to die or that there is a filter that allows the authorities in Bolivia to automatically put aside their procedures on arrest and operations of this type because someone may be pigeon holed as being from a certain political ilk then I suggest you look at your own moral compass.

    The government have to question circumstances of any citizen from this state who are killed violently by authorities in other countries. In this case where the evidence from the powers that be has more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese they have to ask them all the more vigorously. Why because next time an Irish person gets into the sights of the police/assault/death squad they may think twice before they blast their brains out.


  • Options
    #156
    Gruffalo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Gruffalo


    gandalf wrote: »
    All the other questions in that post and thats all you can back to me with. Pretty pathetic really and no I am not going to take piccies of my friends tattoo's for you :rolleyes:



    Exactly the kind of dross I expected from your big mouth. You make claims that you cannot substantiate and call that debate. You are joke.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Gruffalo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Gruffalo


    gandalf wrote: »
    The issue at hand is why an unarmed Irish Citizen was murdered in cold blood by the Bolivian authorities.

    He was not murdered. He was shot in a police raid. Given that 2 prisoners were taken alive, it is fair to assume that Dwyer was given the opportunity to surrender. If he was why did he not take it?


  • Options
    #158
    Gruffalo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Gruffalo


    gandalf wrote: »

    More than likely, people have been executed in the place he works without mercy.


    I suppose you are not required to substantiate this rubbish either.

    God this site is a joke.


  • Options
    #159
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    gandalf wrote: »
    No thats fluff, it doesn't matter if this guy was a Nazi, Scientologist, , Raging lefty communist, tax collector etc etc. The question is why was he killed when he could have been easy captured. If you are suggesting that he deserved to die or that there is a filter that allows the authorities in Bolivia to automatically put aside their procedures on arrest and operations of this type because someone may be pigeon holed as being from a certain political ilk then I suggest you look at your own moral compass.

    The government have to question circumstances of any citizen from this state who are killed violently by authorities in other countries. In this case where the evidence from the powers that be has more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese they have to ask them all the more vigorously. Why because next time an Irish person gets into the sights of the police/assault/death squad they may think twice before they blast their brains out.

    the debate would flow a lot easier if you had the manners to read what I actually said, not what you think I said.

    I am saying that if the chap was a fascist then it goes a long way to explaining why he was in that place at that time in that company.

    It does not excuse the police reaction. Nor has anyone here attempted to defend the police behaviour.

    Please stop putting words in peoples mouths.


  • Options
    #160
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Drawing an exact parallel: it's reasonable to assume that the people who were attacked by Gardaí on May Day did something to provoke that reaction?

    Yes. Protesting.

    The issue was the nature and scale of the Gardai reaction on the day and who told them that fellow mules were under attack and why. ACAB.

    This is all semantics. You choose to assume that the chap killed by the Bolivian police must have been innocent because of the dubious manner in which the killing happened. Thats the most illogical position on here since the Hitler was a leftie thread.


  • Options
    #161
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Please stop putting words in peoples mouths.

    Fair enough you're right I did misread what you had said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Gruffalo wrote: »
    He was not murdered. He was shot in a police raid. Given that 2 prisoners were taken alive, it is fair to assume that Dwyer was given the opportunity to surrender. If he was why did he not take it?

    No weapon, no evidence of a struggle, in his underwear, kill shots, evidence of one of the other dead men having bound hands which I don't believe is standard practice for corpses. That leads me to believe it was an execution and therefore murder of an Irish citizen.

    As regards your comments on the tattoo, the people saying that its a SS one. Thats just their opinion, its not a fact until the tattoo artist who did it confirms the fact (Michael Dwyer can't because he was shot down unarmed). You are obviously in that camp. I do not agree that it is and find the motives of people posting information of this type along with pictures of Stormtroopers and other Nazi related insignia (as I have seen on another prominent Irish discussion board) when nothing has been proven about Michael Dwyer, his motives or his politics disgusting and extremely premature. My opinion is he got a tribal tattoo. Now I never insulted you directly so I am at a loss as to why you could not rebuff my opinion without stooping to the level of personal insults.


