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

Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

Options
12357…13

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    Sand wrote: »
    @moxin

    I agree, that's true. But the British have been pretty good at investigating and punishing wrongdoing by their forces. As I understand it as a result of the program an investigation will be carried out - but as I noted above what I think will be found is that several long in the tooth ex squaddies might suddenly become a lot less boastful about what they got up to once people start taking them seriously.

    Basically the British take their responsibilities as a sovereign state fairly seriously. The Provos on the other hand, claim to be the armed wing of the true republic but have never ever taken the responsibilities of claimed sovereignty seriously.

    Wrong. A couple hundred people of all ages have been shot dead by the British army and at least another 120 by the Glenane gang.

    There have been hardly any convictions for the wrongdoing for the last 40 years and counting. That is zero punishment for wrongdoing, they got away with murder.


  • Options
    #123
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    Sand wrote: »
    @Cantseeme
    I just intervened as a public service because it seemed people were convincing themselves the soldiers had admitted openly to a campaign of targeted and random murders of civilians. That would clearly trouble anyone and they might get bothered about why others were not as excited as they were. I helped out by asking if anyone could point to a soldiers specifically claiming to have killed or known a specific colleague to have killed a specific civilian at some time or date. Cantseeme has taken a look and acknowledged that he cant actually find anything of the sort. That I hope helps people to understand why not everyone is getting as excited as they are. But it also demonstrates my point about what does and does not impact the world view of people who might be recruited by SF.

    Out of curiosity, do you give any credit to rumours of British collusion with terrorists in Northern Ireland? I was just thinking the Provos must have been a puppet of the British secret service to be so effective at murdering innocent northern nationalists. Didn't they kill more innocent northern nationalists than the British Army or any Loyalist terrorist group? And if the British govt were helping the loyalists murder innocent northern nationalists then the Provos must really have been very good at killing innocent northern nationalists or they must have been getting a lot of help from the British secret service.

    When that doesn't impact on the world view of people recruited by SF, apparently motivated by concern for the innocent northern nationalists, you really expect they'll be at all affected by my posts? Jaysus.
    Well if you want to give up " your public service " - feel free by me to do so ;) As for people "you really expect they'll be at all affected by my posts", that's the point of posting on a public forum isn't it.
    Legally or illegally under British civillian law?

    Because I hope you're not seriously claiming torture, murder, covert or overt, bombings across the border etc was legal under British civillian law. If you are, see above.

    As for imprisonment without trial? Sorry - weren't the Provos looking for POW status? That is imprisonment without trial purely on the basis of membership of an opposing group.
    The poor boy has never heard of Long Kesh and internment it seems.


  • Options
    #124
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @maccored
    Are you suggesting they didnt? Like the FRU didnt exist or something ... or did they just not do that kind of thing? (in your opinion)

    Didn't what? I'm pretty sure they weren't imaginary.

    @Can'tseeme
    Did you watch the Panorama documentary?? Honestly??

    They admitted the unit DID act as a terror organisation, in which innocent civilians were killed as part of their operations and subsequently their actions were covered up.

    The information has been handed over to the authorities for investigation and rightly so.

    They waffled alot. They said they didn't always check if a target (i.e. known Provos) were armed before they shot them. And even that was very vague. They said they didn't believe the standard RoE applied to them. That seems to have been spun as them admitting to shooting unarmed civilians (i.e. random people who were not Provos) - which they didn't, and you have already acknowledged they didn't incriminate themselves or any of their unit.

    Get names and dates and then the wild claims made in your post and the thread will have some substance. Lets see where that investigation goes - or you can just jump to conclusions and convict before the investigation has even started. I very much doubt you'd have such a light burden of evidence when it came to much more specific claims made by Dolours Price about Gerry Adams specifically and specific crimes he ordered committed.
    The likes of Dan Rooney and Pat McVeigh weren't members of the PIRA, their killings were covered up. Do you believe their families deserve the truth?

