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?

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

What's the difference between an enemy combatant not in uniform and a civilian ?

Perhaps you can provide links to the number of civillians killed by British Soldiers?

www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html#statusperpetrator
This is the most accurate stats I can find.

An enemy combatant not in uniform is not under the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

And therefore must be dealt with under national law. Tried for their crimes, not shot unarmed

An enemy combatant not in uniform is not under the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.

So how can you tell the difference between an enemy combatant not in uniform, and a civilian ?

Lurking I suppose if they have the face of an enemy combatant, and you recognise them from the wanted list in your barracks?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.

Do you have an actual point that you're trying to tease out of posters?
I suspect you do, so it's less mealy mouthed to just come out and say it rather than waiting for a big reveal moment.

So how can you tell the difference between an enemy combatant not in uniform, and a civilian ?

In this instance Joe McCann was known to the RUC & Army and they were in fact looking for him at that time.
He was known to be usually armed (although he wasn't that day) and was known to have used firearms on people in the past.

But you know that, so what is your actual point?

(Again, I will point out that I am not advocating his killing - whether or not the rules of engagement were abided by will be decided at the trial)

So how can you tell the difference between an enemy combatant not in uniform, and a civilian ?

^Do you have an actual point that you're trying to tease out of posters?
I suspect you do, so it's less mealy mouthed to just come out and say it rather than waiting for a big reveal moment.^

Lifes too short.

My "point" - if it can be described so grandly - was that at some level an "unarmed enemy combatant" is indistinguishable from a civilian.

Therefore, if your rules of engagement have been corrupted to allow the shooting of unarmed combatants, then ipso facto you are allowed to shoot civilians.

In this instance Joe McCann was known to the RUC & Army and they were in fact looking for him at that time.
He was known to be usually armed (although he wasn't that day) and was known to have used firearms on people in the past.

None of which amounts to permission for summary execution.

(Again, I will point out that I am not advocating his killing - whether or not the rules of engagement were abided by will be decided at the trial)

I agree that putting the facts to a trial is the right and proper thing to do. It's what trials are for. If UK soldiers don't like the idea they can be held to account for their actions, they should go and defend countries that aren't so fussy about law and order.

My concerns would be shifting goalposts ... any trial needs to be fully aware of the situation as it was in 1972 - and not view it through the prism of today.

Therefore, if your rules of engagement have been corrupted to allow the shooting of unarmed combatants, then ipso facto you are allowed to shoot civilians.

No need for p/a crossings out.
The rules of engagement are very clear & legally binding - no corruption.
You are not allowed to fire unless the conditions are met. Ever.

None of which amounts to permission for summary execution.

Execution is not permitted within the laws the British Armed Forces are bound by.
This is for the court to decide.

If UK soldiers don't like the idea they can be held to account for their actions, they should go and defend countries that aren't so fussy about law and order.

All personnel in the British Armed Forces have the fact that they are legally accountable for their actions drummed into them repeatedly, every year at minimum & again prior to being armed at any point at home or abroad.

Regardless of what country they are in they are bound by the international laws & Geneva Convention as well as British law - it makes no difference whatsoever if the country they are in is 'fussy about law & order'.

And (obviously) the individual soldiers, sailors & airmen have no choice about where they are sent.

My concerns would be shifting goalposts ... any trial needs to be fully aware of the situation as it was in 1972 - and not view it through the prism of today.

The soldier will be held to account IAW the rules of engagement as they were at that time, in that location.
(There are subtle differences even now depending on if you are armed in Scotland or in England/Wales, due to differences in law between the two countries).

(Again, I will point out that I am not advocating his killing - whether or not the rules of engagement were abided by will be decided at the trial)

It has already been decided. Which you refuse to acknowledge.

And could you stop calling someone a mass murderer without any proof at all? If you're so keen on things being decided at a trial, why do you not think McCann should have got one instead of being executed in public?

I called your comment re the soldier being a "terrorist" guilty of the "mass murderer of innocent people" exaggeration & hyperbole - which it was

That is irony, from the person who started the hyperbole and exaggeration!

It has already been decided. Which you refuse to acknowledge.

When?
Has the trial happened already?
That was quick.
So the soldier was found 'not guilty' then?

And could you stop calling someone a mass murderer without any proof at all?

I said that once, in my first post of many on this thread - have not done it since 

If you're so keen on things being decided at a trial, why do you not think McCann should have got one instead of being executed in public?

Have never once said this, so why you are convinced that I 'think' this is beyond me.

Of course the Daily Mail have got it wrong.

They think we should all have been grateful to have the British army come over to intimidate and murder us and collude in the sectarian violence meted out by the police and the sectarian militias.

When?Has the trial happened already?That was quick. So the soldier was found 'not guilty' then?

