Jump to content

Soldier F


StockholmRam

Recommended Posts

For my 2000 post I thought it prudent to change my profile photo and start a new thread with a topic close to my heart right now. So saddened from this distance to see how this government is going after ex service personel and bringing prosecutions. Im sure this will be quite a diversive topic but as a former soldier I think it needs to be much more high profile in media than it is. 

The good friday agreement has allowed many terrorists to have their convictions quashed and overturned. Its a bitter pill to swallow but I and many others will swallow it if it means peace. Thats my conssesion. Its tough to take but we do so. 

Now, the other side of the coin. Why are British military personel from recent and way back being subjected to what I view as a witch hunt? I dont get it. You join, you know that at some point you are likely to be asked to fight. Fighting comes in many guises and I promise you that have never been there that in the heat of battle, and the stress of the moment, not everything is text book. Its impossible to stay 100% within the rules of engagement all the time. You do that and its highly possible you wont be coming back home to friends and family. All who serve know this. 

Shame on you government. 

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A very difficult subject no doubt. I've never served and aren't likely to now, so have no comprehension of the heat of battle point.

Is there a theoretical or real line you shouldn't cross in combat situations?

I sympathise tho that with the passage of time it seems futile to keep pursuing incidents such as bloody Sunday.  Is there no possibility of a straightforward amnesty for all of what occurred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have served, and would never shoot an unarmed civilian, unless my life was in immediate danger, for example; if they where coming at me with a gun/knife and I was alone.  'I was following orders' is not a defense, however, I would expect the commanding officer to be held to account, over the soldiers who took the shots, as he would have given the order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
9 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

Have served, and would never shoot an unarmed civilian, unless my life was in immediate danger, for example; if they where coming at me with a gun/knife and I was alone.  'I was following orders' is not a defense, however, I would expect the commanding officer to be held to account, over the soldiers who took the shots, as he would have given the order.

This was my thought, about the commanding officer.

Maybe due to the length of time it's taken others involved are no longer alive, or maybe covered their own arses by throwing soldier f under the bus.

I can't help but feel that the desire for 'someone' to be punished has led to this. 14 people died, is soldier f responsible for all or is he just being singled out to appease those who demand justice?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

Have served, and would never shoot an unarmed civilian, unless my life was in immediate danger, for example; if they where coming at me with a gun/knife and I was alone.  'I was following orders' is not a defense, however, I would expect the commanding officer to be held to account, over the soldiers who took the shots, as he would have given the order.

I wasnt there that day but from my understanding, those soldiers felt under severe threat of attack by weapons , petrol bombs etc. Its an often used disguise, the marchings, for clandestine attack tactics by IRA on military and RUC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
11 minutes ago, StockholmRam said:

I wasnt there that day but from my understanding, those soldiers felt under severe threat of attack by weapons , petrol bombs etc. Its an often used disguise, the marchings, for clandestine attack tactics by IRA on military and RUC. 

Had there not been dozens are british soldiers murdered in the previous months? You can understand that some threat was felt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it’s excusable or not, whether there was a palpable threat, it doesn’t really matter. He could be an evil bar steward that mowed down women and children and laughed the whole time. But the terrorists got a free pass for any and all evil acts, so that amnesty should apply to both sides. Draw a line under it and move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HantsRam said:

A very difficult subject no doubt. I've never served and aren't likely to now, so have no comprehension of the heat of battle point.

Is there a theoretical or real line you shouldn't cross in combat situations?

I sympathise tho that with the passage of time it seems futile to keep pursuing incidents such as bloody Sunday.  Is there no possibility of a straightforward amnesty for all of what occurred?

There are very real instructions ( dunno about today but im my time a yellow open fire instructions card you carried with you) to be followed. 

I think most of us thought that with the good friday agreement that a sort of amnesty for both sides, in that particular conflict, had been given. How wrong we were.

Good luck getting the right stuff to sign up and serve in the future. Good luck getting modern serving members having a feelgood factor about the current government they serve under. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gritters said:

I don’t know much about what happened but was the person who got shot an innocent victim who just happened to be walking to the shop for a packet of fags and a few tinnies.

