Northern Ireland Thread

Wibble said:
Sorry misread your post.
Click to expand...

Phew, I've read it about 35 times now just to make sure I typed it correctly. It's a terrible post in fairness. It's the excesive use of both 'lack' and 'more' essentially rendering each other pointless that confuses. Time for sleep.
 
This is lifted from SAS: The Soldiers Story

Quite an interesting read on their involvement in NI.

http://www.sasspecialairservice.com/sas-northern-ireland-ira.html

Here is one of their accounts of what happened to the Corporals:

It was just after the business in Gibraltar and these two signallers, Corporal Derek Woods and Corporal Robert Howes, based at NI headquarters, strayed into the funeral procession in Belfast. Woods was a specialist and the other guy was his relief. Woods was due to leave in a few days and he was showing the other chap around these locations. They just ended up being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They should never, never, never have been anywhere near that bloody funeral. The RUC and the military had pulled back, allowing the mourners to have their procession. It was policed by their own people, the official IRA. They had their own stewards. They had put up their own road blocks and closed off roads.

I was in an RUC station with a patrol from the regiment. We had unmarked cars, quite a bit away from the funeral. The first we knew was at the same time as the rest of the world — the news flashes on TV.
‘fecking hell,’ I said. ‘Is that one of ours?’
We were trying to account for ourselves, looking at the car, checking the number plate, and realized it wasn’t one of ours. At first, like everyone else, we thought it was a Loyalist hit team that had gone in to do a job and fecked up. But because streets had been closed off, the guys had ended up going down a couple of streets they didn’t know. They got spooked and panicked and suddenly reversed into that funeral procession. They were blocked in by black taxis. Because they hadn’t been trained and were slow to react, they allowed themselves to get boxed in. Had they been trained, they could perhaps have got out by ramming the taxis.
One of the guys drew a pistol and fired in the air. That again showed lack of confidence, lack of training. By that stage, surely, the game was up. When you are confronted by an angry mob like that, they are going to rip you to pieces. If you’re going to draw a weapon, then bloody well use it, because the moment they fired in the air, they got leapt on. Had they fired and shot somebody, they might even have been able to shoot themselves out of it, although I doubt it because they did not handle the situation well enough. Lack of training: nothing more.

I’m sure that if those two soldiers in that car had been SAS, things would have been very different. In fact, it would never have happened because we would never have allowed ourselves to get into that situation. But just imagining the impossible, that we had found ourselves cornered by a rioting mob, then the streets would have been flowing with blood. For a start, we would have been armed to the teeth, including automatic weapons. Had they come at me, and it was clear that they were going to kill us, I would have issued the correct warning and then opened fire. The world would not have liked it, but I would have been covered legally. Do you honestly think I would stand there, knowing that I was going to be ripped to pieces, limb from limb? Have you ever had a rioting crowd coming at you? It is horrific. It is terrifying. It is very, very frightening.

The signallers ended up being dragged from the car by the mob, then they were dragged through the gates that led to a park. An army patrol got to the waste ground at the back of the shops in the Falls Road within minutes, but it was after the two guys had been shot. We got back to our hangar still thinking, What the fecking hell’s going on? It was quickly established that it was two signallers who had been murdered. We were very upset about it.
Next morning we were buzzed to assemble in the meeting room. All the troop were there. None of us knew what was going to happen, then an Int. officer appeared and told us that the helicopter had videoed the whole thing. I think that the pilot, the cameraman and all those involved, and the people getting the live broadcast at Group, were severely reprimanded because surely the helicopter should have come down and buzzed but it just stood there monitoring. We were all slightly pissed off about that.
The officer warned us that the video was dreadful and that he was going to show it to us there and then. We needed to know what had happened because we were going to have to mount a major operation to bring those people to justice. You could have heard a pin drop in that briefing room. It was horrible. We had to sit and watch while the soldiers were beaten unconscious, thrown over a fence and bundled into a taxi, which drove to some nearby waste ground. Then they were shot, repeatedly.
After seeing the video, we were absolutely dumbfounded, mortified, outraged. I personally felt physically sick. No one spoke. We were just so horror-struck. It was obvious that we had to bring these people to justice. We were the SAS. Yet none of us took the law into our own hands. None of us went out and took any retaliation or retribution. None of us. That’s part of the training of the regiment and the calibre of the regiment and the professionalism of the regiment. We are not above the law.