    All victims families deserve the truth. Not just ones selected for political advantage or scoring points.

    That said, which of the soldiers do you believe admitted to murdering either Dan Rooney or Pat McVeigh or even shooting at people in the area they were killed at the time they were killed?
    Again, this thread has nothing to do with SF members.

    Its not got much to do with what was said in the program either in fairness.

    @moxin
    Wrong. A couple hundred people of all ages have been shot dead by the British army and at least another 120 by the Glenane gang.

    There have been hardly any convictions for the wrongdoing for the last 40 years and counting. That is zero punishment for wrongdoing, they got away with murder.

    Is it wrong? It's not enough to state it - you have to demonstrate it. My point is that British Army have been pretty good at investigating wrong doing by their forces, and that the Provos have been abysmal at it. Nothing you've said tackles that.

    "Hardly any convictions" and "zero punishment for wrongdoing" ....which is it?

    @ChicagoRed
    Well if you want to give up " your public service " - feel free by me to do so As for people "you really expect they'll be at all affected by my posts", that's the point of posting on a public forum isn't it.

    Ha - not on Northern Ireland. If people with strong views on Northern Ireland were open to different viewpoints there would have been no Troubles in the first place.

    I've not said anything controversial, but as you can see from the backlash, if you point out one sides wild unproven claims are wild unproven claims...well then you must be on the other side. Attack! Attack! Attack! Its how fanatical groups resist external influence. Its not an open mindset.

    It's mildly entertaining to bounce a ball of a wall though. Some of the responses can be amazing.
    The poor boy has never heard of Long Kesh and internment it seems.

    You don't have to distract. We both knew it was a grand exaggeration at best on your part.


  • Options
    #125
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Sand wrote: »
    @maccored


    Didn't what? I'm pretty sure they weren't imaginary.

    Gawds sake - did you even read my post?

    you said:
    Do people seriously believe, given the propensity for friendly fire when everyone is uniformed, that the British army was sending armed men out of uniform to carry out drive by shootings of civilians .. etc

    I asked are you saying they didnt?

    then you say "I'm pretty sure they weren't imaginary" - what does that mean?

    That isnt debate Sand.


  • Options
    #126
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    maccored wrote: »
    Gawds sake - did you even read my post?

    you said:


    I asked are you saying they didnt?

    then you say "I'm pretty sure they weren't imaginary" - what does that mean?

    That isnt debate Sand.

    I know what you said. It just doesn't make much sense when you cut off your question half way. They didn't what? What is it you think they did? Am I to guess?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    Sand wrote: »
    @moxin

    Is it wrong? It's not enough to state it - you have to demonstrate it. My point is that British Army have been pretty good at investigating wrong doing by their forces, and that the Provos have been abysmal at it. Nothing you've said tackles that.

    "Hardly any convictions" and "zero punishment for wrongdoing" ....which is it?

    You are wrong.

    Stop diverting this thread into one about the Provos, its about the BA shooting civilians.

    Again, where have been the investigations into British Army shootings of hundreds of people in NI(killed and injured ones) that have led to convictions? There are hardly any hence you are wrong to say that the BA have been good at investigating wrongdoing by their forces.

    It took 40 years of pressure by the victims to actually get the BA to admit their wrongdoing on Bloody Sunday, no prosecutions yet. Umpteen other atrocities of mass murder of unarmed civilians committed by the BA have not been investigated yet, one example being the 11 murders committed by the BA in the Ballymurphy massacre, victims included a priest and a mother of eight.

    Some shooters of innocent unarmed civilians have even been promoted in rank, disgusting.


  • Options
    #128
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    I would have no problem per se with the BA setting up these types of squads to tackle the PIRA, If you join a paramilitary organisation your civilian rights go out the window imo and you have to be prepared to be dealt with in the harshest manner. My problem stems from the fact that the British always denied they did this sort of stuff, they painted the PIRA as evil boogeymen and themselves as the brave heroes sent in to defend the helpless. The truth is they were no better than any of the paramilitaries and were doing exactly the same things as them. If they'd just come down off the moral high ground and admitted they were no better than anyone else I wouldn't mind them using these sort of tactics. All's fair in love and war as they say and The Troubles was certainly a horrific war.


