MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24987465
Maybe shocked isnt the right word but the more I learn about N.I. the more I realise how murky it all was. Was the MRF no more that a death squad? the type of thing Britain criticised so vociferously in places like Chile under Pinochet or Nicoragua.
Not shocked. As far as I am concerned execution is never right and made worse (if it is possible to be worse) by the fact its extra judicial.
I guess the people at them time may well have thought they were doing the right thing.
I am sure that what will happen will be vilification of the lower orders and vindication of the politicians/commanders involved.
About spot on ...
I guess people will say if was different times. Whlist the Republicans hardly behaved well, the security forces were in cahoots with the loyalists much more than anyone thought. The behaviour to catch the Shankhill Bitcher was also very murky
Is this news? I thought it had previously been published, but maybe not the names.
It's not right but it does sound like targeted killing of some nasty people rather than indiscriminate bombing.
As it is fairly accepted that unionist paramilitaries were given information from British Sources, that the British Army were also killing people doesn't surprise me in the least.
The bits of interviews I've heard seem to be along the line of "I knew that it happened".
Has anyone put his hand up and said "I deliberately shot an unarmed civilian"?
There was a book about this 20 years ago I thing it was called operation nemisis . Lad passed SAS selection and instead of joining the regiment was whisked off to Belfast to top people on very doggy Intel.
Was this about the same time the IRA were randomly blowing up unarmed civilians? No, not shocked or surprised really.
The Nemesis Files WAS pure BS though -
"On Thursday (01/08/96) Paul Bruce, the author of The Nemesis File was detained at 5:45am at his home in Weston-super-Mare, by officers of the RUC. A copy of his manuscript containing a new chapter, which the publisher claimed would substantiate his claims, was also seized. The Nemesis File was a best selling book billed as a true story of an SAS squad that had executed about 30 men in Northern Ireland, of which Bruce had claimed to be a member. Defence sources had always ridiculed the claims, and even Sinn Fein described them as "totally outlandish". Paul Bruce was flown to Northern Ireland and questioned by the RUC under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and a day of claims and statements followed. On Friday (02/08/96) the RUC issued a statement. The book was a "work of fiction". Paul Inman, who used the pen name Paul Bruce, had never worked for the SAS. The closest he had got was working for several months in Ulster as a army vehicle mechanic. The RUC confirmed that he could now face a charge of wasting Police time. A senior SAS source said "We are delighted this man has been exposed as the phoney we always said he was." Reported in The Telegraph 01/08/96 and 02/08/96."
I think that's a complete fiction and totally seperate from this new MRF stuff.
"We were hunting down hardcore baby-killers, terrorists, people that would kill you without even thinking about it."
Doesn't sound unreasonable during a war.
every side killed innocents in Ireland.....old news.
Doesn't sound unreasonable during a war.
This is the problem. It wasn't a war.
If it was a war then you could not prosecuted the terrorists, they would of been POW's with the associated rights.
Doesn't sound unreasonable
+1
The western world has been hunting down Al Quaeda 'top brass' and killing them for over a decade - right up to the top man in that organisation. Is it really any different?
Read the book "Dirty war" by Martin Dillon, these aren't exactly new revelations.
Doesn't surprise me in the least. Is it very different to surgical strikes against al-quaeda targets by hit squads or drones, just a different landscape and a different time. In any war there will be collateral damage, sad as that is, and there will have been on both sides in this conflict too.
Not shocked--it goes on in every 'conflict'--however the british state is always keen to show how morally superior they are, and how they never sink to the level of the 'terrorist'-- hypocrisy i think it's called.
Doesn't sound unreasonable
+2
Terrorists deserve a dose of their own medicine now and again.
Read the book "Watching the Door" for a frightening insight into all this.
This is the problem. It wasn't a war.
I'm pretty sure the IRA would disagree with you.
Terrorists deserve a dose of their own medicine now and again.
What about the victims of the "death squads" who weren't involved in terrorism and were assassinated because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? What medicine had they been handing out?
what about the innocents who were taken from their homes by the death squads??
oh, i know we will let those off eh?
Well those two book recommendations will sort my night shift reading out for me next month.
War is dirty and yes it was a war. Civilians rightly or wrongly occasionally get killed.
40000 of them in London during WW2. I'm sure this which is old news was far less indiscriminate than the IRA bombings in London
I read Operation Nemisis years ago so not shocked at all. I think this is a bit like all of the GCHQ / NSA disclosures recently. Everyone has a pretty good idea that it happened, this is just the 'official' confirmation of that.
Was this about the same time the IRA were randomly blowing up unarmed civilians? No, not shocked or surprised really.
+1
There was a war and innocent people died, hardly surprising.......
It wasn't a "War". By this I mean the current legal definition as stated in the Hague Conventions. No Declaration of War was made.
I am not arguing rights and wrongs, just stating the fact that it wasn't a war.
This also applies to the Falklands Conflict, "War" was never declared.
Terrorists deserve a dose of their own medicine now and again.
So lets allow our military and politicians to do what ever they want completely outside the law. Or create new laws as required.
The Internment Law of 1971 probably did more to help the IRA than anything else.
There was a war and innocent people died, hardly surprising.
I think the difference was that the British were picking off targets based on intelligence, rather than the IRA approach of detonating indiscriminate bombs in public places killing innocent people including children
I think the difference was that the British were picking off targets based on intelligence
Well that's relief. They did a bit of research before executing a UK citizen without a trial. I'm glad that's sorted.