We continued normal ops, and a long-drawn-out operation was mounted. People were identified. One of the guys, the one who smashed the soldiers’ car window, was an OTR [on the run], and eventually all the people guilty of murdering those two young lads were brought to justice.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
I've never read that account or anything like it before. It's enough for me to suggest it's the truth.

What is a signaller, just out of interest?
Click to expand...

They handle communications.

The bit about not operating outside of the law is quite important. The SAS are highly trained soldiers and do not operate on their own. There was a separate unit that I can't recall the name of who did undercover infiltration stuff that might have done stuff like that, I think they were civilian police though.
 
Maybe for the best that they had no training. A blood bath at the hands of 2 Brits at a republican funeral may not have gone down too well either.
 
TheReligion said:
Try telling that to their families
Click to expand...

Try looking at it from both sides. It was a terrible thing, but if they were fully armed SAS soldiers and blasted their way out of an angry pack of people who were attending a funeral the outcome would have been about a million times worse.

As it was 2 men with a high risk factor job lost their lives.
 
He actually says it wouldn't have happened at all with training, that whole section of gore is for effect.

edit - That's fairly cold and insensitive Randall
 
You have to take into account the context of the time though. Mairéad Farrell, Danny McCann and Seán Savage being murdered by the SAS angered the wider nationalist community and not just militant republicans. Then when Michael Stone attacked the funeral a few days later many, many people believed (and still do) that he was helped to do so by the security forces.

At Caoimhín Mac Brádaighs funeral the two soldiers that drove into the mix did so at the worst time imaginable. Alec Reid put it well when he said the tension was like nothing he'd ever seen before. They genuinely couldn't have picked a worst time or place to make that mistake.

One of the soldiers (Cpl Howes?) had already been in the six counties for some time and I've always believed that he was showing off to his colleague who had only just arrived in the province, by showing him how close he could get to a republican funeral. I'd imagine it would have been very hard for his family seeing those images on the television, wouldn't be nice at all.
 
Randall Flagg said:
Try looking at it from both sides. It was a terrible thing, but if they were fully armed SAS soldiers and blasted their way out of an angry pack of people who were attending a funeral the outcome would have been about a million times worse.

As it was 2 men with a high risk factor job lost their lives.
Click to expand...

Scrumpet said:
Would taking others down with them really have brought any comfort to their families?
Click to expand...

Well yes, it would have if they had survived I am sure.

Anyway, as Moses said, this wouldn't have happened if they were special forces and not just two Signalers, one of whom was seemingly being driven around on his first day in the region.
 
An Irish Red said:
You have to take into account the context of the time though. Mairéad Farrell, Danny McCann and Seán Savage being murdered by the SAS angered the wider nationalist community and not just militant republicans. Then when Michael Stone attacked the funeral a few days later many, many people believed (and still do) that he was helped to do so by the security forces.

At Caoimhín Mac Brádaighs funeral the two soldiers that drove into the mix did so at the worst time imaginable. Alec Reid put it well when he said the tension was like nothing he'd ever seen before. They genuinely couldn't have picked a worst time or place to make that mistake.

One of the soldiers (Cpl Howes?) had already been in the six counties for some time and I've always believed that he was showing off to his colleague who had only just arrived in the province, by showing him how close he could get to a republican funeral. I'd imagine it would have been very hard for his family seeing those images on the television, wouldn't be nice at all.
Click to expand...

What? I stopped reading there as if thats what you actually believe then there is no point continuing.
 
TheReligion said:
Well yes, it would have if they had survived I am sure.

Anyway, as Moses said, this wouldn't have happened if they were special forces and not just two Signalers, one of whom was seemingly being driven around on his first day in the region.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was saying that thinking about him saying in the article that instead of firing the gun in the air, the soldier should have opened fire on them despite it being very unlikely that they'd have been able to shoot their way out, unlike an SAS soldier as he says. He also bigs himself up for managing to avoid going on a vigilante revenge spree, I didn't really like the article.
 
Scrumpet said:
Yeah, I was saying that thinking about him saying in the article that instead of firing the gun in the air, the soldier should have opened fire on them despite it being very unlikely that they'd have been able to shoot their way out, unlike an SAS soldier as he says. He also bigs himself up for managing to avoid going on a vigilante revenge spree, I didn't really like the article.
Click to expand...

He was saying what he would have done. You have to try not to take this on a point scoring kind of level and remember that the SAS are, and were, the elite of the elite. Very hard men. Obviously they would have been outraged at what happened to their fellow servicemen and I think he was perhaps labouring the point that they didn't act as the IRA did however tempting circumstances may have made it.
 
