Off Topic Sunday, bloody Sunday.
- Thread starter Commachio
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
An old man ... good for him .... but some didn't get the chance to ever draw a pension, go to University, have a family... just saying.... and their families deserve to know the full circumstances behind their untimely deaths ... irrespective of whether the soldier in question is found to have a case to answer for. Just my view.
I don't need to prove anything you doughnut ... it's not me undertaking an enquiry
My view:
Unarmed civilians can never be legitimate targets ... but accidental deaths can happen
Should time, costs or the wearing of a particular uniform ever be acceptable reasons for not establishing culpability? ... absolutely not ... my view.... and I'm entitled to it.
Now as I said at the outset ... IF ... if a crime was committed under applicable law it should be answered for .... and that is all.
Normally I'd be with you 100% on this Fosse. Personally I don't believe wearing a uniform or following orders is enough of an argument to excuse the wilful indiscriminate killing of civilians on its own. But as I said on the 2nd page of this thread, if as part of the Good Friday Agreement you're going to give amnesty to IRA and Loyalist terrorists for murder (including ongoing cases) then the same should've been done for the army that served there. To bring closure, at the time of the Good Friday Agreement someone from the government, the Catholic community respectively should've contacted the families of victims on all sides and explained to them why this was necessary for the sake of long lasting peace and the future. Within that they could've issued a public apology also.
But to give amnesty/immunity to the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitary but not the army, is very unfair and dare I say, unjust.
Can't disagree with your logic, Trebs tbf ...
To give full balance, I would say that I would also back enquiries into the activities of former para militaries if it is apparent that they targeted civilians...
My sympathies will always be with the families of the innocent ... my late cousin, bless her, lived in Warrington and I remember how I felt at the time when the bomb went off there ...
I'm sorry to hear that Fosse, I remember the Warrington bombing. I still remember the face of one father who lost his son (sorry I forget his name) who campaigned for a long time after.
Just to be clear Trebs ... she didn't die in the bomb (although she was out in Warrington that day mind) .. she died last September fro throat cancer ... she was 3 weeks younger than me ....
I was meaning how sickened I was that the IRA saw that as a legitimate target and how we were all ringing around frantically for news ...
I'm guessing you can never fully imagine the fear until it affects you personally.
I've looked up the father who I remember so clearly. Colin Parry.
What really shook me up was after the Borough market attacks ... my eldest girl (in her 20s) was living in Wimbledon and when the news was breaking I called her just to have peace of mind that she was safe at home ... she answered in Camden ... her friends and her had been drinking in Borough market 30 mins before but had left to meet others in Camden ... I felt physically sick without a word of exaggeration ...
Bloody hell. Don't know what else to say that. Imagine what living in NI was like, fcking hell. Thank fck they've moved on from that.
On the Borough market attacks.... a lad I worked with at the time (and had recruited) was actually locked in one of the bars with his girlfriend ... she's actually from Manchester and, I'm reliably informed, cuts the hair of United players and even SAF on occasion ....he met her over on hols .. might have been Ayis Napa or someat similar) ...
Manchester was bombed by the IRA twice.
I arrived at Piccadilly by train shortly after the first one (very minor TBH) and my Mum was shopping in town the day of the second one. No one was killed but that's not the point, they can shove their coded ****ing warnings as they wouldn't have cared one jot if people had been killed.
The IRA are/were utter ****ing cowardly child killing ****s. Yet all are now pardoned. All of them. No scapegoat show trial for them, oh no.
I arrived at Piccadilly by train shortly after the first one (very minor TBH) and my Mum was shopping in town the day of the second one. No one was killed but that's not the point, they can shove their coded ****ing warnings as they wouldn't have cared one jot if people had been killed.
The IRA are/were utter ****ing cowardly child killing ****s. Yet all are now pardoned. All of them. No scapegoat show trial for them, oh no.
They've been pardoned, that can't happen.
How is it fair that one side is investigated for one shooting incident, yet years of bombing by one side, isn't?
You're standing alone with this. You still want your own countryman investigated even though your own countrymen were targeted by the bastards that were pardoned.
Struggling with your thought process on this one.
It isn't fair ... I haven't once claimed it to be ... but I know I would never give up the fight for justice iff members of my family had been unlawfully killed whilst simply marching in protest at something.
I doubt I'm alone in that but others may not be prepared to risk the vitriol of certain of the more vociferous posters by saying such .. .
I don't think so. The reaction has been pretty universal on this board from posters of all skin colours and political persuasion.
Our boy shouldn't be charged when them murdering bastards are pardoned. You charge both sides or neither side.
I've been wholly consistent throughout ... from the first post when I said I would wait to see what this enquiry has before offering any conclusion myself ... there must be some rationale behind the decision to have one ... and I won't subscribe to the scapegoat reaction until I know the full facts ... why that cause such offence to a couple of you U don't fully understand ... or need to
I've been wholly consistent throughout ... from the first post when I said I would wait to see what this enquiry has before offering any conclusion myself ... there must be some rationale behind the decision to have one ... and I won't subscribe to the scapegoat reaction until I know the full facts ... why that cause such offence to a couple of you U don't fully understand ... or need to
You must log in or register to see media
Nope ... there were plenty of soldiers who did not shoot unarmed civilians ... I see nothing unpatriotic in establishing thee circumstances behind why one did ...
Would you reject the concept of a bad copper too? ... should we ignore their actions too because they wear a uniform and have a duty of care to the British public.
You are acting like I have already judged this soldier ... I certainly haven't... nor will I ahead of this enquiry ... which is happening whether anybody likes it or not ... not my fault that it is, I'd add.
Interestingly I spoke to my army pal earlier who is (surprisingly imo) torn on this.
Says although that he thinks it's incredibly unfair to scapegoat one soldier, he thinks it's important that we address these things as it can make things easier for future operations and gaining trust of the locals.
Says although that he thinks it's incredibly unfair to scapegoat one soldier, he thinks it's important that we address these things as it can make things easier for future operations and gaining trust of the locals.
Last edited: