BS: British Army at it again

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 04:56 AM

Jim, there was a clear implication of threat in Martin's posts, and he deliberately posted Keith's real identity while concealing his own. You and I use our real names. What is Martin hiding?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 03:55 AM

Sorry Richard - are you going to ask the same question of everybody on this forum - or are you 'frit'?
He has said he does not support any dissident, our resident apologist for sectarian triumphalism had failed to produce a single shred of evidence to back his claim of a "bat-wielding" thug or a "bullying fascist" and he has (it goes without saying) failed to withdraw his accusations.
Why is it necessary to demand an identity?
I find myself in agreement with you on most things, but I find your views on Ireland to be more at home on the pages of 19th century 'Punch' - sorry about that.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:58 PM

So, Martin, if "the ball is over the wall and the rest is history" are you going to come clean about who and where you are, or are you, in the word used by Margaret Thatcher (on whom be perpetual unrest) "frit".

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:56 PM

You are indeed correct in your analysis Mr.Bridge.

I do not support any of the so called dissident groups, I think their campaign is futile. I cannot be a hypocrite and condemn any young man who chooses to engage in an armed struggle, but I have and would advise against it.

I would also like to state, I have issues with Sinn Fein as a party, I feel many of their policy decisions lack wisdom. I also have personal issues with both Marty McGuinness and Gerry Adams as do many and hope to see them replaced.

I do have to hand it to the British government though, their policy of divide and conquer worked a treat. I see so many former comrades walk past each other in the street and very few former army men attend Sinn Fein organized gatherings.

Sinn Fein leadership didn't change, they were young men who got caught up in a war who were always of a political orientation,they were never army men.

Well, the ball is over the wall now and the rest is history.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:17 PM

I do not agree about the bombs Richard.
SDLP were confident they could have achieved the current agreements and more years ago.
They understood that nothing could be achieved until the violence stopped, and so it proved.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 11:41 AM

I would say that since "Martin" has disclosed Keith's name (and implied that he he knows where he lives, and he knows my name and everyone knows where I live, that "Martin" should disclose his full name and address. Shouldn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 11:37 AM

TBH, Keith, the IRA/PIRA bombs were not pointless. They won them the "war". The terrorism paid off.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 10:38 AM

"The IRA has apologised for all the non-combatants it has killed,"
Has anybody apologised for the atrocities carried out on either side (there were two sides to the conflict) - and does it make the slightest difference to the victims or their?
Cameron has just 'apologised' for the atrocities committed against the Kenyan people during the Mau Mau uprising - slaughter, torture, rape, castration,destruction of civilian property, destructo - does anybody seriously believe that wipes the slate clean - or is is just diplomatic lip-service?
Feckin' hypocritical gobbledegook
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 09:21 AM

In answer to Richard's question, no.
The IRA has apologised for all the non-combatants it has killed, but not for any of the operations that killed them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 09:05 AM

I will allow others to read my post and make judgement of your fixation with Irish politics,
I do follow it with interest. Your objection?

your attempts flame others
if you mean point out the gaping flaws in your argument, yes.

and of your inability to answer questions pacifically directed at you.
Never knowingly. Which one have I missed?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:42 AM

Mr. Acheson, I will allow others to read my post and make judgement of your fixation with Irish politics,your attempts flame others and of your inability to answer questions pacifically directed at you.

Mr Bridge, no I did not oppose them at the time, as for apologizes, I am aware that talks took place in February and again in August between the Provisional leadership and the British government regarding this matter. I agree there is a need for this to be addressed, so it would be inappropriate for me to speak about it here as I am not involved in it.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:28 AM

"During the Troubles, the SDLP was the most popular Irish nationalist party in Northern Ireland, but since the Provisional IRA ceasefire in 1994 it has lost ground to the republican party Sinn Féin, which in 2001 became the more popular of the two parties for the first time. Established during the Troubles, a significant difference between the two parties was the SDLP's rejection of violence, in contrast to Sinn Féin's support for the Provisional IRA."

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:24 AM

You posts to such threads are controversial to say the least.

Not at all.
The views I expressed were those of the SDLP.
The majority of Nationalist voted SDLP until Sinn Fein disassociated itself from the violence.
My expressed views were much more in line with ordinary Nationalists than yours are.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:14 AM

you create thread after thread on the subject of Northern Irish politics.

Again, your intelligence is shite.
I started one thread when I was specifically requested to by Republican posters, and one about the Northern Bank job.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:12 AM

Did you oppose them at the time? Have the IRA or PIRA apologised for them?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:03 AM

I understand you are not part of it, yet you create thread after thread on the subject of Northern Irish politics. You posts to such threads are controversial to say the least.

Mr. Acheson, you have created a lot of disharmony here among members and guests alike. Posting derogatory comments simply to antagonize other people is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM

His support for the loyal orders and Loyalist paramilitary collusion is blatant.

