Advanced search

to think the Daily Mail couldn't have got this more wrong?

(136 Posts)
bitemyshinymetalass Sat 30-Jul-16 09:42:21

A british soldier shot an unarmed man in the back 44 years ago, is now outraged that he may be prosecuted. The only outrage is that he wasn't prosecuted at the time.
Was the man responsible for other crimes, including killings? Probably. But that was for a judge and jury to decide, not for soldiers to take him out on the street.

acasualobserver Sat 30-Jul-16 09:58:10


bitemyshinymetalass Sat 30-Jul-16 10:39:51


Ekini Sat 30-Jul-16 10:41:25

I agree with you

ConfuciousSaysWhat Sat 30-Jul-16 10:53:29

I don't agree with soldiers being prosecuted for doing their job

ilovetoloveyoubaby Sat 30-Jul-16 11:01:21


You agree that a soldier can shoot an unarmed civilian?

My god, you're charming.

LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF Sat 30-Jul-16 11:10:08

I'm not convinced this is a case of a soldier 'doing his job'. I thought the aim was generally peace-keeping, not killing unarmed civilians?

StarryIllusion Sat 30-Jul-16 11:18:19

He wasn't a civilian, though was he? He was an IRA terrorist and didn't surrender. I agree with confucious, man was doing his job.

Emmaroos Sat 30-Jul-16 11:20:42

The DM don't believe soldiers in British uniforms are ever incapable of doing anything wrong, and they generally believe that only 'foreigners' should have to account for their actions.
If he's charged, a judge and jury will decide whether or not his actions were reasonable or not. What's tough on him is that there was a constant army brutality against the Catholic population at the time, so shooting an IRA suspect in cold blood was probably considered quite normal as a Para. Bloody Sunday was around the same time and there was no suggestion that the 14 people murdered there were IRA or were in any way armed or dangerous, but they were gunned down by soldiers anyway.
It's tough when a bit of time and distance shines a light on an action that doesn't seem so acceptable today, but it's equally tough on families who still grieve loved ones and they deserve to know that their husband/brother/son has had full justice. YANBU.

HarpyFishwifeTwat Sat 30-Jul-16 11:23:00

I have little sympathy for the death of an IRA terrorist (or any other terrorist). And what is it with the "peace process" that means murderers are being released all over the place but British soldiers are still being investigated? Either draw a line on all sides or continue to investigate and prosecute on all sides.

acasualobserver Sat 30-Jul-16 11:23:19

And the IRA was/is comprised of evil, murdering cunts. Anyway, this isn't the best time to be asking for sympathy for terrorists.

GruffaloPants Sat 30-Jul-16 11:26:13

You are right. Summary executions aren't "doing his job".

LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF Sat 30-Jul-16 11:28:16

I doubt he'll be prosecuted anyway. Not while the biggest terrorist of all time is walking free and enjoying the vast sums of cash he's made from making 'after-dinner speeches'.

Becky546 Sat 30-Jul-16 11:33:26

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LadyMaryofDownt0n Sat 30-Jul-16 11:33:53

One less IRA terrorist.. petty he didn't shoot more of them.

HoneyDragon Sat 30-Jul-16 11:36:59

It can be worded to suit like your op

Solider shoots man

Man shoots man

Solider shoots terrorist

Man shoots terrorist

LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF Sat 30-Jul-16 11:37:53

Because soldiers never kill unarmed civilians..... Read some descriptions of Kristallnacht during WW2 - was that 'doing their job' or an act of terrorism?

Samcro Sat 30-Jul-16 11:38:52

the man the blew up the grand hotel. killing innocent people and causing life changing injuries is let free....
yet a soldier could be prosecuted.
one rule for terrorist and one for soldiers it seems.

LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF Sat 30-Jul-16 11:40:57

But how does 'an eye for an eye' make it 'right'?

blinkowl Sat 30-Jul-16 11:45:12

YANBU. I see no one here who thinks this guy was "just doing his job" has addressed the point on Bloody Sunday.

If we allow the army to go round being judge, jury and executioner and gunning down unarmed civilians on the streets then innocent people will be shot dead.

It doesn't matter if the victim was guilty as hell. It's the principle - this was on the streets in the UK.

And how do we know innocent people will get shot too? Well beside the very real risk of mistaken identity, and of the falsely accused being shot (e.g. the Guildford Four - what would this gunman have done with them?) there's also the culture it built which led to soldiers taking it upon themselves to gun down innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.

Please think about this, if you're saying it's OK for them too shoot a known IRA member then you're also saying you condone innocent people to be shot down on UK streets, because that's this kind of murderous action has been proven to lead to.

Brandonstarkflakes Sat 30-Jul-16 11:46:56

The DM don't believe soldiers in British uniforms are ever incapable of doing anything wrong, and they generally believe that only 'foreigners' should have to account for their actions.


LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF Sat 30-Jul-16 11:48:01

blink Exactly.

Emmaroos Sat 30-Jul-16 11:49:08

@Samco: Because terrorists are murderous bastards doesn't give the military the right to shoot people in the back willy nilly. Soldiers are supposed to follow set rules of engagement. They know what they are. If they don't, no matter who the enemy is, there have to be consequences. It could one day be your child on a protest march who gets shot by a soldier who doesn't like her politics.
I'm not naive. I get that there are people in the SAS and SBS who do all sorts of unsavoury things (including executing IRA and other terrorists), but they are at least properly trained and even they act under clear instructions within defined parameters. Random soldiers with guns but a lot less training HAVE to know that there are consequences for not following protocols when they shoot people.
This isn't a discussion about whether the man was in the right or the wrong. but whether he should have to defend his actions in court if they were questionable. I think that's reasonable. If his actions were reasonable he'll be publicly acquitted.

misspym Sat 30-Jul-16 11:52:50

Civil rights - heard of them?

LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF Sat 30-Jul-16 11:54:08

Emma Yes. Regardless of if you are wearing uniform; if you take someone's life, you should be prepared to, at the very least, explain your actions in a court of law.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now