  • Options
    #129
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    moxin wrote: »
    You are wrong.

    Stop diverting this thread into one about the Provos, its about the BA shooting civilians.

    Eh - you diverted it. I made my comments on a point raised by another poster. Not you. You decided to jump in to raise an entirely unrelated discussion on the back of it.


  • Options
    #130
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    Sand wrote: »
    Eh - you diverted it. I made my comments on a point raised by another poster. Not you. You decided to jump in to raise an entirely unrelated discussion on the back of it.

    The topic is about "drive by shootings by the BA in NI" not the Provos which you have mentioned numerous times, that's topic diversion. Hence we are debating the actions and consequences of the BA shooting unarmed civilians which they committed with will.


  • Options
    #131
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    The truth is they were no better than any of the paramilitaries and were doing exactly the same things as them.
    Were they really? Or are we talking about some exceptional cases here? Because overall, there was very little evidence of this sort of activity from the military. Some notable and obvious abuses for sure, but not on a consistent basis. I also don't recall the British army engaging in 'proxy bombs', 'disappearings', kneecapping, etc.
    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    If they'd just come down off the moral high ground and admitted they were no better than anyone else I wouldn't mind them using these sort of tactics.
    You wouldn't? You might be in a minority there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    alastair wrote: »
    Were they really? Or are we talking about some exceptional cases here? Because overall, there was very little evidence of this sort of activity from the military. Some notable and obvious abuses for sure, but not on a consistent basis. I also don't recall the British army engaging in 'proxy bombs', 'disappearings', kneecapping, etc.


    You wouldn't? You might be in a minority there.

    Took a peep in here to see what the crack was, and long behold alastair still trying to defend the British army!

    You have some fight in you I'll give you that much!

    I'll pop back in a week, see what's happening!


  • Options
    #133
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    alastair wrote: »
    Were they really? Or are we talking about some exceptional cases here? Because overall, there was very little evidence of this sort of activity from the military. Some notable and obvious abuses for sure, but not on a consistent basis. I also don't recall the British army engaging in 'proxy bombs', 'disappearings', kneecapping, etc.

    How do you explain the shooting dead by the BA of a couple of hundred of unarmed civilians then? (most in the early 70's) Victims included children, a priest and a mother of 8. Then add in the 120 killings carried out by the Glenane gang that we know so far.

    Hopefully those killings by the BA do not rest easy with you and you unreservedly condemn them.


  • Options
    #134
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Sand wrote: »
    I know what you said. It just doesn't make much sense when you cut off your question half way. They didn't what? What is it you think they did? Am I to guess?

    No Sand, you are to use your brain. Are you denying the BA (including the FRU/MRF) shot civillians? You seem to be pretending they didnt and then acting stupid when asked to clarify.


  • Options
    #135
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Were they really? Or are we talking about some exceptional cases here? Because overall, there was very little evidence of this sort of activity from the military. Some notable and obvious abuses for sure, but not on a consistent basis. I also don't recall the British army engaging in 'proxy bombs', 'disappearings', kneecapping, etc.


    We don't know yet what all they were involved in. Their ministry of defence are protecting that information and have spurned any attempt by our weak and frankly, disinterested government, to get that information. But with decent journalists the truth might out.
    That the BA was involved up to their necks is widely known by the community that suffered it and their accusations have been consistent down through the years.


  • Options
    #136
    Can'tseeme
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Can'tseeme


    Sand wrote: »
    They waffled alot. They said they didn't always check if a target (i.e. known Provos) were armed before they shot them. And even that was very vague. They said they didn't believe the standard RoE applied to them. That seems to have been spun as them admitting to shooting unarmed civilians (i.e. random people who were not Provos) - which they didn't, and you have already acknowledged they didn't incriminate themselves or any of their unit.