I am not part of your mad sectarian divide.
I do not support either side and loathe all paramilitaries.
My step daughter worked in Manchester M&S, was slightly injured by the second Manchester bombing, witnessed terrible scenes including her friend, a young bride-to-be, whose face was shredded by flying glass from your evil, pointless device.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:29 AM

Keith Acheson, there was call for that remark, why would you think anyone would harm your stepdaughter ?

Mr. Carroll, Keith Acheson's cheap shot as a drama queen in the post above was to gain sympathy, it failed. Much as one would expect from a weekend warrior.

His lack of understanding of the persecution of the nationalist community in the North of Ireland stands as testimony. His support for the loyal orders and Loyalist paramilitary collusion is blatant.

I just put it down to a lack of knowledge. Keith Acheson keeps going back to an incident in England when a device detonated in a city centre. His adult television presenter stepdaughter was three mile away from it and he rants as if she was at the seat of the blast.

Mr. Bridge, yes I regret the London bombings, I also regret the loss of life on both sides of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:48 AM

I just wonder if there were any IRA or PIRA members or supporters who opposed for example the London bombings. Just saying.

As to the UK Marines, surely (if the facts are otherwise please say so) the original injuring of the combatant is not in dispute. The charges arise, do they not, out of whether they decided, once the combatant was helpless, to withhold appropriate treatment.   Is that not so.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:20 AM

you and the sectarian thugs you support

I am not part of your mad sectarian divide.
I do not support any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:02 AM

No - just evidence will do nicely, thank you.
I have no idea who 'Martin' is, any more than I know who Keith A of Hertford is - you both choose to disguise your identities.
I do have the advantage of knowing 'WHAT' you and the sectarian thugs you support are. If you have any evidence that 'Martin' is aa bat-weilding thug or a fasccist bully, please present it. I don't believe you will in a million years withdraw the accusation.
Finished!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:36 AM

You want our broken heads for your evidence Jim?
Jim Carrol, friend of the fascist bully.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM

You are not an administrator on this thread and I'm more than a little disappointed that the real administrators allow you to behave the way you are doing here.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ACCUSE ANYBODY OF BEING BASEBALL-BAT WEILDING THUGS WITHOUT EVIDENCE
At the very least you bring this forum into disrepute.
I'd have thought your family were more in danger of being attacked by the bomb throwing thugs who wee on the streets of Belfast not so long ago - tose who prompted the PSNI to say that if sectarian demonstrations were not brought under control somebody would end up dead.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/04/belfast-rioters-police-officers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:00 AM

Who do you think Martin is then Jim?
Do you think he might have any association with Republican paramilitaries?
He is not the British Guest Martin who likes folk music and who last posted in July.
What do you imagine brought this Martin to our forum, and if he does know who Terribus is, how did he find out?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:39 AM

"You don't have children Jim."
How the hell do you know whether I have children or not
Your spinelessly dishonest behaviour on this thread is as low as it gets even by your standard.
I suggest if you have any evidence that the Guest here is likely to come threatening your family with a baseball bat, you produce it, otherwise you withdraw your disgusting accusation - sorry, I forgot, you don't g there
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:24 AM

You don't have children Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:20 AM

"Stop feeding the troll, folks."
It would be more in keeping with the spirit of this forum if members were advised not to accuse guest posters of being baseball-wielding thugs without evidence.
This disgusting display of sectarian crocodile tears to avoid having to respond to valid points is about as low as it gets.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 05:11 PM

Stop feeding the troll, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 10:11 AM

I will back off now Martin.
I have a daughter at home, and I can not risk a visit from your boys with baseball bats and balaclavas.
Ia anyone still impressed by his "humanity"?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:48 AM

Keith, I know you like to refer to the Cain website. Please read this link to the Torture of civilians in the North of Ireland by the British army. The British government was later found GUILTY OF TORTURE in the European courts.

Interesting story
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/docs/jmcg74b.htm

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:41 AM

So you know who I am Martin, and yes I do feel threatened.

The interrogation techniques used by Britain and many others including US were not previously recognised as torture, and were not used when they were so defined.

Your torture techniques have been recognised as torture since medieval times, and mutilation is just mutilation.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 07:52 AM

Bill Woodcock, your comments above say more about you than I ever could. Your lack of knowledge of the war in the North of Ireland is similar to that of Keith Acheson.

I understand you didn't serve as a Marine in the North, although you would like others to presume your attachment to the regiment held a combatants role when in fact it didn't. Keith, the Territorial army never served in any role in the North of Ireland.

I suggest both of you restrict your comments to that of a thread contributor and drop the persona of someone who served on the ground, just allow the likes of Dead Horse and myself to supply the first hand experiences.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 06:59 AM

"There was a young guy in his late teens came up North around 1972 or 3, from somewhere down south, can't recall where. He was very spirited, spoke of family involved in the struggle since the 1920's.