Tea and medals all round?
Bazz - Member
Read the book "Dirty war" by Martin Dillon, these aren't exactly new revelations.
Iirc the dirty war is a depressing book, a series of accounts of lives ruined by violence on all sides. I believe it has the account of a pair of lads one catholic and one Protestant shot by a death squad as they were having a friendly drink in their local and ones of there girlfriends crying on the grave hours after the funeral, very miserable. Thank god we've moved on if only a little, one hopes the young there won't fall for it all again
Tea and medals all round?
I don't think we want to give the IRA any medals, besides they just become MPs and get nice fat state pensions 😉
The OP's question wasn't whether it was right or wrong.
Thank god we've moved on
Apparently not
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25029987 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25029987[/url]
Another thing I find amazing having been to N.I. is how small some of the places are, Derry is tiny, I find it hard to believe that the serious "bad guys" werent known to all and sundry. I worked with a lad from Belfast who was a Catholic and was threatened by "hoods" for being a tearaway, he knew who was under the hood, it was a bloke who worked in a hardware store, he knew that when he was 14, so I find it hard to believe that the security forces didnt know who was causing trouble.
I find it hard to believe that the security forces didnt know who was causing trouble.
That is the thing, they did know. This was in the glory days of spying, no computer programs monitoring emails, real life people on the ground following people, using informers, bugs and covert gubbins. If you are interested in it, The Operators is about as fascinating a book as I have ever read. It is about 14th Int company who did all of the seriously undercover intelligence work in NI.
[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Operators-Inside-Intelligence-Company/dp/0712677305/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385028386&sr=8-1&keywords=14+intelligence+company ]Amazon Linky[/url]
Cant help feeling its just going to open old wounds. They want immunity from prosicution for anyone found to be involved with terrorist acts before the treaty was signed.
Yet they want to be able prosecute the goverment for what was done to them.
It was a conflict with no winners and both sides played dirty.
I cant think queensbury rules was any good?
I'm in two minds about this.
[i]"executing unarmed civilians"[/i] is a pretty powerful phrase and not something that a free democratic country should be doing, particularly to its own citizens!
But on the other hand we seem happy enough to drop bombs and fire cruise missiles to kill "insurgents" in other countries and I don't suppose we actually check if they are carrying a gun at the time or not.
So do we only object to execution when it is up close and personal?
A drone strike is no different to an execution. So yeah, must just be distance to the target that causes the hand-wringing.
hand-wringing
FFS. Being concerned about the execution without trial of UK citizens on UK territory by the UK military, is hand wringing? If you think it's reasonable then you better hope some future government doesn't take a dislike to you and yours!
I doubt the IRA expected any different and if I joined them I certainly wouldn't.
What's that got to do with it?
It's about the law.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
A drone strike is no different to an execution. So yeah, must just be distance to the target that causes the hand-wringing.
In fact if anything a drone strike is far worse because it is far more likely to injure or kill innocent bystanders.
But somehow that's okay compared to a direct assassination.
Morals are funny things sometimes.
(I'm not condoning or condemning either by the way, just musing)
Yeah, fire bombing Tokyo doesn't seem to upset people but Hiroshima and Nagasaki do. Funny business morals.
Yeah, fire bombing Tokyo doesn't seem to upset people but Hiroshima and Nagazaki do. Funny business morals.
It's more to do with awareness. Most people in the UK are not aware of the fire bombing of Tokyo and the fact that it did more damage than the atomic bombs.
Personally I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki raids were the correct things to do. They saved a huge loss of life by avoiding the invasion of mainland Japan.
FFS. Being concerned about the execution without trial of UK citizens on UK territory by the UK military, is hand wringing?
Well it was:
a) a long time ago
b) in the middle of a very bloody "civil war"
So yes, getting all upset about it now is hand wringing. Move on and worry about the future.
Most people in the UK are not aware of the fire bombing of Tokyo and the fact that it did more damage than the atomic bombs.
They're not aware because it was an acceptable way to kill people. Lots of planes, lots of bombs. One plane, one bomb wasn't. Isn't.
Which is all a bit odd.
Funny how all the apologists for state terror want to 'Move On'....
Some more quotes from history.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
? Edmund Burke
Some more quotes from history.
I always thought that was a crap quote. If the Bosnians weren't so familiar with their history they wouldn't have built concentration camps.
Northern Ireland could do with some amnesia too.
Is the common theme here exposure to risk?
Atomic bomb and drones are almost faceless and remote, very few military personnel exposed to risk in the process, therefore does not seem fair.
Fire bombing, armed conflict, etc all involves soldiers and airmen in the line of fire more, therefore more 'fair'
Again, not suggesting this is the case, just thinking out loud.
I guess the question is, if instead of a [i]clandestine death squad executing individuals based on undisclosed intelligence[/i], we had instead used [i]remote targeted drone strikes to neutralise high-value terrorist leaders based on undisclosed intelligence[/i] then would that have been any better?
Because I'm pretty sure that's what we do now.
Funny how all the apologists for state terror want to 'Move On'....
There was terror on both sides and it's so long ago there's no realistic chance of prosecutions without confessions, which you're very unlikely to get.
Agree, this is very old news but nonetheless part of 'the troubles' which are in themselves almost beyond comprehension. Having spent a good part of this year researching it, the atrocities carried out within our own country by all sides almost defy belief. Not sure 'shocking' is a strong enough word in a lot of cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miami_Showband
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing