Hight Court rules killing of four IRA members was not justified

parmoboy

parmoboy

Well-known member
My Irish family are from Tyrone - it’s a beautiful county stained with bloodshed over the last 50 years
The Army let their Teenage Squaddies use NI as their own personal playground for long enough.
 
If the police had been used then it might have ended peacefully. If you decide to send in the SAS to deal with things then they are not police, they are army and, if you are also armed to the teeth, they shoot to kill. It is irresponsible for any government to engage the army, especially special forces, to deal with situations like this and not expect the consequences. It is what they have been trained for.

Who gave the order? They are the ones that should be held accountable. But, of course, all these politicians ride off into the sunset leaving the squaddies behind taking the flak and criminal prosecutions.
 
MoggasDog said:
If the police had been used then it might have ended peacefully. If you decide to send in the SAS to deal with things then they are not police, they are army and, if you are also armed to the teeth, they shoot to kill. It is irresponsible for any government to engage the army, especially special forces, to deal with situations like this and not expect the consequences. It is what they have been trained for.

Who gave the order? They are the ones that should be held accountable. But, of course, all these politicians ride off into the sunset leaving the squaddies behind taking the flak and criminal prosecutions.
Click to expand...
If the police had been used it's likely there would have been several dead police officers and this IRA team would have gotten away and gone on to kill more. The IRA were ruthless killers. Many were arrested but clearly whoever gave the order felt that a special forces unit was needed to deal with the threat that day.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Absolutely not, but the armed forces are not immune from the law, which is the point here surely?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but you would also have to pass the responsibility to the order giver(s), to the person(s) who issued Rules Of Engagement. The guys intercepting heavily armed terrorists who have just machine gunned a police station are not the only decision makers who should answer for the events.
 
They were terrorists who had just shot up a police station injuring some people in the process hadn’t they? They were in fact participating in an illegal ‘war of sorts’ against the British Government. Soldiers are understandably armed and when you are in such a situation, terrorists carrying a means to kill having just fired shots at a police station should expect that they risk being shot themselves. I have no sympathy for terrorists and every sympathy for our soldiers tasked with putting their lives on the line for politicians.

Whatever you feel about the incident, what would have happened to the soldiers who were given their orders if they failed to undertake them? You can’t be put in a no win situation, well you can and they were. The issue should be who decided on the order to kill, why, and if anyone is accountable it should be the decision makers not the foot soldiers (unless they just decided it themselves independently at that time). There are mitigating circumstances surely.
 
RavsFan said:
They were terrorists who had just shot up a police station injuring some people in the process hadn’t they? They were in fact participating in an illegal ‘war of sorts’ against the British Government. Soldiers are understandably armed and when you are in such a situation, terrorists carrying a means to kill having just fired shots at a police station should expect that they risk being shot themselves. I have no sympathy for terrorists and every sympathy for our soldiers tasked with putting their lives on the line for politicians.

Whatever you feel about the incident, what would have happened to the soldiers who were given their orders if they failed to undertake them? You can’t be put in a no win situation, well you can and they were. The issue should be who decided on the order to kill, why, and if anyone is accountable it should be the decision makers not the foot soldiers (unless they just decided it themselves independently at that time). There are mitigating circumstances surely.
Click to expand...
Look at what happened to the two soldiers who'd inadvertently driven into the path of an IRA funeral. They were armed and chose to stick to their rules of engagement and not fire at those who were trying to drag them out of their car.

They were stripped, beaten, tortured and shot dead by the IRA with their own weapons.

Had they shot their way out of that situation, years later would a high court judge have ruled that they were not justified and there wasn't a high risk to their lives?
 
parmoboy said:
Look at what happened to the two soldiers who'd inadvertently driven into the path of an IRA funeral. They were armed and chose to stick to their rules of engagement and not fire at those who were trying to drag them out of their car.
Click to expand...
Who drives into the path of a funeral anyway?
I wouldn’t dare blocking one
Because it’s the Army do we have to make an exception?
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Oh that poor British government. Would it be the same British government who invaded Ireland in the 16th and 17th century and killed and oppressed the inhabitants from then on ?
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous argument to put forward.

The UK government at the time of Coalisland was a touch more democratic being post The Great Reform Act 1832 and the Equal Franchise Act 1928 it was a government elected by the people of the UK, not a bunch of Monarchs and Wealthy Barons etc in the time you spoke of, it is somewhat different. History is created by everyone, the past can’t be undone, but it can be addressed where the will of the majority of the public seek to do so.
 
parmoboy said:
Look at what happened to the two soldiers who'd inadvertently driven into the path of an IRA funeral. They were armed and chose to stick to their rules of engagement and not fire at those who were trying to drag them out of their car.

They were stripped, beaten, tortured and shot dead by the IRA with their own weapons.

Had they shot their way out of that situation, years later would a high court judge have ruled that they were not justified and there wasn't a high risk to their lives?
Click to expand...
This is exactly the sort of rhetoric that prolongs conflict.

As is the comment about the British government invading Ireland
 
SCG said:
Who drives into the path of a funeral anyway?
I wouldn’t dare blocking one
Because it’s the Army do we have to make an exception?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting the ‘mourners’ behaved reasonably in the circumstances? We need to learn to forgive and forget the past, learn from mistakes and make sure respect is a two way street in the here and now.
 
parmoboy said:
Look at what happened to the two soldiers who'd inadvertently driven into the path of an IRA funeral. They were armed and chose to stick to their rules of engagement and not fire at those who were trying to drag them out of their car.

They were stripped, beaten, tortured and shot dead by the IRA with their own weapons.

Had they shot their way out of that situation, years later would a high court judge have ruled that they were not justified and there wasn't a high risk to their lives?
Click to expand...

That’s just hypothesising - it was horrific what happened to them.

Ref the OP - the High Court Judges have sat, read the evidence, pondered and made their decision.

I’m not sure the good folk of FMTTM can add much value to the rights and wrongs of that decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top