    Get names and dates and then the wild claims made in your post and the thread will have some substance. Lets see where that investigation goes - or you can just jump to conclusions and convict before the investigation has even started. I very much doubt you'd have such a light burden of evidence when it came to much more specific claims made by Dolours Price about Gerry Adams specifically and specific crimes he ordered committed.

    That is not a credible defence of the MRF Sand. There is nothing from the BBC documentary to suggest, from the testimonies of the 7 members of the MRF that they were fantasists. They admitted the yellow card that the BA had to adhere to didn't apply to them. If these soldiers did nothing wrong then why were most of the files and evidence of their activities destroyed?

    If you believe that ALL the victims families deserve the truth then that also applies to victims of the MRF. This documentary, by a well respected British investigated journalists, has sent alarm bells ringing across the political classes and the establishment in Britain and Ireland. The fact it hasn't with you and with your robust defence of the indefensible suggests you're not on the side of some victims of the conflict.
    [/QUOTE]


  • Options
    #137
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    moxin wrote: »
    How do you explain the shooting dead by the BA of a couple of hundred of unarmed civilians then? (most in the early 70's) Victims included children, a priest and a mother of 8. Then add in the 120 killings carried out by the Glenane gang that we know so far.

    Hopefully those killings by the BA do not rest easy with you and you unreservedly condemn them.

    I don't need to explain the number of civilians killed by the British Army (168) - I just need to distinguish the numbers of civilians killed by them from the numbers killed by the paramilitaries (713 and 835 depending which side of the fence you look at). Given that no-one was better armed than the British Army in NI, you either arrive at the conclusion that they were either really inefficient at apeing the record of the paramilitaries, or they were not acting in the same manner at all. Most of the deaths caused by the British Army were, as you point out, early 70's affairs, where BA tactics were unsuited to the conflict, and where many were caught in crossfire, or victims of poor discipline in chaotic situations. All deplorable - but just the same as the paramilitaries? Not really.

    As to the Glenanne gang - that wasn't the British Army, and to pretend so is disingenuous. As someone who's family was impacted by their actions, I think I'm pretty clear on the distinctions.


  • Options
    #138
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    I don't need to explain the number shot by the British Army - I just need to distinguish the numbers of civilians killed by them from the numbers killed by the paramilitaries (713 and 835 depending which side of the fence you look at).


    It wasn't a 'Who was the worst' competition.


  • Options
    #139
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It wasn't a 'Who was the worst' competition.

    Who suggested it was?


  • Options
    #140
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @Moxin

    Yeah, grand.

    @maccored
    No Sand, you are to use your brain. Are you denying the BA (including the FRU/MRF) shot civillians? You seem to be pretending they didnt and then acting stupid when asked to clarify.

    It's a matter of record both by inquiries and court cases that several British soldiers did shoot civilians. I haven't said any differently?

    You've obviously misinterpreted my position, so I hope you understand why I am careful to seek clarity on vague, unclear questions.

    @Can'tseeme
    That is not a credible defence of the MRF Sand.

    I'm not defending them. They could be guilty as hell for all I know and for all you know.

    What I'm pointing out is the spin that has been put on their comments is way over the top. The headlines screaming about them admitting to murdering unarmed civilians do not match the fine print of what they actually said. You agree that they did not incriminate either themselves or any named colleague for any specific killing of any unarmed civilian. The MRF was already accused of killing civillians (and indeed previously investigated by the British Army on the foot of those claims). Now the MRF is still accused of killing civillians. No real new development other than soldiers bragging about being steely eyed dealers of death and fighting the IRA being spun as admitting to a campaign of civilian murder.