Clearly haven'tbothered to read the thread. There was full enquiry, which made the determination of unjustified killing. Why do you think they are talking about a criminal trial at all? Do keep up!

I said that once, in my first post of many on this thread - have not done it since

And neither did you take it back or apologise for the statement.

I don't believe you are as obtuse as you pretend, that you actually think your opinion has to be gathered from direct quotes only. You're not that thick, why pretend to be?

Sigh.

Again, whatevs.

I have repeatedly stated that it is right for Service Personnel to be held to account for their actions; that it is right for the British Armed Forces to be held to a higher standard than civilians; that if this soldier had indeed acted outwith the Rules of Engagement in place at that time then he should be dealt with appropriately.

But just carry on with your own interpretation of my words, it obviously pleases you to do so.

You have repeatedly said a lot of things, however you haven't answered any questions nor responded properly when challenged.
Whatevs is not appropriate for a serious discussion like this, have some respect.

When you engage me with serious discussion, I will respond in kind.
When you rely on nothing more than pithy put-downs, I will respond with 'whatevs'.

Respect works both ways btw.

Points on this thread:

Bloody Sunday: not comparable to this particular incident.
Civilians murdered, soldiers involved lied & covered up for years.
Reprehensible & disgusting atrocity.

Nelson Mandela: served 27 years in prison.
He came out and pursued democratic resolution to end apartheid.
Any & all crimes he committed were therefore 'paid for' by his time in prison.

Joe McCann: has been found to be unlawful killing, yet to be decided in criminal proceedings whether the soldier acted wilfully outwith his Rules of Engagement.
Will be (rightfully) punished if found guilty.

Wrt a dead terrorist, I (personally) do not shed a tear - as has been said by a PP, 'you live by the sword, you die by the sword' - he was not an innocent civilian and (as with gang members etc) knew the risks he was taking with his life when he made the choice to first pull a trigger or cause injury or death to another.
That said, it is absolutely not right or defensible that a single soldier should play judge, jury & executioner - there are laws and conventions that all service people must act within; to do otherwise is unlawful & they all know this, right from their basic training.

Nelson Mandela: served 27 years in prison.
He came out and pursued democratic resolution to end apartheid.

of course Sinn Fein were always engaged in the democratic process anyway. And eventually the provisional IRA followed the IRA in concluding there was no possibility of a military victory, and put their efforts into engaging with the British government - who only took a tiny bit of persuading .

Now personally, I am of the belief that the British government was quite happy to let the IRA slaughter British citizens - after all each outrage just added to the "terrorist scum" narrative and (conveniently) obscured any talk of why there was this conflict. (When I shared with an Irish guy at Uni, his visiting friends were amazed but unsusprised at how willingly ignorant Brits were of the reasons they were being bombed). But it's telling that as soon as the IRA made a strategic shift from civilian to financial targets (Canary Wharf 1996) then two years later we have the Good Friday Agreement. But somehow the Daily Mail doesn't agree.

Nelson Mandela: served 27 years in prison.He came out and pursued democratic resolution to end apartheid

As did many people convicted of crimes in Northern Ireland. But the man we are talking about couldn't do that, because he was killed by a soldier. Which you very much appeared to defend in your earlier posts.

That said, it is absolutely not right or defensible that a single soldier should play judge, jury & executioner - there are laws and conventions that all service people must act within; to do otherwise is unlawful & they all know this, right from their basic training

It wasn't a single soldier, it was a whole group of them, all firing close range at one unarmed individual. As was Bloody Sunday, which IS of course releveant to this discussion, its ridiculous to suggest otherwise. There were MANY instances of British soldiers who broke those laws and conventions, over many years. There was n ingrained culture of it in Northern Ireland.
The British Army killed more civilians in Northern Ireland than they killed paramilitaries. Was that in their basic training?

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... the British Army carried out some terrible attorcities in the North. Bloody Sunday! It was a war... the Brits were as bad as the IRA. He was wrong to have killed an unarmed soldier

Which you very much appeared to defend in your earlier posts.

Where?

I tried to do as you requested and address the points & challenges made on the thread (even though they weren't directed toward me in the first place, you decided that I had dodged answering).

Again you respond with inventing things I haven't said.
As I said before, respect works both ways - as you apparently find it impossible to reciprocate then I really can't be arsed to carry on tbh.

You do know that its all there to read? It hasn't disappeared. stop pretending.

Your first post 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

Thats not defending the killing? Because it very much looks like it. I expect you will deny but it just makes you looks disingenuos and rather ignorant.

It's really very tedious when every attempt to engage is met by twattishness tbh.

I'm neither disingenuous nor ignorant, disrespectful, obtuse, thick, 'making up things to support my uninformed opinion', think people should be summarily executed in the street, or a hypocrite.