TheReligion said:
What? I stopped reading there as if thats what you actually believe then there is no point continuing.
Click to expand...

You're a policeman, aren't you? Do you operate outside the law?

Those IRA members were murdered. Was it justified? You can argue for and against. I don't think you can argue that they weren't murdered, though.
 
Badunk said:
You're a policeman, aren't you? Do you operate outside the law?

Those IRA members were murdered. Was it justified? You can argue for and against. I don't think you can argue that they weren't murdered, though.
Click to expand...

The subsequent inquest and appeal at ECHR held the verdict of lawful killing.

I don't think there is an argument against the justification though considering they were actively engaged in acts of terrorism.
 
TheReligion said:
What? I stopped reading there as if thats what you actually believe then there is no point continuing.
Click to expand...

Following people about Europe, knowing every move that they make, before attacking them from behind and riddling them with bullets can only be described as murder. Mairéad Farrell was shot eight times while she had her hands in the air trying to surrender, Danny McCann was shot multiple times while trying to protect her. They were both unarmed.

Seán Savage was chased down the road, beaten to the ground and shot eighteen times. Murder is the only acceptable word for such premeditated savagery.
 
An Irish Red said:
Following people about Europe, knowing every move that they make, before attacking them from behind and riddling them with bullets can only be described as murder. Mairéad Farrell was shot eight times while she had her hands in the air trying to surrender, Danny McCann was shot multiple times while trying to protect her. They were both unarmed.

Seán Savage was chased down the road, beaten to the ground and shot eighteen times. Murder is the only acceptable word for such premeditated savagery.
Click to expand...

Thats if you believe the "witness accounts". Or you can believe those of the others present.

As said, lawful killing was the verdict and that was upheld in the ECHR.

They were there to blow people up. I have no sympathy unfortunately even if you do.
 
The relatives of McCann, Savage and Farrell were dissatisfied with the response to their case in the British legal system,[29] so they took their case to the European Court of Human Rights in 1995. The court found that the three had been unlawfully killed.[29] By a 10-9 majority it ruled that the human rights of the 'Gibraltar Three' were infringed in breach of Article 2 - right to life, of the European Convention on Human Rights and criticised the authorities for lack of appropriate care in the control and organisation of the arrest operation.[citation needed]

In sum, having regard to the decision not to prevent the suspects from travelling into Gibraltar, to the failure of the authorities to make sufficient allowances for the possibility that their intelligence assessments might, in some respects at least, be erroneous and to the automatic recourse to lethal force when the soldiers opened fire, the Court is not persuaded that the killing of the three terrorists constituted the use of force which was no more than absolutely necessary in defence of persons from unlawful violence within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention[30]

From wiki.
 
An Irish Red said:
Following people about Europe, knowing every move that they make, before attacking them from behind and riddling them with bullets can only be described as murder. Mairéad Farrell was shot eight times while she had her hands in the air trying to surrender, Danny McCann was shot multiple times while trying to protect her. They were both unarmed.

Seán Savage was chased down the road, beaten to the ground and shot eighteen times. Murder is the only acceptable word for such premeditated savagery.
Click to expand...

Not totally convinced as they correctly thought they were about to conduct a terrorist bombing and remote detonation was a real risk. And the British forces would have been stupid to do anything other than assume they were armed. A brutal and ruthless action no doubt but if the bomb had been remotely detonated due to pussfooting around there would have been a far bigger outcry.

I'm sure the truth is that they didn't care either way if they got them dead or alive mind but my sympathy is severely limited by the fact that they were in the process of trying to commit a large terror attack.
 
Badunk said:
You're either mistaken or wilfully disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I was mistaken about the ECHR, however, they did declare (as I mentioned) that the three were engaged in acts of terrorism.

Let's get this right though, where do you guys stand on this?
 
Wibble said:
Not totally convinced as they correctly thought they were about to conduct a terrorist bombing and remote detonation was a real risk. And the British forces would have been stupid to do anything other than assume they were armed. A brutal and ruthless action no doubt but if the bomb had been remotely detonated due to pussfooting around there would have been a far bigger outcry.

I'm sure the truth is that they didn't care either way if they got them dead or alive mind but my sympathy is severely limited by the fact that they were in the process of trying to commit a large terror attack.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what angle Badunk and the other lad are coming from to be fair.
 
Wibble said:
A brutal and ruthless action no doubt but if the bomb had been remotely detonated due to pussfooting around there would have been a far bigger outcry.
Click to expand...