    That's my sole point. There is a lot of claims being made, with little or no evidence to support them. You're relying on the vague waffle of a couple of ex squaddies and covering your ears when they specifically deny murdering anyone, when they specifically deny being assassins or a death squad. You are accepting their claims as the truth selectively.

    Maybe they are the villains you say they are: but a stronger case will need to be built for that to survive contact with any courtroom.
    They admitted the yellow card that the BA had to adhere to didn't apply to them.

    Do you think it then immediately follows that because they believed the RoE didn't apply to them, that they murdered unarmed civilians? Every military unit operates under an RoE. They might have had different RoE but I sincerely doubt it permitted murder of civilians.


  • Options
    #141
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    alastair wrote: »
    Were they really? Or are we talking about some exceptional cases here? Because overall, there was very little evidence of this sort of activity from the military. Some notable and obvious abuses for sure, but not on a consistent basis. I also don't recall the British army engaging in 'proxy bombs', 'disappearings', kneecapping, etc.


    You wouldn't? You might be in a minority there.

    50% of BA fatalities were civilians, that's 20% higher than the IRA's civilian death rate and 35% less than Loyalist paramilitaries, so they certainly weren't distinguishing themselves as significantly better than anyone else. As for not being involved in bombings and disappearances, come on now, lets not be so naive. They might not have always carried out the kidnapping or planted the bombs, but they orchestrated it and then sent the Loyalists off to do the dirty work. The single most devastating day in the Troubles was the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, we all know who planned them...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    ............

    What I'm pointing out is the spin that has been put on their comments is way over the top. The headlines screaming about them admitting to murdering unarmed civilians do not match the fine print of what they actually said. You agree that they did not incriminate either themselves or any named colleague for any specific killing of any unarmed civilian. The MRF was already accused of killing civillians (and indeed previously investigated by the British Army on the foot of those claims). Now the MRF is still accused of killing civillians. No real new development other than soldiers bragging about being steely eyed dealers of death and fighting the IRA being spun as admitting to a campaign of civilian murder.

    That's my sole point. There is a lot of claims being made, with little or no evidence to support them. You're relying on the vague waffle of a couple of ex squaddies and covering your ears when they specifically deny murdering anyone, when they specifically deny being assassins or a death squad. You are accepting their claims as the truth selectively.

    .......

    It's a clear continuation of the practices carried out in Burma, Kenya, Aden etc. Standard 'colonial policing'.


  • Options
    #143
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @Nodin
    It's a clear continuation of the practices carried out in Burma, Kenya, Aden etc. Standard 'colonial policing'.

    Careful now - Moxin has already read me the riot act for even mentioning the people the MRF were apparently looking for, and you want to extend the discussion all the way back to the 1950s and across three continents?

    I guess that's my point though. The BBC program is packed full of claims and a fair bit of sensationalism, but has surprisingly little substance or evidence so there's very little to discuss based on the evidence. You might as well widen the discussion to British colonial policing during the 20th century.

    EDIT: It might be worth noting that one of the MRF contributors on the Panorama documentary has....wait for it....you guessed it....a book coming out shortly!

    Its apparently about teenager who discovers they have the ability to travel through time, and uses it to go on a series of hilarious adventures with a whacky cast of....actually no, its all about steely eyed death dealing on dark nights when the training just kicked in. Its becoming more and more likely the BBC have been had by a self publicist with an eye on book sales.

    I don't think that will have the slightest impact on the views of anyone though.


  • Options
    #144
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    50% of BA fatalities were civilians, that's 20% higher than the IRA's civilian death rate and 35% less than Loyalist paramilitaries, so they certainly weren't distinguishing themselves as significantly better than anyone else. As for not being involved in bombings and disappearances, come on now, lets not be so naive. They might not have always carried out the kidnapping or planted the bombs, but they orchestrated it and then sent the Loyalists off to do the dirty work. The single most devastating day in the Troubles was the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, we all know who planned them...

    We do? Because I'm pretty sure that's never been established. Rumor alright, but nothing more.