  • Options
    #163
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Yes. Protesting.
    People protest all the time, and don't get attacked by Gardaí.
    The issue was the nature and scale of the Gardai reaction on the day and who told them that fellow mules were under attack and why. ACAB.
    "Mules"? "ACAB"? You do realise that that sort of childish petulance towards all police officers pigeonholes you neatly into the "attitude problem: ignore" category, don't you?
    You choose to assume that the chap killed by the Bolivian police must have been innocent because of the dubious manner in which the killing happened.
    Please link to the post where I said anyone was innocent.


  • Options
    #164
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    This is all semantics. You choose to assume that the chap killed by the Bolivian police must have been innocent because of the dubious manner in which the killing happened.
    There are more positions than "innocent" and "guilty".
    Most people are reserving judgement on what happened on the basis that this guy is 24 with zero previouses, has been shot dead clearly after being startled out of bed, the forces who did it are constantly backpedalling and changing their stories and none of the stories given by witnesses match up to what the authorities are claiming.

    To claim that they guy "must have been up to something" by virtue of him being in the same geographical location as a potential civil activist is equally as ludicrous as assuming that he's innocent because the police broke the law.

    I work for a major accountancy company, where some wrongdoing on the part of a group of individuals could potentially cause an enron-style scandal and financial crisis in this country. I also have access to every bit of information in this company. Therefore, were such an event to happen, by your logic I too would be guilty because I have access to the individuals and their information therefore I must have known what was going on.


  • Options
    #165
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    seamus wrote: »
    There are more positions than "innocent" and "guilty".
    Most people are reserving judgement on what happened on the basis that this guy is 24 with zero previouses, has been shot dead clearly after being startled out of bed, the forces who did it are constantly backpedalling and changing their stories and none of the stories given by witnesses match up to what the authorities are claiming.

    To claim that they guy "must have been up to something" by virtue of him being in the same geographical location as a potential civil activist is equally as ludicrous as assuming that he's innocent because the police broke the law.

    I work for a major accountancy company, where some wrongdoing on the part of a group of individuals could potentially cause an enron-style scandal and financial crisis in this country. I also have access to every bit of information in this company. Therefore, were such an event to happen, by your logic I too would be guilty because I have access to the individuals and their information therefore I must have known what was going on.

    So Flores isn't a self confessed separatist, in Bolivia with dirty deeds in mind? and Mr Dwyer just had the misfortune of being in the adjacent hotel room? Who exactly are you trying to fool with this gibberish, yourself?


  • Options
    #166
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    So Flores isn't a self confessed separatist, in Bolivia with dirty deeds in mind? and Mr Dwyer just had the misfortune of being in the adjacent hotel room? Who exactly are you trying to fool with this gibberish, yourself?
    Perhaps you should look up the concept of an "open mind".


  • Options
    #167
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    So Flores isn't a self confessed separatist, in Bolivia with dirty deeds in mind? and Mr Dwyer just had the misfortune of being in the adjacent hotel room? Who exactly are you trying to fool with this gibberish, yourself?
    Even if Dwyer was the guy's bodyguard, that doesn't make him guilty of anything. In the slightest. For all we know, Dwyer spent the entire time listening to people talking in foreign languages until he was told "Stand over there", "Make sure that room is empty", and so forth.

    I love how you're taking a leap of logic and assuming that he's suddenly a trained, multi-lingual militia member, or at the very least that he even knew anything about Bolivian politics.


  • Options
    #168
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    My mind is open to the possibility that yes, these guys 'may' have shot in cold blood, however whats equally clear is that this so called group were most definately staying/travelling together and there are some very serious questions posed over their seemingly fascist agenda.


  • Options
    #169
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    My mind is open to the possibility that yes, these guys 'may' have shot in cold blood, however whats equally clear is that this so called group were most definately staying/travelling together and there are some very serious questions posed over their seemingly fascist agenda.

    No one is questioning the fact there are issues with the group. The problem is the way they were dealt with by a supposed specialist police force especially given the original reports from the powers that be that there was an intense 30 minute firefight where the "mercenaries" threw grenades and exchanged fire with the assaulting forces. That is a fallacy from the authorities.

    If and its a big if Mr Dwyer was a fascist he should still have be taken alive if he was unarmed and either sleeping or just woken up from sleep. Since when does a label decide if you live or die.


  • Options
    #170
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    seamus wrote: »
    Even if Dwyer was the guy's bodyguard, that doesn't make him guilty of anything. In the slightest. For all we know, Dwyer spent the entire time listening to people talking in foreign languages until he was told "Stand over there", "Make sure that room is empty", and so forth.