His girlfriend followed him against his expressed wished. They died instantly when the device they were transporting exploded, she wouldn't let him go alone. I recall a young soldier shot by a sniper in 1974, he was only a kid of 18. He called out what I presume were family members or a girlfriend to help him, medics couldn't get to him for what seemed ages. This is the cruelty many forget."

So this shows "humanity" does it Raedwulf?? Curious sort of "humanity" if it is

The first example the "young guy from down South" and his girlfriend went out to deliberately place an explosive device with the intent of taking life - I was delighted to hear that their device exploded prematurely and I hope that no innocent lives were lost.

The second (I presume "other side of the coin") example is the deliberate murder of an 18 year old who was on the streets of Northern Ireland specifically to stop people such as those mentioned in the first example from taking innocent lives with their bombs.

No comparison whatsoever.

Any news on Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes tapes?? As of the 6th July, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the government's position that the subpoena should not be quashed and that the tapes should be released to the PSNI.   What is on those tapes may yet see Gerry Adams collar felt for ordering the murder of Jean McConville.

Oh and Guest Martin no mention on your part of the PIRA deliberately shooting children in circumstances where they thought it could be blamed on the Security Forces, then, in once instance in particular, lying bare-faced to the Parents of the child they had killed.

Much talk about statistics and their accuracy - one thing sticks out though as a constant - The Republicans/Nationalists killed more Irish men women and chidren in the squalid period referred to as "The Troubles" than any other actor in the drama.

The Royal Marines in question are being held while an investigation is being carried out - nobody here knows the circumstances - so nobody here can accuse anybody of doing anything at the moment.


I will wait to see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 05:32 AM

Keith, I note you do not include any of the actions of the British army in the North of Ireland against the civilian population, such as torture which they were found guilty of in a European court, Bloody Sunday, killing of children by rubber and plastic bullets or collusion by the security forces working with loyalist paramilitary groups in your summary.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 04:37 AM

So you missed the compassion I expressed for poor Jean and her children.
No matter.
Martin's discussion was about war crimes not humanity, and my post was about hypocrisy.
I was reminded of Jean McConville when Martin wrote of hearing the dying words of a young sniper victim.
Her supposed crime was to show humanity to anothere such, or perhaps the same.

If those imprisoned Marines did commit a war crime, I join Martin in condemning and deploring it.
Will he condemn PIRA war crimes such as Jean's torture, mutilation, murder and dumped denied body?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 06:04 PM

Oh, for fuck's sake.

There was a young guy in his late teens came up North around 1972 or 3, from somewhere down south, can't recall where. He was very spirited, spoke of family involved in the struggle since the 1920's.

His girlfriend followed him against his expressed wished. They died instantly when the device they were transporting exploded, she wouldn't let him go alone. I recall a young soldier shot by a sniper in 1974, he was only a kid of 18. He called out what I presume were family members or a girlfriend to help him, medics couldn't get to him for what seemed ages. This is the cruelty many forget.

Maybe Martin is an out & out Provo. I don't know. But that one post, even if I ignore everything else, shows humanity. Maybe more than you've shown. I've said everything I had to say, including calling out Martin for reviving this, and calling you out for ignoring that, but I'll repeat this much:

If we gain anything by raking over old coals, then rake. But do we gain anything? Or would it be better to let the thread die?

Martin shows humanity; so does Dead Horse. What's your contribution? I don't give a fuck, I must be right, no matter what? I'm not saying I think that's what you're saying, but if someone told me that they thought you did, I'd have trouble arguing that they were wrong. Have a think about that!

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 05:13 PM

Martin, you restarted this thread to tell everyone what the Marines are accused of, in case it did not make "international" news.
PR you said, presumably for PIRA. You speak as if you were of them.

The Marines are accused of killing a prisoner.
That is not just against ROE, it is against the International Law of Armed Conflict.

Martin, did not PIRA murder prisoners, not just as an aberration, but as routine and standard procedure?
Hundreds?
More?
Did they not go further, and torture and mutilate them before murdering them?
Even including non-combatants, like poor Jean McConville, whose children were left to go into care never knowing what became of their mum, or the torture she endured before her death.
(Guardian. We also now know that she was interrogated and tortured after the abduction; she was beaten with such force that her bones cracked and her hands were mutilated.)

Tell us why that does not make you guilty of the worst hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: mayomick
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:06 AM

The existence of Rules of Engagement may be a bit hard to accept for lower rank squadies like Keith and Dead Horse – usually decent uneducated people who have had to physically face down the opposition to their presence on the streets of northern Ireland over the years . Hopefully yesterday's brief MoD statement regarding the marines' arrest should show the importance attached by the UK military's higher ranks to standards and to the armed forces' own Rules of Engagement .