    As to the stats? That's pretty weak distortion. 99% of 100 is still low compared to 50% of 1000. The numbers simply disprove the claim that the British Army were operating no differently to the paramilitaries.


  • Options
    #145
    Can'tseeme
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Can'tseeme


    Sand wrote: »
    What I'm pointing out is the spin that has been put on their comments is way over the top. The headlines screaming about them admitting to murdering unarmed civilians do not match the fine print of what they actually said. You agree that they did not incriminate either themselves or any named colleague for any specific killing of any unarmed civilian. The MRF was already accused of killing civillians (and indeed previously investigated by the British Army on the foot of those claims). Now the MRF is still accused of killing civillians. No real new development other than soldiers bragging about being steely eyed dealers of death and fighting the IRA being spun as admitting to a campaign of civilian murder.

    Do you think it then immediately follows that because they believed the RoE didn't apply to them, that they murdered unarmed civilians? Every military unit operates under an RoE. They might have had different RoE but I sincerely doubt it permitted murder of civilians.

    The only spin I see is coming from you Sand. The media in Britain and Ireland have been quite careful in their reaction to the report. Again why was the files on their activities destroyed if they were doing nothing wrong?? Even a senior BA commander and a senior member of the RUC of the time felt this unit was out of control and involved in civilians being shot.

    Why they shot civilians is a good question. There's probably not just one reason. The members have said they didn't feel that they were in West Belfast dealing with their fellow uk citizens but they seen them as part of a colonial problem (like Kenya or other parts of the empire). A common attitude with the BA in Ireland. So were they afraid? Probably. But from their testimonies they were also resentful of the people of West Belfast, IRA or otherwise. Once that yellow card went out the window, civilians of west Belfast were in trouble.


  • Options
    #146
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @Can'tseeme
    The media in Britain and Ireland have been quite careful in their reaction to the report.

    For good reason - its a poorly researched piece long on accusations and short on evidence, which seems to essentially have been a British taxpayer paid advert for one of the contributors books. Something you're ignoring.

    You can pick up a copy of "MRF Shadow Troop" on your Kindle for 4 GBP or 10GBP in print with the full story of one of the MRF contributors from the documentary. You'll have to be selective in your reading of it of course - claims are made about people being shot, and claims are made about who and what those people were. For what its worth - the author specifically and clearly denies that any unarmed civilians were ever murdered.

    Read up on the Nemesis Files. It was an insiders tale of serving in an SAS death squad, abducting and murdering terrorists in Northern Ireland. Sound familiar?

    Yeah, the RUC started an investigation of the crimes apparently admitted to in the book and as the cold light of day dawned, the author quickly admitted that the book was actually entirely a work of fiction. Essentially he had been bragging down his local pub, one of his adoring audience pressed him to publish his amazing heroic tales, and suddenly things escalated when people started taking him seriously. People maybe should have seen that coming
    "Questioned by reporters his knowledge of SAS organisation and procedures appeared vague"

    "He refused to elaborate on why there were no reports of 27 people going missing."

    Like I said before - *maybe* there is some truth to the claims, but that's all there is right now. Claims. None of the contributors incriminated themselves, as you agree. The guy writing the book specifically denies any unarmed civilians were murdered so contradicting the headlines. And given the well known Andy McNab issue the British Army has, I think once his claims are fully checked and tested they wont stand up. But he'll have got his book sales by then and its not illegal to release a fictional, exaggerated account as non-fiction.

    I know you really, really, really want this to be true. Any maybe it is. But so far all it looks like is some guy generating some media attention for his book and hooking in some gullible people at the BBC who also really, really, really want this to be true. If these is genuine evidence, then by all means this should go to court.
    Again why was the files on their activities destroyed if they were doing nothing wrong??

    If the files *were* destroyed, how are the BBC verifying the men claiming to members of the MRF were actually members of the MRF?

    Or did they even do that?