    I love how you're taking a leap of logic and assuming that he's suddenly a trained, multi-lingual militia member, or at the very least that he even knew anything about Bolivian politics.

    By this logic then, even if Flores was there to destabalise the Santa Cruz region, and Dwyer was protecting him so he could carry out his plans in safety then Dwyer is still an innocent party?


  • Options
    #171
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    gandalf wrote: »
    No weapon, no evidence of a struggle, in his underwear, kill shots, evidence of one of the other dead men having bound hands which I don't believe is standard practice for corpses. That leads me to believe it was an execution and therefore murder of an Irish citizen.
    We don't know if there was a weapon in his room or not. The fact that 2 of the group surrendered suggests that Dwyer did something that caused the police to fire on him. If it were an execution, then there wouldn't be bullet holes in the walls.
    Also, why did some of the others have weapons in a hotel room?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    By this logic then, even if Flores was there to destabalise the Santa Cruz region, and Dwyer was protecting him so he could carry out his plans in safety then Dwyer is still an innocent party?
    In this country at least, he would be considered innocent until he's convicted of something.

    I've yet to see anything that comes close to resembling evidence, never mind proof, of any wrongdoing on his part.


  • Options
    #173
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Why would Mr. Flores bother to hire Dwyer as a bodyguard?
    Presumedly Dwyer couldn't even speak the language so exactly what good could he have been?
    He hadn't nearly the experience of his boss.
    That explanation is bizarre to say the least.

    Like I was saying, it's more likely he fancied himself a soldier-of-fortune and sleptwalk into a dangerous situation among dangerous people.


  • Options
    #174
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've yet to see anything that comes close to resembling evidence, never mind proof, of any wrongdoing on his part.
    How much evidence did you see against the Columbia 3?


  • Options
    #175
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    By this logic then, even if Flores was there to destabalise the Santa Cruz region, and Dwyer was protecting him so he could carry out his plans in safety then Dwyer is still an innocent party?
    Assuming that he didn't know what was going on, of course he is.

    If he was involved in a gunfight with cops, then of course he isn't, because any sane individual would know that shooting at cops == bad. But nobody wears their underwear to a gunfight, so I think we can safely rule out any idea that he was firing at cops or otherwise doing anything but sleeping just before he died.
    We don't know if there was a weapon in his room or not. The fact that 2 of the group surrendered suggests that Dwyer did something that caused the police to fire on him.
    Like jumping out of bed in surprise when people burst into your room shouting things at you in a foreign language?
    If it were an execution, then there wouldn't be bullet holes in the walls.
    Because all police officers are James Bond-esque marksmen.
    Also, why did some of the others have weapons in a hotel room?
    Because they probably carried weapons around with them for protection. It means nothing. In the US it wouldn't be rare to find someone in a house filled with a massive armoury. Does that make them guilty of something?


  • Options
    #176
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    How much evidence did you see against the Columbia 3?
    You are aware that the Columbia 3 weren't shot dead in a hotel room under questionable circumstances, right? Why are you trying to draw parallels with a completely different situation?


  • Options
    #177
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    In this country at least, he would be considered innocent until he's convicted of something.

    I've yet to see anything that comes close to resembling evidence, never mind proof, of any wrongdoing on his part.

    If Flores was in this country doing what he openly admitted to going to Bloivia to do that would make him an enemy of the State.


  • Options
    #178
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    seamus wrote: »
    Assuming that he didn't know what was going on, of course he is.


    That's one massive assumption in fairness.


  • Options
    #179
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    If Flores was in this country doing what he openly admitted to going to Bloivia to do that would make him an enemy of the State.
    For which, presumably, he should have been arrested and tried. It's not like it was a closely-guarded secret that he was staying there.


  • Options
    #180
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    That's one massive assumption in fairness.
    There's no shortage of those to go around.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You are aware that the Columbia 3 weren't shot dead in a hotel room under questionable circumstances, right? Why are you trying to draw parallels with a completely different situation?
    Because you are convinced of their guilt despite not seeing any evidence against them.

    I wonder how this looks from the ground in South America?
    Could it be something like: 2 different countries where irish terrorists participated in subversion against the government.


Advertisement