Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

135 replies

bitemyshinymetalass · 30/07/2016 09:42

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
bitemyshinymetalass · 01/08/2016 11:08

Oh, and for those asking, it's already been judged by the historical enquiries unit of the PSNI, the report stated: "The HET considers that Joe's actions did not amount to the level of specific threat which could have justified the soldiers opening fire in accordance with the Army Rules of Engagement or their standard operating procedures.", and concluded the killing was unjustified.

OP posts:
MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 12:07

But you don't think ALL lives lost was tragic and sad at all, as you've said. You think SOME of the lives lost was tragic and sad, and you think other people should be summarily executed in the street.
It's not irony, its you being a hypocrite who doesn't understand the situation.

What utter, made up bollocks OP.

Please do feel free to quote my posts where I have said any of what you e just attributed to me.

If you want to be taken even halfway seriously then it is prudent not to rely on fiction to make a point.

Original poster
bitemyshinymetalass · 01/08/2016 12:16

It's all there in your posts, so don't come that.

You don't understand it all, you said

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

A british soldier DID shoot an unarmed man in the back. That is what happened. He wasn't convicted of anything, he certainly wasn't a "mass murderer". You accuse ME of making up fiction when you assert these things with no proof or basis?

The enquiry said it was unjustified and did not warrant the action. Yet you think you know better? You know nothing, and you are making up things to support your uninformed opinion.

OP posts:
MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 12:22

It's all there in your posts, so don't come that.

Again, feel free to quote exactly where I said any of the following:

But you don't think ALL lives lost was tragic and sad at all, as you've said.

You think SOME of the lives lost was tragic and sad, and you think other people should be summarily executed in the street.

Original poster
bitemyshinymetalass · 01/08/2016 12:24

You can obfuscate all you like but your meaning is clear. Now, are you going to actually contribute to the discussion or just complain about your lack of knowledge being highlighted?

OP posts:
MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 12:25

I have direct experience of being armed & bound by the rules of engagement.

I have repeatedly asserted (as have others) that if it is found that this soldier acted outwith the rules of engagement applicable at that time then he should face the consequences.

I have repeatedly stated (as have others) that service personnel should be held to higher standards.

I have at no point said:

"people should be summarily executed in the street".

MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 12:26

You can obfuscate all you like but your meaning is clear. Now, are you going to actually contribute to the discussion or just complain about your lack of knowledge being highlighted?

Hmm Whatevs hun.
Original poster
bitemyshinymetalass · 01/08/2016 12:27

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

That seems to be justification enough. Don't insult us both by pretending you meant differently.

OP posts:
Original poster
bitemyshinymetalass · 01/08/2016 12:28

Whatevs hun

I guess thats a NO to a useful contribution then?

OP posts:
Mycatsabastard · 01/08/2016 12:47

How can you say it wasn't a war? It wasn't just 'troubles' was it? There were men and women pulled from their houses by the IRA and murdered for being on the wrong side. There were taxi drivers lured to their deaths for being Catholic by the other side. There were bombs planted and detonated both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland. Hundreds were murdered by both sides.

I don't think that prosecuting this soldier is in anyone's best interests so long after the fact. He was a terrorist. The solider concerned was in a very volatile situation and acted at the time in the way he thought best.

Comparing this to Bloody Sunday (completely different event) is not helpful.

And your posts are coming across at the very least as pro-IRA and as a sympathiser. The whole war/troubles/conflict was devastating to everyone involved and I doubt that the many, many people who lost family or friends in IRA attacks will have any sympathy for this man who was shot.

Waltermittythesequel · 01/08/2016 12:59

The solider concerned is just as much a terrorist if your definition is the mass murder of innocent people.

If you shoot unarmed people in the back in an occupied country, then soldier or not you're not fit to 'protect and serve' anyone.

I'm sure there are people on this thread who think the comparisons to Mandela are shocking and disgraceful. But you would do well to remember that there are posters here whose relatives where terrorised by British soldiers for absolutely nothing.

I had an aunt (hope this doesn't out me) who was viciously attacked by a group of them and that is one example of literally thousands you could hear about their behaviour in the north.

Yes, there were plenty of murdering scum up there during the troubles. And plenty of them wore your uniform.