  • Options
    #147
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    @Nodin


    Careful now - Moxin has already read me the riot act for even mentioning the people the MRF were apparently looking for, and you want to extend the discussion all the way back to the 1950s and across three continents?

    I guess that's my point though. The BBC program is packed full of claims and a fair bit of sensationalism, but has surprisingly little substance or evidence so there's very little to discuss based on the evidence. You might as well widen the discussion to British colonial policing during the 20th century.
    .

    You seem to be a bit unfamiliar with the chronology. Taking just three conflicts as examples, the British only left Aden at the end of 1967. The Kenyan Emergency ended (officially) in 1960, as did the Malayan emergency. The MRF was active from 1971 to 1973. All these events therefore took place within a relatively short period, so to proclaim "all the way back...." is a tad dishonest.

    "across three continents" seems to ignore that there was a common factor - the British Army and Government - involved. Frequently there was continuity in personnel as well. For instance Brigadier Frank Kitson served in Malaya, Kenya and Northern Ireland. Ted Loden who was in charge of some of the bloody sunday troops served in Aden.


  • Options
    #148
    Can'tseeme
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Can'tseeme


    Sand wrote: »
    For good reason - its a poorly researched piece long on accusations and short on evidence, which seems to essentially have been a British taxpayer paid advert for one of the contributors books. Something you're ignoring.

    Well you were the one that said "The headlines screaming about them admitting to murdering unarmed civilians do not match the fine print of what they actually said."I said the media reaction was over all careful but across the spectrum found the report deeply disturbing and that the report offered up serious questions for the BA to answer. The MoD has had to report it to the police HET. You're the only one jumping to wild conclusions that they're a bunch of Andy McNab's. When there has been nothing to suggest that.
    Sand wrote: »
    If the files *were* destroyed, how are the BBC verifying the men claiming to members of the MRF were actually members of the MRF?

    Or did they even do that?

    You didn't watch it did you. The panorama investigation found that most of the MRF were destroyed. The testimonies, eyewitness accounts, RUC files, and reports from the BA were investigated for the report by John Ware's investigative team.

    The way I see it Sand is that the families of victims deserve the truth. Whether it's Claudy, Omagh, Ballymurphy, Bloody Sunday, Greysteel, or MRF victims.


  • Options
    #149
    Can'tseeme
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Can'tseeme


    Was there someone telling us here about how well the British Forces investigate themselves?

    This British newspaper report says something different.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/29/revealed-bonfire-papers-empire?CMP=twt_gu


  • Options
    #150
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    alastair wrote: »
    We do? Because I'm pretty sure that's never been established. Rumor alright, but nothing more.

    As to the stats? That's pretty weak distortion. 99% of 100 is still low compared to 50% of 1000. The numbers simply disprove the claim that the British Army were operating no differently to the paramilitaries.

    Loyalist's have admitted it, and all of the discrepancies in investigations and "missing" reports point to only one thing, the British establishment has something very big to hide. Let's not forget that these weren't the only bombs that the BA have been strongly linked to, no smoke without fire and all that...
    Here's the long and short of it, an Army stands on the fact that they are supposed to follow strict codes of conduct and protect their own civilians, (even if those civilians may not recognise that they are under the jurisdiction of that Army), the British Army blatantly flaunted these responsibilities and in numerous cases behaved in a manner that was no better, if not worse, than the paramilitaries they were fighting who were bound by no such moral/legal responsibilities. You can twist it or turn it all you like, but there's no escaping the fact that during the Troubles the BA portrayed themselves in a manner that was completely at odds with the way they were actually behaving. They were guilty of gross hypocrisy and perpetuation of propaganda and this is my foremost gripe with them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    Loyalist's have admitted it, and all of the discrepancies in investigations and "missing" reports point to only one thing, the British establishment has something very big to hide. Let's not forget that these weren't the only bombs that the BA have been strongly linked to, no smoke without fire and all that...

    So, no evidence then. Glad we cleared that up.


Advertisement