"These arrests demonstrate the Department and the Armed Forces' determination to ensure UK personnel act in accordance with their Rules of Engagement and our standards."

The army's rules of engagement are worked out according to the political ends of whatever emergency the military is involved in dealing with . Dead Horse and Keith should try to appreciate the fact that any army operates as a bureaucracy, and, like all bureaucracies , functions as two separate parts of a greater whole : one part being involved with policy-making decisions , the other with implementing those policies. The two ends of a bureaucracy work independently of each other and are largely kept in the dark about how the other side carries out its assigned role. That's how bureaucracy works -the lower ranks have no imput into policy-making and the higher rank rarely has to get its hands dirty .

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 04:50 AM

In the earlier years soldiers sent to Northern Ireland had to take a pay cut, as they became inelligible for LOA (Living Overseas Allowance).
Then we got an increase due to the extra risks. I believe this was about 40 pence a day.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:41 AM

Do you never wish that the Omagh bomb had exploded on its way to the town Martin?
All those shoppers, the unborn twins, the visiting Spanish children.

Or, the Enniskillen bomb?
Bloody Friday, Warrington, Manchester,.....

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:10 AM

""Do we still HAVE an Army? I thought they were replacing it with Volunteers from the TA to save money?""

FYI, the Terriers are paid at exactly the same rate as regulars when on active service.

They all have day jobs for which they are paid in civvy street.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 09:08 AM

There was a young guy in his late teens came up North around 1972 or 3, from somewhere down south, can't recall where. He was very spirited, spoke of family involved in the struggle since the 1920's.

His girlfriend followed him against his expressed wished. They died instantly when the device they were transporting exploded, she wouldn't let him go alone. I recall a young soldier shot by a sniper in 1974, he was only a kid of 18. He called out what I presume were family members or a girlfriend to help him, medics couldn't get to him for what seemed ages. This is the cruelty many forget.

Sorry for the thrift, they just came to mind, there are no doubt countless stories of personal suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 07:37 AM

Do we still HAVE an Army? I thought they were replacing it with Volunteers from the TA to save money?

Of course, I can't think why no government's thought of getting soldiers to put their lives on the line for nothing before..but then, we've never had Nazis ruling the country before, other than Herr Thatcher (yes, masculine, I know, all you pedants, but it suits her best)...and she was quite 'kind' in comparison to her Love Child, Dave....

Fook War!
Fook the Lives and Money it wastes!
And especially, FOOK those who send others off to get themselves blown up whilst they sit at home working out ways of having a Free Army!

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:32 AM

Martin, obviously training accidents by anyone are not counted by historians as casualties of the conflict.
Dead Horse, I have seen your posts on the veterans' site.
I agree that the conflict was to blame for those deaths.
From what I know of him, Sutton the man would agree too, but you can see why he could not count them in his index.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:21 AM

Yes DH, the RA seemed to be permanently in the North. I think the Green Jackets or Green Howards suffered heavy losses on their tours, maybe just time distorting my memory.

I always hated it when a regiment was leaving, the night before their tour was over they usually ran amok in the estates, waving flags, winding people up and drinking, I suppose young men just letting off steam. As for the Scottish regiments, Christ they were the pits.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:11 AM

Most volunteers attended training camps in the Irish republic (a few went to the Middle East for specialist training).

Training Officers in the early days worked with clothes pegs,mouse traps and solder as I imagine DH will know what I speak of. These were very unreliable, many families were told their loves ones went to America and England as they had become compromised which wasn't unusual rather than breaking the truth to them.

Causalities were commonplace at such camps, due to working with unproven techniques, antiquated material and basic nativity.

A Swiss company produced a parking meter timer for the American market which was on a keyring, once these became a reliable alternative the British government bought the company over and closed it down !

All a long time ago and thankfully now history.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 05:08 AM

That is a mighty conclusion to jump to Allan.
I know of more than a couple of instances where 'patrol A' was fired on by 'patrol B' causing casualties, and that is the conclusion I would jump to if I was of the jumping sort.
Our latest update has been made using a 40 page document obtained from the MOD. One of our members cross referenced it with our Roll of Honour which numbers now stand at 1505. As before, this figure does not include ex UDR members or family members who were murdered. When those are added on, the total will approach the 1600 mark.
The chap who is compiling this list hopes to eventually have a photo of every headstone available, with attached pic of the individual and circumstance of death - quite some task. We each try to help by visiting grave sites in our own area and taking a picture of the grave and tidying up where necessary. As can be appreciated, some are very well kept and some are in an appalling condition.
The chap doing this had four tours plus odd 'visits' AND did a spell in Dhofar.
No. I had never heard of the place either. Look it up. It was happening at the same time as I was in NI. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Desert_song/Mirbat.htm