He was. And soldier f was very much in the wrong for shooting him. But it’s far from the worse thing that went ok during that conflict. But for some reason soldier f is the one guy that gets thrown under the bus. If he’s to be held to account, then so should every ira bomber, and ever British officer who did horrible poo during the conflict. There’s either an amnesty or there’s not, and if there is, it applies to both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this whole ugly saga is that only one side was reported. 

I would suggest that the history of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defense Association, to show the other side. Quite an interesting read, as to how they operated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force

Also a brief history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(1801–1923)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/04/2019 at 12:20, McRamFan said:

Have served, and would never shoot an unarmed civilian, unless my life was in immediate danger, for example; if they where coming at me with a gun/knife and I was alone.  'I was following orders' is not a defense, however, I would expect the commanding officer to be held to account, over the soldiers who took the shots, as he would have given the order.

Who did you serve with McRam? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/04/2019 at 12:43, Gritters said:

I don’t know much about what happened but was the person who got shot an innocent victim who just happened to be walking to the shop for a packet of fags and a few tinnies.

They were unarmed protesters whom the Army opened fire on. It was a shameful episode in British history and one that undoubtedly inflamed what would become The Troubles. The main person cited in this case was shot in the buttocks with the bullet exiting the torso, indicating that they were crawling away from the gunfire when hit. It is also important to remember that these events happened prior to the majority of the paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland - again, these were unarmed protesters with no history of terrorism.

For Soldier F, I just think when you do something like that in the uniform of your national army you put yourself in a position where you are beyond thnigs like amnesty or the like. For me it's like Duckenfeld at Hillsborough, you are in the service of the nation to protect those under your control and if you fail in that you cannot be allowed to escape without punishment. We must remember that on Bloody Sunday no soldiers were fired upon, their lives were not put at risk - they opened fire without provocation. As example, a 19 year old boy was shot in the chest and then three more people (including his father) were shot when they rushed to his aid. In a civilised society like we profess to live in we cannot let actions like that pass (and I'm not even going to go into the falsified statements made at the two enquiries).

I respect anyone who fights for their country - you do a braver thing than I would ever be capable of - and I can only imagine the stress and pressure it puts people under. But it does not give anyone the right to take the life of one innocent - never mind fourteen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

They were unarmed protesters whom the Army opened fire on. It was a shameful episode in British history and one that undoubtedly inflamed what would become The Troubles. The main person cited in this case was shot in the buttocks with the bullet exiting the torso, indicating that they were crawling away from the gunfire when hit. It is also important to remember that these events happened prior to the majority of the paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland - again, these were unarmed protesters with no history of terrorism.

For Soldier F, I just think when you do something like that in the uniform of your national army you put yourself in a position where you are beyond thnigs like amnesty or the like. For me it's like Duckenfeld at Hillsborough, you are in the service of the nation to protect those under your control and if you fail in that you cannot be allowed to escape without punishment. We must remember that on Bloody Sunday no soldiers were fired upon, their lives were not put at risk - they opened fire without provocation. As example, a 19 year old boy was shot in the chest and then three more people (including his father) were shot when they rushed to his aid. In a civilised society like we profess to live in we cannot let actions like that pass (and I'm not even going to go into the falsified statements made at the two enquiries).

I respect anyone who fights for their country - you do a braver thing than I would ever be capable of - and I can only imagine the stress and pressure it puts people under. But it does not give anyone the right to take the life of one innocent - never mind fourteen.

In 1971 40 soldiers were killed by the IRA and I believe that the army were under regular threat.  I have no intention to defend the shooting of innocent civilians but you seem to be suggesting that without this the Troubles would not have occurred.  My point and a number of others is that the GFA allowed many murderers of innocents to get away with horrible crimes why not equally apply those rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spanish said:

In 1971 40 soldiers were killed by the IRA and I believe that the army were under regular threat.  I have no intention to defend the shooting of innocent civilians but you seem to be suggesting that without this the Troubles would not have occurred.  My point and a number of others is that the GFA allowed many murderers of innocents to get away with horrible crimes why not equally apply those rules

I thought it was those already convicted had sentences commuted/shortened, and those convicted afterwards of historical offences received much lighter sentences, applied to all sides of the troubles?

In which case, Soldier F could expect to be treated with equal leniency if found guilty?

