New Probe Launched Into All 302 Killings By British Servicemen In Northern Ireland.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4011758/Probe-launched-302-killings-British-troops-Northern-Ireland.html

We had a very interesting post earlier regarding the case of Royal Marine Sergeant Blackman and now we read of yet another witch hunt against members of our armed forces.

When will this type of thing stop, how far are they prepared to go back, will some 90 year olds be charged for offences against Nazi concentration guards?

[ichkeria]

Britain, of course, shot the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising, a miserable and unpopular act, thereby endowing it with a heroic and almost mythical status it did not deserve, inspiring an uprising, war, a Civil War, partition and decades more strife.
Luckily lessons WERE learned from that

"the alter of Liberal cobblers"

lol - priceless. Beware the Lib Dems - they are after your sole ....

[youngmafbog]

The chattering classes in their Islington coffe shops wont be happy until no one want to be in the Military.

Should be interesting when they have a terrorist at their door and there isn't another mug risking his life to save them and their peace porridge.

On a more serious note. I'd be reasonably happy with this if the 'other side' were also going to be arrested and charged too. And we all know where to start looking for them.

[jim360]

On a slightly different note, how was my first post not deleted on grounds of utter tastelessness and crudity?

[Ellipsis]

> I don't see why it's so offensive to want to ensure that British soldiers are held to account, where appropriate

Where appropriate ...

Is it appropriate or offensive to open enquiries into a) all 302 deaths and b) only those deaths? What message is that sending?

[jim360]

It seems to me that by definition we (as in, the British Army, British Legal system, etc etc) would only be enquiring into deaths that we (as in, British servicemen) are potentially responsible for, so I don't feel particularly offended by that principle. I did, however, leave the question of whether or not these particular deaths were appropriate to investigate open. My gut feeling is that it's probably better to be open in general, that British action in Northern Ireland was not always ... of the highest standards of decency, I'm going to say. But I can't see much gained by chasing individuals well into their 70s, or even older, for alleged crimes of 50-odd years ago.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, it's about the same way I feel about the continued effort to chase down 90-year-old Nazi soldiers. What's gained from that, either?

[andy-hughes]

jim360 - //At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, it's about the same way I feel about the continued effort to chase down 90-year-old Nazi soldiers. What's gained from that, either? //

An on-going issue with the military thinking in this country is the tendency to embark on something without thinking it through first - as can be seen fro the various recent conflicts.

The military rush in and get started without first having decided exactly what their objectives are, what is the potential cost in finances and lives, what is the clear outcome they are looking towards, and what is Plan B if it all goes pear-shaped?

Before embarking on this debacle, they would save vast amounts of time, effort, money and heartache for everyone involved if they decided what they actually wanted to achieve, what were the realistic chances of achieving it, and what is it going to cost in terms of money and trauma for all involved?

A little 'keyboard' analysis from me suggests that this is not going to turn out well, and it is definitely not going to achieve a meaningful result that justifies the time, money, effort and emotional damage that will be involved in something that is clearly ill-thought-out and not fit for purpose.

[TTG]

The terrorists always called themselves "soldiers" so it's a case of war casualties. The British soldiers don't have a case to answer to.

[andy-hughes]

The problem is, calling yourself a 'soldier' does not make you a soldier under the terms of Geneva Convention, to which the UK and its armed forces are bound.

It's not about what you call someone, or something - you can call an ass a horse, but it won't shorten its ears.

[Lonnie]

I don't often visit this site now, but saw your post aog, and felt I had to contribute, I'm nearly 70 now, did three tours of NI, 69, 73 and 75/76, during the 73 tour, my life was saved by a fellow soldier, who did it by shooting someone, he right now, is very worried, and of course, if he is investigated, then yours truly will also be called. we were relieved by 2nd Para (Bloody Sunday Paras). Wonder if Mcguiness etc will ever be investigated?.

[jno]

the terrorists may have called themselves soldiers but the British did not; it would have been tantamount to admitting they had a civil war on their hands.

[mushroom25]

//At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, it's about the same way I feel about the continued effort to chase down 90-year-old Nazi soldiers. What's gained from that, either?//

it depends what you mean by "soldier", and what they were alleged to have done. Heinz Guderian was one of the Wehrmacht's greatest strategists and developed the concept of "blitzkrieg" using amoured artillery. yet at the end of the war he was not brought before the court at Nuremberg because he was a professional soldier, and was adjudged to have been fulfilling that duty in a declared war situation.