Something I didnt know at the time, but certainly do now, is that by far the greatest number of troops deployed were soldiers from the Royal Artillery. The county providing the greatest number of troops was Yorkshire. So there is a standing joke that we are a cross between a Rest Home for retired gunners and Last of The Summer Wine.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Allan Conn
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

"If a soldier loses his mind as a direct result...etc"

The cross tabs on the Cain site state that 6 members of the British Army were killed by the British Army during the conflict. So it does seem to at least attempt to take account of the type of death you describe.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:32 PM

If a soldier loses his mind as a direct result of being deployed on Op Banner, and he takes his rifle and shoots & kills another soldier who was trying to calm him down, and then is shot and killed in turn by another soldier, does that count as two deaths due to the conflict?
Believe me - it happened.
Or how about a soldier killed in a road accident when he swerved to avoid a bunch of kids throwing missiles at him & his vehicle? Aid was unable to get to him for some time because they were prevented by rioters - who had taken the place of the kids.
Or another soldier who fell from the back of a lorry and was run over by the army vehicle following too closely behind? (as per normal practice for vehicles in NI)
The RoH compiled by NIVA includes ALL security forces deaths unless it can be shown to have been through natural causes NOT related to deployment. So far we have only found one case of a heart attack that we cannot put down to deployment. Far more traffic accidents occured in NI involving security forces than occured in BAOR for instance, so it can be assumed that it was due to the circumstances of their job and the stress associated with it. The same applies to suicides, of which there were a few.
We admit to bias in this matter. I assume all statistics are biased, even if unintentionally.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 10:02 AM

Sorry, link
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/updates.html

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 09:42 AM

He (Malcolm Sutton) is aware of a lot of the names Keith

Not true Martin.
He has been updating his data continuously, most recently last month.
All updates listed here.http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/updates.html

Dead Horse merely points out that only those Security Forces actually killed by terrorist action are counted, not all those who died on active service by accident etc.

The Sutton figures are definitive of all those who died by violence.
The chart is accurate and shows all violent deaths and the perpetrators.
If it conflicts with your views, it is time to review them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:19 AM

We certainly were pretty stupid 40 odd years ago.
But as to those Royal Marines who have been arrested I am not so sure.
I (and all of you) do not know the circumstances of their 'crime' and it is wrong to speculate. I guess we know that it is wrong to do so, so we have trawled up old arguements instead.
I suspect that all that will come out of the trial will be the reinforcement of the old wise words known to soldiers the world over - If you are going to do something naughty, make sure there are no witnesses. That goes for iphones too.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

We had moved on and were only discussing the veracity of the various historians' work.
I think we are done.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:57 PM

I'm fully aware of that, Keith. I called him out on it too. Did you notice? But whilst he, for whatever (bad) reason saw fit to do so, about 70% of the responses have been from you.

Give it a rest? Please? It IS history now. We can't change it. But instead of arguing about the hatred, maybe we can try to be slightly less fucking idiotic than we were 40-odd years ago? I think DH might agree with that one...

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Allan Conn
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:27 PM

I imagine young men in the British army put under intense pressure are the same as young men in other armies. Sometimes a few may overstep the mark and act in a criminal way. Would they be better or worse than anyone else just because they are British? However the fact that this crime was discovered by the British themselves, and action is being taken by the British themselves, actually says something positive about how we are in the 2010s!

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:01 PM

Raedwulf, Martin reopened this thread to attack the army.(Marines actually)
He was quite open about that, and fine.
He then tried to rewrite the history of the Troubles, denouncing the army for killing civilians, despite what his people did.
That is why I put the chart up.

Martin, if he was aware of more names he would update his work.
The Republican Rolls of Honour would also recognise the sacrifices.
You are being dishonest about this Martin.
His figures are accepted as definitive.
If you challenge that, show us just a scrap of evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:25 PM

Keith - give it a rest. My initial impression of Martin wasn't great but, you know what? He's just like me - he'd like the world to be a better place. Charts don't help that.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:37 AM

He is aware of a lot of the names Keith. It is not as simple as that. Some families record their dead on family headstones, others thought their loved ones went south "on the run" until told at a later date, it is very complex Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 10:18 AM

I could list a lot of names not on any of them

Your friend Sutton would be so grateful if you would supply that list at your next meeting.
He is clearly very serious and earnest about the thoroughness and completeness of his work.
I doubt that "he will confirm that both sides suffered losses that were not recorded." because he would have mentioned that along with the other discrepancies and exclusions he meticulously listed.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 10:02 AM

"Keith seems to love these charts"

I do like to have objective evidence.
I would not expect anyone to believe something just because I say it is so.