Gottagetmoving · 01/08/2016 13:11

I agree with everything you have said bitemyshinymetalass

It's up to a court to decide having heard all the evidence and if there is a case to be heard, the soldier should be tried. Soldiers are trained but have to be accountable like every one else.
Just because you put on a uniform it does not mean you can make your own rules and shock/horror, not all soldiers are honourable heroes.

If the man stands trial and is cleared on the evidence then that's fine.

sashh · 01/08/2016 13:19

McCann was unarmed and running away from soldiers, when they chased him down and shot him ten times at close range.

But were the soldiers ordered to do that?

If a soldier or soldiers is ordered to do something then at least some of the blame is with the person who ordered it.

If the order is accompanied by a belief the person running is going to endanger the public that is also a factor.

I am not saying you are wrong OP just that there needs to be more information. From my understanding the soldier who may be charged is one of the few who have cooperated with the previous inquiry, those that did not may be forced to give evidence if this goes to trial.

Brandnewiggi · 01/08/2016 14:19

Did he sneak up behind him and shoot him in the back, or did he ask him to stop or he'd shoot?
I do not think soldiers should have the right to shoot people not posing a direct threat, though it is certainly harder to be that bothered when it's a known murdering scumbag.
However I'm not sure why it's ok to rake this up when any terrorists are unable to be convicted and/or are released from prison.

MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 14:29

The solider concerned is just as much a terrorist if your definition is the mass murder of innocent people.

This soldier murdered countless innocent people?
Really?
Evidence? Sources?

Or is that just another baseless comment?

Waltermittythesequel · 01/08/2016 14:45

Your government did a wonderful job covering up just what those soldiers got up to, don't worry.

But if you really think that there is evidence and documentation of the behaviour of every soldier during every campaign they've ever fought well, we'll call you naive because anything else will get me reported.

MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 14:59

I didn't once suggest that all service personnel were beyond reproach, I didn't ever even imply that there haven't been (and aren't) certain elements that behave disgustingly and break the law.

Those people should be punished of course - I have consistently said that throughout the thread.

What is not acceptable though is to tar all service personnel with the actions of a few.

Is that soldier a mass murderer?
Did he kill countless innocent people?
That's what you said - is it true?
If so, how do you know it to be true?

I'm not naive (or anything else for that matter) because I recognise hyperbole & gross exaggeration.

Waltermittythesequel · 01/08/2016 15:19

The man he shot was unarmed.

And he was shot in the back, running away.

That is indefensible. So forgive me for thinking this solider was another whose behaviour was horrid and typical.

I'm actually not arguing this with you. Because you're a typical English person refusing to acknowledge the very real torture Irish people suffered at the hands of your army.

To call it exaggeration and hyperbole is an insult to the victims of that.

mynamesnotMa · 01/08/2016 15:29

Perhaps you should all read a bit of Irish history to understand a bit more about the years of prosecution suffered by Irish Catholics in THEIR OWN country.

The Black and Tans especially were a regiment encouraged to use any means of force deemed necessary.

The idea that ANY army is beyond reproach really is dangerously naive.

Brandnewiggi · 01/08/2016 15:38

Please do not link all Irish Catholics with the actions of terrorists. It is not at all the case that all Catholics in NI thought the IRA were doing a great job.
I don't think anyone has answered the point about terrorists being released/granted immunity for crimes committed during this time.

cdtaylornats · 01/08/2016 15:46

You know what happens to enemy combatants who are not in uniform ?

They get shot.

MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 15:48

I'm actually not arguing this with you. Because you're a typical English person refusing to acknowledge the very real torture Irish people suffered at the hands of your army.

I have done nothing of the sort.
You are making things up to suit your own agenda.

To call it exaggeration and hyperbole is an insult to the victims of that.

I called your comment re the soldier being a "terrorist" guilty of the "mass murderer of innocent people" exaggeration & hyperbole - which it was.
Again, stop making up or deliberately misquoting my words to suit your own agenda.

Waltermittythesequel · 01/08/2016 15:50

No, it wasn't.

Do you have any idea of the amount of people who were killed in the north by British soldiers?

MangoMoon · 01/08/2016 16:17

What does that have to do with your assertion that this particular soldier is a mass murderer of innocent people & a terrorist?

Swipe left for the next trending thread