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?

Mango there really is no point engaging.

But you haven't attempted to engage. You've made things up off the top of our head "mass murdering terrorist" for example, then denied it, then said you onl said it once, refused to answer questions, decided all points were irrelevant, and then spent many posts complaining about being held to account for the opinions you gave.

Try actually giving a REAL opinion, informed by fact. This has already been deemed an unjustified killing, so should it go to trial? Try that one for a start.

your

Your attempts at "engaging" seem to be to deny you ever said anything at all and then whine about being told you said them.
I agree, there is little point in your posts. But prove me wrong, give us an actual thought and stick by it?

Try actually giving a REAL opinion, informed by fact.

I have. Constantly.

Fact: an armed service person must only fire their weapon if the Rules of Engagement are met.
If it is found that they acted outwith them they will be found guilty (of murder if a person was killed as a result).

This has already been deemed an unjustified killing, so should it go to trial? Try that one for a start.

My posts throughout this thread have directly answered that:

31/7 @ 14:56
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.

31/7 @ 18:35
Soldiers acting outwith their rules of engagement is wrong whomever is shot.

31/7 @ 19:13
As has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread there are rules of engagement that an armed service person has to abide by, by law.

1/8 @ 12:25
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.

1/8 @ 14:59
Those people should be punished of course - I have consistently said that throughout the thread.

Yesterday @ 09:27
(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)

Yesterday @ 10:45
The rules of engagement are very clear & legally binding - no corruption.
You are not allowed to fire unless the conditions are met. Ever.

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

Regardless of what country they are in they are bound by the international laws & Geneva Convention as well as British law

The soldier will be held to account IAW the rules of engagement as they were at that time, in that location.

Yesterday @ 12:11
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.

Yesterday @ 14:19
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.

t 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

Your attempts at "engaging" seem to be to deny you ever said anything at all and then whine about being told you said them.
I agree, there is little point in your posts. But prove me wrong, give us an actual thought and stick by it?

Right so how does:
"Fact: an armed service person must only fire their weapon if the Rules of Engagement are met. If it is found that they acted outwith them they will be found guilty (of murder if a person was killed as a result

Match up with:

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

You don't see that as at all contradictory?

There is no inherent contradiction. An action can still be wrong even if the consequences of the action may have been positive "the ends don't justify the means".
Think of the moral philosophy debate on whether it would be right to travel back in time and kill Hitler as a baby.

You don't see that as at all contradictory?

No.
Basically as Iggi said - the fact is the fact, if the soldier is found to be guilty then he has to face the consequences.

Whatever I think may or may not have happened had Joe McCann not been shot & killed on that day is nothing more than an opinion - an opinion or thought that is entirely mine, based on the information publicly available about his life & actions leading up to the point of his death, and which I stand by.

Whether or not he was shot IAW the soldier's rules of engagement is a completely different thing and is immovable fact.

I fully believe that all members of the armed forces should be accountable for their actions on or off duty, armed or unarmed, I have maintained this throughout the thread.

On Mango's side here :)