If my views are contradicted by the facts, I change my view.
You have provided no contradictory facts or evidence, or anything to support your claims.
You even ask us to dismiss the accepted historical facts.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 09:42 AM

Interesting story on the Belfast Telegraph site.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/plans-for-more-secrecy-slammed-16224281.html

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 09:32 AM

Sorry Dead Horse about that. Funny enough, I had a close friend called "the Dark" from Belfast. The bus tour is well spirited, I agree. Also a good site to see is the republican museum in Conway Mill. Johnny Haddock and Paddy Hickey are the two guides, it holds a wealth of history, including items relating to the British army. They will also show you the crafts made by republican prisoners held in the Isle of Wight, Full Sutton and Whitemoor Prison.The names are beside each piece (look for the matchcraft from the Isle of Wight and two wood carvings from Whitemoor) they are the best :-)

Soldiers who served over there often return on a nostalgia tour with their family, I have never heard of any unsavory incidents, sorry about that ass in the bar, clearly fought his war from his armchair.

Keith seems to love these charts, if you are happy with them, well that is good enough, but I could list a lot of names not on any of them. Keith, do treat yourself to one of the tours sometime, bus, walking tour and museum at the mill, it is a great short mid week break and you will honesty enjoy it.

Sadly there is no loyalist museum, they started one but it failed, think former UVF adjutant David Ervine was behind it, sadly he died suddenly. David was a serious loss to the process.


My apologies for my earlier comments before I was enlightened by your excellent accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 06:16 AM

"Malcolm Sutton
(updated October 2002)


This index lists 3,529 deaths which are directly linked to the conflict in Northern Ireland, and which occurred between July 1969 and 31st December 2001. The discrepancy between this figure and the official British figure arises because of differences of interpretation in a small number of cases, and because Northern Ireland Office figures relate to deaths occurring in Northern Ireland only. The following types of death have been excluded from this index because they are not regarded as directly due to the conflict, or I have considered it inappropriate to include them.

Accidental shootings of any individual, whether by a member of a military organisation or by a civilian. That is, the accidental discharge of a firearm with no intention to harm the victim.

Persons killed during rows or fights between individual people, whether they are members of a military organisation or not.

Persons killed during casual street violence, which is clearly not politically motivated.

Persons dying of natural causes, for example heart attacks, brought on by an incident during the conflict.

Suicides.

Road accidents, whether they involve military vehicles, or are driven by persons involved in a military operation, unless there is evidence of a deliberate intention to run down the victim.

Helicopter crashes and accidents.

Of the total deaths, 3,271 have occurred in Northern Ireland, 115 in the Irish Republic, 125 in Britain, and 18 elsewhere in Europe. Republican groups have been responsible for 2,061 of the deaths, Loyalist groups for 1,016, British Forces for 363, and the Irish Republic's Forces for 5. For the remaining 84 deaths, it has not been possible or appropriate to identify the killing group. In the analysis that follows, the deaths caused by the perpetrators are further broken down by broad category of victim. "

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 06:13 AM

I need some reason to dismiss the work of Sutton.
Read his own words about his work here.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/

The correlation between his work and others is substantial.
He explains which cases he did not count and why.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 06:00 AM

Disjointed thoughts on the subject:
The chart is NOT accurate. At best it relies on available information.
There is still a lot of information that is not available.
I am sure Malcolm Sutton will admit to that.
All sides tried to cover up so many details and will not admit those details to the general public.
I have seen transcripts and spoken directly with soldiers who were at some of the disputed events, particularly Bloody Sunday.
I am quite satisfied that shots were fired at the troops before the paras engaged. McGuiness has admitted (after first denying) that he was there.
My cynical side leads me to believe that the republican terrorist of today is merely putting on a face of being against the ongoing drug problem among their own youth, while unofficially backing their own suppliers to the trade. But then I am biased by my more formative years in the province. I admit to that.
The whole trouble lies with folks not letting go of history - in many cases they delight in perpetuating that history and to instilling it in their kids.
Some of my colleagues have returned to the province and have come back amazed at the difference now. One of them told me that he actually had a pint in a well known drinking haunt on the Lower Falls and was asked by a local if he had been there before. "Yes" he replied, "but last time I came in here we kicked the doors in to gain entrance" The barmen overheard and gave my mate a pint 'on the house' and the locals wished him well. All except one who said something in gaelic and was promptly told to shut up by the others. What an example of modern progressive thinking, eh?
The open-top bus tours are always a source of amusement too, especially when the 'auld boyo' acting as tour guide realises who he has got as passengers. The commentary gets a bit more interesting then. lol
"And if ye look to yor roit, you will see where dem bold bastards blew up da post office, causing widespread hardship among all de publicans and bingo halls for moils around on dat Froiday night."
By the way Martin, I am not Dark Horse, I am Dead Horse, named after the sea shanty and not anything sinister. I often forget how my chosen name may tend to give the wrong idea about me. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:58 AM

Historians like Sutton did not just work from official sources.
The figures are good to within a hundred or so.
The chart is accurate.
You have nothing to support any of your claims, so while keeping an open mind, there is no reason for anyone to believe any of your claims.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:31 AM

I will leave it to others to decide. I stand by my facts Keith. Both Dark Horse and myself have stated BOTH sides in the WAR did not record ALL their losses. I do not dismiss the work of historians, they worked with the material made available to them from official sources.

Was I there, yes I was and I hope another generation doesn't have to go through it. It is unlikely they ever will. Active republican groups are small in number and do not have the support within the community and are infiltrated by agent provocateurs. There are three active groups now, they are ripping eachother apart in and outside of the prisons and will never unite as a creditable threat.

The basic principles of republicanism was sold at a cost. Many republicans of renown and standing just walked away from it, including myself. Adams played a very shrewd game, I repeat, there is a senior British agent within the leadership of Sinn Fein.

As a party, they were rewarded by the British government in a number of ways, that included ditching the 1996 plan, the St, Andrews agreement with of a threat of join sovereignty by Tony Blair who arrived at the meeting that Sunday afternoon in a foul mood, spoke for 20 minutes and left, requesting an solution by the next day.

The inclusion of ranked Provisionals in a financial pension package that had just been agreed for the RUC, Prison Service and Ulster Defence Regiment did take place, it was the only way Sinn Fein could sell it to certain individuals. I repeat, their pension package came by a more unorthodox route.

Keith, your choice to believe me matters little to me, there will come a time in your life you will hear the truth about these matters from other sources and won't be as quick to dismiss them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM

I claim no knowledge of the Troubles.
I was not there.
You need to explain what your estimate of the losses is based on.
How much research have you done?
Is it peer reviewed?
Why should we dismiss all the work of all the professional historians of the period, and listen to you?

The chart is accurate.
The truth hurts Martin.
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:53 AM

Well I think Dark Horse and myself are in a much better position to reflect on this subject than you Keith. Malcolm Sutton is a gentleman, I met him several times, he is very approachable Keith. Email him and talk to him on the subject of figures, he will confirm that both sides suffered losses that were not recorded.

Clearly you disagree with what Dark Horse and myself state as fact.
It doesn't really matter to me. Maybe best you just go and wind Mr. Carroll up today.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:40 AM

Source for the chart.
For almost twenty years Malcolm Sutton has been recording the details of every death arising from the present conflict in Ireland. He has collected newspaper cuttings, observed funerals, checked coroners' court records, visited cemetries and studied books and pamphlets. He has painstakingly verified the personal details of victims, the organisations responsible for the killings and the circumstances in which the deaths occurred.

Malcolm Sutton has compiled this index as a memorial for the dead and as a tribute to the families and friends of the 3,529 people killed between July 1969 and 31 December 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:33 AM

Martin, you put up unbelievable stories with nothing to back them up and expect to be believed.
I put up thoroughly researched figures from respected and authoritative historians of the Troubles, and you rubbish them.
Again with no justification.
If you look at the Cain website you will see various data sets with figures that vary only slightly depending on the criteria used.
If you have better data, put it up.
(No chance!)

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:15 AM

Five British soldiers have now been charged with murder as I reported last week. Seems one of them recorded the murder on video, the police have are now in receipt of this recording.

Full story here.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/five-royal-marines-charged-murder-065822096.html

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 03:53 AM

It was a war Dark Horse, no one involved in it would call it otherwise.

The province is a much different place today. Young people are more concerned about lifestyle than politics.

Sadly there is a serious drug problem over there,it is worse in nationalist/republican areas. They no longer take people to the bog hole or dispatch them to England. Everyone knows the drug dealers, the police there have the lowest apprehension rate in the UK against drug dealers and distributors. Many believe the police ignore the drugs problem as payback to a people that never came forward with information on people who murdered their officers.

I agree with Dark Horse about that bloody doctored chart Keith keeps putting up here. You and I know the casualty figures on BOTH SIDES were much higher.

There are three or four areas in Milltown Cemetery that families visit and will acquire a memorial stone at some point. There were many late night burials in Milltown that went unrecorded, not that Keith will believe that either.

Dark Horse,you have my admiration for the contribution you brought to this thread. I can't run with you regarding shots being fired in Derry in 1972,if so, it would have been the OIRA and they never admitted it. Marty McGuinness was an OC at the time, but not for that area of Derry. He claims a little more credit than he should and he knows that.

The reason being, him and Adams loved the good cop bad cop approach during meetings with the British and Ulster Unionists. It kept the questions and focus away from the Commander in Chief who always claimed he was never in the army. McGunniess was always disliked in Derry, as for Adams, I just hope the full truth will come out and no one tries a cover up.