I can't make any judgement on why Soldier F is standing trial, that's surely for the lawyers to apply the current legal tests, but I have assumed he'd get equal treatment punishment wise?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Spanish said:

In 1971 40 soldiers were killed by the IRA and I believe that the army were under regular threat.  I have no intention to defend the shooting of innocent civilians but you seem to be suggesting that without this the Troubles would not have occurred.  My point and a number of others is that the GFA allowed many murderers of innocents to get away with horrible crimes why not equally apply those rules

No, it was not my intent to suggest that Bloody Sunday was the single spark that fired the whole of The Troubles. But it was a major escalator in the conflict, to quote a cited reference on the Wikipedia page "Bloody Sunday greatly increased the hostility of Catholics and Irish nationalists towards the British military and government while significantly elevating tensions during the Northern Irish Conflict. As a result, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) gained more support, especially through rising numbers of recruits in the local areas".

But, to the point of Soldier F, I totally get the point - well made - that many who committed equal or greater crimes were spared punishment under the amnesty of the Good Friday agreement. For right or wrong many felt this was a necessary component of the end of The Troubles.

However, I just don't believe that soldiers - deployed to our own shores by the government of the time - can realistically expect to be spared in the same way. If you do we're only a few steps away from martial law and that isn't a society I would want to live under. And, yes, I understand that many innocents died in Warrington, Deal, Omagh, Enniskillen and other places but fourteen innocent, unarmed people were shot dead by British soldiers in British army uniforms, who then went on to flasify statements at their two enquiries. In my view you just can't say 'oh well, let's call it all quits then'. You just can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

No, it was not my intent to suggest that Bloody Sunday was the single spark that fired the whole of The Troubles. But it was a major escalator in the conflict, to quote a cited reference on the Wikipedia page "Bloody Sunday greatly increased the hostility of Catholics and Irish nationalists towards the British military and government while significantly elevating tensions during the Northern Irish Conflict. As a result, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) gained more support, especially through rising numbers of recruits in the local areas".

But, to the point of Soldier F, I totally get the point - well made - that many who committed equal or greater crimes were spared punishment under the amnesty of the Good Friday agreement. For right or wrong many felt this was a necessary component of the end of The Troubles.

However, I just don't believe that soldiers - deployed to our own shores by the government of the time - can realistically expect to be spared in the same way. If you do we're only a few steps away from martial law and that isn't a society I would want to live under. And, yes, I understand that many innocents died in Warrington, Deal, Omagh, Enniskillen and other places but fourteen innocent, unarmed people were shot dead by British soldiers in British army uniforms, who then went on to flasify statements at their two enquiries. In my view you just can't say 'oh well, let's call it all quits then'. You just can't.

Interment was also a factor but thank you for such a balanced response.  It was warfare and there will always be innocent casualties as we saw last week.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The family of the person allegedly shot by a British soldier, are rightly wanting justice.

What about all the families of the other victims, murdered by acts of terrorism during the conflict in Northern Ireland. Do they feel they've received justice, after having to watch the release of the murderers of their relatives.

No. When our government made an agreement with the political face of a group of terrorist in an attempt to bring peace. The amnesty agreed to must cover all the crimes that may have been committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 1of4 said:

The family of the person allegedly shot by a British soldier, are rightly wanting justice.

What about all the families of the other victims, murdered by acts of terrorism during the conflict in Northern Ireland. Do they feel they've received justice, after having to watch the release of the murderers of their relatives.

No. When our government made an agreement with the political face of a group of terrorist in an attempt to bring peace. The amnesty agreed to must cover all the crimes that may have been committed.

You need to do some research.  Both sides committed murder, however when it was committed by the UDF, and associated groups, it was massively under reported.  UDF would go house to house, hunting alleged IRA members, and the Police and Military just stood off, and did nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

You need to do some research.  Both sides committed murder, however when it was committed by the UDF, and associated groups, it was massively under reported.  UDF would go house to house, hunting alleged IRA members, and the Police and Military just stood off, and did nothing.

Just to demonstrate that you shouldn't ever look at the Troubles as one-sided...

The UVF (another Protestant paramilitary group) murdered 33 in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 - almost all women and children who were enjoying a day's shopping - and over 500 overall during the Troubles.

The first leader of the UVF was Gusty Spence - he was still leader and direct controller of the organisation (from inside Maze Prison) at the time of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

Spence was a former British soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...