SAS use of force in killing of IRA men 'not justified'. WTF?
Discussion
So, we were at war with the IRA. Four of their self-confessed volunteers had just attacked a police station with a machine gun welded to the back of a lorry. They escape to a car park where the SAS are waiting for them and are shot. Act of war.
https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2025-02-06/sas-ira-ki...
It disgusts me when our establishment do not support our armed forces in a time of conflict. Outrageous.
https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2025-02-06/sas-ira-ki...
It disgusts me when our establishment do not support our armed forces in a time of conflict. Outrageous.
Derek Smith said:
It was a civil war in all but acknowledgement by the UK government. The PIRA called it a war. I mean, they should know.
The PIRA tried to main and kill members of the UK government and the ruling party. An act of war?
A bunch of terrorists who tried to glorify the killing and maming of innocent people by calling it a "war". Also aimed at getting them political status when they were caught and jailed.The PIRA tried to main and kill members of the UK government and the ruling party. An act of war?
I get that some of the SAS counter IRA ops were a bit...borderline. It also seems that the SAS bods may have told a few porkies about what actually happened.
But four guys manning a heavy machine gun? Which they'd just demonstrated they were perfectly willing to fire at people. Come on now.
But four guys manning a heavy machine gun? Which they'd just demonstrated they were perfectly willing to fire at people. Come on now.
The coroner's conclusion is reasonable. The problem goes back to the time of the shooting. There was a lack of candour from the "establishment". The legal rules of engagement weren't the same as the rules of engagement that were actually being used. If you ask a court to judge some of the Army's actions by the legal rules of engagement, obviously they're going to decide some of these actions were not justified.
If you're going to try to kill civilians citizens of your own country rather than arrest them at a time when they are not posing an immediate risk, you'd better have legal cover for your actions. The government failed to provide that legal cover and members of the Army therefore were given and accepted illegal orders. It's rather telling that official descriptions of these incidents were riddled with lies. That deliberate bulls
tting would not have been necessary if the legal basis for the actions had been sound. For example, the official claim was that these four men had been killed after a fire fight. In fact they didn't get off a single shot.
It would be good if we'd finally be a bit more frank about these sort of fk ups. It doesn't have to involve blaming individual squaddies, nor does it have to lionise the PIRA's idiotic and murderous volunteers, not make them into martyrs.
If you're going to try to kill civilians citizens of your own country rather than arrest them at a time when they are not posing an immediate risk, you'd better have legal cover for your actions. The government failed to provide that legal cover and members of the Army therefore were given and accepted illegal orders. It's rather telling that official descriptions of these incidents were riddled with lies. That deliberate bulls
tting would not have been necessary if the legal basis for the actions had been sound. For example, the official claim was that these four men had been killed after a fire fight. In fact they didn't get off a single shot.It would be good if we'd finally be a bit more frank about these sort of f
k ups. It doesn't have to involve blaming individual squaddies, nor does it have to lionise the PIRA's idiotic and murderous volunteers, not make them into martyrs.ATG said:
The coroner's conclusion is reasonable. The problem goes back to the time of the shooting. There was a lack of candour from the "establishment". The legal rules of engagement weren't the same as the rules of engagement that were actually being used. If you ask a court to judge some of the Army's actions by the legal rules of engagement, obviously they're going to decide some of these actions were not justified.
If you're going to try to kill civilians citizens of your own country rather than arrest them at a time when they are not posing an immediate risk, you'd better have legal cover for your actions. The government failed to provide that legal cover and members of the Army therefore were given and accepted illegal orders. It's rather telling that official descriptions of these incidents were riddled with lies. That deliberate bullstting would not have been necessary if the legal basis for the actions had been sound. For example, the official claim was that these four men had been killed after a fire fight. In fact they didn't get off a single shot.
It would be good if we'd finally be a bit more frank about these sort of fk ups. It doesn't have to involve blaming individual squaddies, nor does it have to lionise the PIRA's idiotic and murderous volunteers, not make them into martyrs.
Good, thoughtful post. Kudos. If you're going to try to kill civilians citizens of your own country rather than arrest them at a time when they are not posing an immediate risk, you'd better have legal cover for your actions. The government failed to provide that legal cover and members of the Army therefore were given and accepted illegal orders. It's rather telling that official descriptions of these incidents were riddled with lies. That deliberate bulls
tting would not have been necessary if the legal basis for the actions had been sound. For example, the official claim was that these four men had been killed after a fire fight. In fact they didn't get off a single shot.It would be good if we'd finally be a bit more frank about these sort of f
k ups. It doesn't have to involve blaming individual squaddies, nor does it have to lionise the PIRA's idiotic and murderous volunteers, not make them into martyrs.biggbn said:
ATG said:
The coroner's conclusion is reasonable. The problem goes back to the time of the shooting. There was a lack of candour from the "establishment". The legal rules of engagement weren't the same as the rules of engagement that were actually being used. If you ask a court to judge some of the Army's actions by the legal rules of engagement, obviously they're going to decide some of these actions were not justified.
If you're going to try to kill civilians citizens of your own country rather than arrest them at a time when they are not posing an immediate risk, you'd better have legal cover for your actions. The government failed to provide that legal cover and members of the Army therefore were given and accepted illegal orders. It's rather telling that official descriptions of these incidents were riddled with lies. That deliberate bullstting would not have been necessary if the legal basis for the actions had been sound. For example, the official claim was that these four men had been killed after a fire fight. In fact they didn't get off a single shot.
It would be good if we'd finally be a bit more frank about these sort of fk ups. It doesn't have to involve blaming individual squaddies, nor does it have to lionise the PIRA's idiotic and murderous volunteers, not make them into martyrs.
Good, thoughtful post. Kudos. If you're going to try to kill civilians citizens of your own country rather than arrest them at a time when they are not posing an immediate risk, you'd better have legal cover for your actions. The government failed to provide that legal cover and members of the Army therefore were given and accepted illegal orders. It's rather telling that official descriptions of these incidents were riddled with lies. That deliberate bulls
tting would not have been necessary if the legal basis for the actions had been sound. For example, the official claim was that these four men had been killed after a fire fight. In fact they didn't get off a single shot.It would be good if we'd finally be a bit more frank about these sort of f
k ups. It doesn't have to involve blaming individual squaddies, nor does it have to lionise the PIRA's idiotic and murderous volunteers, not make them into martyrs.They needed to enact rule 7.62
Forum | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff