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

[bitemyshinymetalass]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715451/A-bloody-outrage-decorated-Para-facing-prosecution-44-years-shooting-dead-IRA-killer-blood-soaked-men-terror-know-ll-never-face-justice-thanks-Blair-s-squalid-peace-deal.html

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.
Aibu?

Agree with OP.

One of the first things I thought when I received the news of -wonders whether to date mention it- Brexit was whether it could damage or undo the peace process in Ireland.

Lorelei. They have. Twice. Once when it happened and again in 2009/2010

If you prosecute every soldier or police officer who takes a life under orders you'll find no one will sign up to protect us.

"under orders" didn't stand at Nuremburg though did it?

He killed an unarmed man, who was suspected ( and still is) of committing terrorist acts, he was never convicted.

Like the dig at Tony Blair in there too.

I believe if you're considering prosecuting soldiers of the British Army, you should be considering prosecuting terrorists of the IRA. And considering they aren't doing the latter, they shouldn't be doing the former.

But we have prosecuted several IRA terrorists and imprisoned them. We can't decide that if they break the law they go to prison, but if it's our side breaking the law we'll ignore it.

There is another context... the IRA etc who were given letters of absolution and cannot be prosecuted for the murders they committed.

I would imagine that the soldiers serving at the time find that disgusting and abhorrent too, let alone the families of the people who were killed.

The whole idea of the peace talks was to draw a line under what happened, no matter how abhorrent that seemed then or seems now. It was supposed to be over... for all concerned.

So why threaten a soldier with prosecution whilst protecting the rights of others not to be prosecuted?

Becky456 put it beautifully. Exactly that.

As an ex soldier, I can tell you that the para would have been given a set of yellow card rules that he was supposed to follow strictly. The rules were simple and essentially boil down to don't shoot unless your life or the life of your colleagues is in danger and even then you have to warn them in case they feel like surrendering. When I got a copy of those rules I was also told it's better to be tried by 12 of your peers than carried by six of your comrades.

I've always held an unusual point of view with regard to the this sort of incident in that, you were trained, lectured and briefed on doing the right thing and if you choose to do the wrong thing then you face the consequences. Regardless of the fact that the enemy don't follow the rules because we're the good guys. We need to act like the good guys because acting like the bad guys means that we hold no legitimacy in our actions.

I don't know if this para will face trial. If he does and he didn't break the rules then I am more than happy for him to walk free and congratulate him on a job well done. If he shot an unarmed enemy combatant in the back then what's the difference between him and the IRA shooting an unarmed soldier? Do we really want to be at the same moral level as the IRA?

Op Yabu so very much. This is disgusting and deplorable. The government and people like you need to think more highly of our forces and veterans. He would not have shot him for no reason, that's bollocks.

It was a war. The government may have chosen to call it 'the troubles' but it was a WAR ffs.

Op Yabu so very much. This is disgusting and deplorable. The government and people like you need to think more highly of our forces and veterans. He would not have shot him for no reason, that's bollocks.

Why? Some of our forces and veterans are total dickheads. Don't be fooled into thinking they're all angels.

Equally though, OP - don't believe everything you read in the media. They can only ever tell you half the story.

For example, if the true facts about Marine A/Alexander Blackman had been publicised, I'd wager far fewer people would be campaigning for his release.

In short.... Don't believe everything you read and remember.... You weren't there.

I say all this as the wife of someone who served over 20 years in the Royal Military Police and saw the best... and worst.... of The Army during his time.

It was a war. The government may have chosen to call it 'the troubles' but it was a WAR ffs.

One of the first rules of war is about not killing unarmed combatants.

Travelling- brilliant brilliant post

@travellinglighter: I agree wholeheartedly. The one thing that redeems the comment section in the DM when these cases come up is that it's usually soldiers standing against the lack of objectivity and them and us mentality of most of the comments.
It's right and proper that our military should be held to higher standards than terrorists.
I have a personal theory that the experience of how much was done wrong in the 60's and 70's in Northern Ireland played a huge part in the difference between the approaches taken by American and UK soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo being prime examples. You cannot treat a civilian population like terrorists without creating more terrorists. Even when terrorists are caught they deserve the due process of the law.

Read some descriptions of Kristallnacht during WW2 - was that 'doing their job' or an act of terrorism?

Meaningless gibberish. Please check your facts before posting

Then support the people that kept your families safe at that time

They didn't keep my family safe. They were shooting at my family at that time. British soldiers shot unarmed civilians in the back, teenagers running away from them, completely unarmed civilians.

The government and people like you need to think more highly of our forces and veterans. He would not have shot him for no reason, that's bollocks

Have you never heard of Bloody Sunday? Soldiers shot unarmed teenagers in the face, deliberately aiming at them knowign they were not armed. Why should I think highly of murderers? Why do you?

Good points Bitemy, the mail ( and others on here) want the unwavering support of "our troops" at all times, when it isn't always justified.

YABU to say 'British soldier shot unarmed man in the back' - the accurate depiction is:
'British soldier on duty in active hostile environment shoots mass murdering terrorist, when terrorist does not stop following repeated verbal & fired warnings to do so'.

As a PP said you are bound by 'rules of engagement' when you are armed.
These can change depending on where you are serving and the job you are doing at the time.
If the soldier abided by his rules of engagement then he should be cleared of all charges, if he didn't then he is in the wrong.

Yes, service personnel should be held to the highest standards at all times, more so when armed.
I am, however, convinced that countless people are alive today that wouldn't have been if the murdering scumbag had not been killed when he was.

I'm sorry but I can't shed any tears for the death of an IRA member. It's a shame more weren't taken out - the fewer polluting this planet the better.

Remember that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose
(Janis Joplin)

"support the people that kept your families safe at that time."

I'm not sure the families of the innocent people shot dead on Bloody Sunday would feel that the soldiers were keeping their families safe, what do you think?

Soldiers must be held to higher standards than terrorists else what's the point?

Thank you travellinglighter for saying what I think and having the experience that gives those words much more authority than I could ever have.

I wonder if you'd think the same if a British solider shot dead a member of ISIS.

I'm not going to get worked up over one less IRA terrorist.

I wonder if you'd think the same if a British solider shot dead a member of ISIS.

It would depend on whether that person was an imminent threat.