The ECHR, on second appeal, declared the three's "Right to Life" had been infringed but did state the three were engaged in acts of terrorism. I have read various accounts from those present and witnesses, all of which are different so it is impossible to say. We are talking as if the accounts of the SAS soldiers were all disproved which isn't the case from what I have read.
In an ideal world I think they should have been arrested with no blood shed. I do imagine things would have been more difficult for the authorities then though as there was no such thing as the Terrorism Act which gives a large number of preventative powers and legislation which directly targets such issues and activities.
I think the notion that the SAS were given carte blanche authority to go around NI killing people is complete and utter nonsense though and was mere propaganda used to manipulate matters accordingly.
That's a fair answer. As for the last paragraph, well there is plenty of evidence of collusion and state murder (I think that is the correct term) and as a result the British Army as a whole have all been tarred with the same brush. I think you have look at those things individually, though.
There were elements of the occupying forces who were simply on the side of the the loyalists and aided them in many ways, with many murders, so it's hard for the people who lived through that to see those people as anything but the enemy. You're a peacekeeper who acts inside the law, I'm sure it's hard for you to accept that members of your armed forces have committed atrocities, many of which have yet to be admitted to, simply because you're a law abiding man yourself. I can understand where you're coming from.
However, I'd like to state that of course the people I'm talking about were a very small minority in an otherwise normal bunch of soldiers carrying out their duties, and I personally don't appreciate them all being tarred with the same brush.
What you have to remember is, that when the army were deployed to the the north originally, they were welcomed with open arms by the majority of nationalist community. They were seen by many as protectors and lot of people treated them with respect. It was only when some of those joined forces with the loyalists, that they were viewed as the enemy and not to be trusted. It then went beyond that and they became targets, themselves.
Many innocent nationalists were killed by the army and vice versa and all of them terrible tragedies. So, if you don't mind me saying so, it might help if you could try and be a little more objective when discussing this subject and try to understand why people over here are never willing to accept the word of the British authorities when it comes to things like this.
Most people on here will admit that the IRA was responsible for some horrible atrocities but some will also maintain that there was a need for the IRA, lest many more Catholics/nationalist would/could have been wiped out, without their presence.
Thankfully all that seems to be a thing of the past though and I'm glad that most people i know want nothing more than peace and to live together in relative harmony.