They had them tracked all across Europe and could have captured them at any time.

TheReligion said:
Let's get this right though, where do you guys stand on this?
Click to expand...

On Gibraltar? I think it was premeditated murder.
 
An Irish Red said:
They had them tracked all across Europe and could have captured them at any time.

On Gibraltar? I think it was premeditated murder.
Click to expand...

I've no idea why they didn't capture them earlier. It looks to me like they knew the target but not where the bomb making stuff was so maybe they lacked the certainty until they crossed to Gibraltar, the place their information told them the attack was to take place. Who knows though? Once you set an SAS unit on them they were probably as good as dead, short of not breathing, moving or even twitching once challenged, as it is the way they are trained.

I'm not sure that amounts to murder TBH. It could be that them dead was the preferred option for whoever was running the operation but we will probably never know if this were the case.

What all these events demonstrate is that violence begets violence in an almost never ending cycle no matter what we call it, how justified or otherwise it may be and how innicent or otherwise those involved are.

In the end the way to stop the killing is to stop killing. Which thankfully has more or less happened. What the future hold I don't know but I really hope it isn't a return to the old ways.

Personally I think NI might have to become some sort of entity on it's own with involvement from both Eire and the UK because I think reunification won't fly economically (from Eire's view) or politically due to the large proportion of people who do not want it. Realistically you would need a vote with a 75% majority to significantly change the current arrangements and that seems unlikely any time soon.
 
TheReligion said:
Okay, and beyond that?

Would you for instance take issue with a terrorist being shot whilst engaged in acts of terrorism in other circumstances? Say someone from Al Qaeda etc
Click to expand...

I don't know why you felt the need to use Al Qaeda as an example. It's almost as if you are expecting that I would answer it differently than I would if it was the IRA.

Anyway, I could understand someone who is armed being shot but with incidents like this it is inexcusable.
 
An Irish Red said:
I don't know why you felt the need to use Al Qaeda as an example. It's almost as if you are expecting that I would answer it differently than I would if it was the IRA.

Anyway, I could understand someone who is armed being shot but with incidents like this it is inexcusable.
Click to expand...

So you have sympathy for terrorists (whoever they maybe be) engaged in acts of terrorism being shot?
 
I think it was reasonable to assume they were armed though. Assuming the first one shot did make some sort of move for his bag the fate of them all was sealed.

If there is a problem with this operation it is that they possibly could have arrested them earlier and didn't knowing that there was a high probability that the SAS would take them out. Many would argue that you don't owe terrorists such a courtesy especially if they didn't have all the evidence they needed before then.

Whatever the case it is clear that if this could have been an arrest rather than a kill the knock on effects wouldn't have occurred in the way they did and fewer people would have been injured or killed.
 
An Irish Red said:
Where did I say that?
Click to expand...

It is the impression you give. That's why I asked where you stand, however, you have skirted about the question and still failed to take the opportunity to state your feelings?

I think the point is you won't get sympathy from near enough anyone for a member of a terrorist organisation that has murdered large numbers of innocent men, women and children in cowardly acts of violence over the years. In these circumstances they were about to do the same overseas and were killed.

I couldn't care less about the finer points of what happened to be quite frank with you but you seem to be harping on about independent witnesses, people being unarmed, shot in the back and the outrage of it all. In doing so you totally dismiss the SAS accounts of what went on.

That is what gives the impression you are a sympathizer. Sorry if I have got it wrong.
 
Few people care about a terrorist being killed but we all should care about how it is done. Imagine if those three had been captured rather than killed? The UVF wouldn't have attacked the funeral. The funeral of one of the dead from that funeral where the 2 soldiers were killed wouldn't have happened. And the knock on effects from there have been huge. So even if we don't care morally (and I do) then we should care practically.
 
Wibble said:
Few people care about a terrorist being killed but we all should care about how it is done. Imagine if those three had been captured rather than killed? The UVF wouldn't have attacked the funeral. The funeral of one of the dead from that funeral where the 2 soldiers were killed wouldn't have happened. And the knock on effects from there have been huge. So even if we don't care morally (and I do) then we should care practically.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that point, but neither of them actually made it which is why I asked where they stood (if that makes sense)

Practically it would have been better had they been arrested. There must have been enough for conspiracy to murder anyway, then again, I am not going to sit here and argue that the accounts of what happened from the SAS soldiers present was bollocks as I have no reason to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.