Sinn Fein are currently cleaning up their party, you will see more and more ex prisoners and army members in ministerial roles. They are looking "clean skins" with no luggage for the prime jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:51 AM

I agree.
Nothing would have happened had not the Civil Rights movement brought it to our attention.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:41 AM

"The kind of arrangement that now exists could have been had decades ago."

Surely all sides hold some responsibility for that and not just the extremists on the Nationalist side? As far as the British govt goes then in the past they were content to let sleeping dogs lie. That is as long as Northern Ireland was quiet they turned a blind eye to the injusticies imposed by the devolved govt there against the minority population. It seems to me that it wasn't until unrest started brewing again in the Civil Rights period that the British govt started taking notice of said injustices - and I imagine that until then most British people didn't even really know about them! I think you are probably right in that had the Nationalist cause remained peaceful then they would have been viewed as the innocents on the defensive and we would maybe have got to where we are now a whole lot quicker. However surely it is also true that had the British govt imposed themselves on the Loyalist devolved govt a whole lot sooner then the extemists among the Republicans would have been fewer and they would have had less water in which to swim. Just my thoughts!

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM

We at http://www.nivets.org.uk have a more updated site. We are constantly adding to the figure of 1400 Security Forces personnel killed on active duty.
Not all were as the result of terrorist action, but are still marked on the national Roll Of Honour maintained by the RBL. One of the last names added was of a young army cadet who tripped an explosive device planted in his school cadet hut. He arrived early and was killed with two of his chums being injured. What possible justification can there be for deliberately targetting cadets as young as 13 yrs old?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 09:16 AM

The Op. Banner Roll of Honour site "1104 Army, Police and Prison Officers."
http://www.operationbanner.com/roh/

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 09:05 AM

I agree with that entirely DH.
It is sometimes said that keeping NI is an imperial thing, a last gasp of empire.
Like the Falklanders, the majority demand to remain British, but otherwise we would gladly let them go.
The british government of the day never wanted partition in the first place, but the army refused to fight them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 08:47 AM

As for the comment "The Brit government and the Brit people do not and never wanted NI."
I hate that remark. It is an insult to the many loyal and decent members of the British Province of Northern Ireland, many of whom gave their lives to keep it so.
The same remark can be said of The Falklands, but we would be damned if we let a bunch of idiots walk in and take over British territory against the wishes of the majority of British citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 08:37 AM

I wasnt going to post to this thread again as there seemed no point. It has all been said and it really makes no difference.
But I cant sit idly by and see the continued rubbish that is assumed to be the truth - by both sides.
Where did the compiler of those statistical charts get their information?
I can state for a fact that over 1400 security forces personnel died on active service as a result of being deployed on Op Banner between 1969 - 2007. The MOD will only admit to about half that figure.
The other figures I can only guess at - as I believe the compiler also did. Statistics and damn lies seem to be the same thing when it comes to casualty figures.
The mention of Bloody Sunday always figures prominently in any discussion about 'The Troubles' but little regard is ever paid to the events which led up to this tragic event.
I wont bore you with the details, but can assure you all that there was no Black or White cut & dried answer to the whole sorry mess.
Shote WERE fired at security forces before the so called massacre of the 'innocents'.
Martin McGuinness WAS there and he WAS armed.
The people on that march WERE acting in an illegal and provocative manner.
The paras DID react in a fashion that evoked shame and revulsion from
the rest of the world.
It was the BEST result the Provisional IRA could have ever in their wildest dreams have hoped for. Their recruiting figures soared as a result.
The first OFFICIAL death reported by security forces in NI was Gunner Curtis, who was killed during a riot. Five other soldiers were wounded by the same burst of machine gun fire. 6-Feb-1971.
Those rioters were NOT children. They were an organised and very clever means to bring British forces out into a situation where a gunman could exploit the situation to his advantage. The troops lined up to face the rioters.
In the words of one who was there (not me)

"There were two troops deployed in the street both in anti riot formation. The Battery Commander was B**** M**** with D*** H***** as the Tp Comd of Curtis' troop. My troop was also deployed alongside ****'s and we were ordered to advance towards the junction and the rioting crowd. Our objective being to prevent them from reaching Tiger bay. It was our very first deployment in Belfast having been based in Armagh for the first few weeks of the tour.
The mob was angry and various missiles were hurled towards us including a nail bomb. We kept formation as ordered; the crowd suddenly opened and the automatic weapon sprayed the street. It was miraculous that so few were hit. We took cover but were unable to return fire because the crowd drew together again and the gunman disappeared. The injured lay on the road and we gave first aid as best we could until backup arrived."

I will stress that the British soldiers were mostly armed with riot shields and batons, cover being provided by two or three men with rifles/baton guns. (rubber bullets for the firing of)
The gunman, a scrote named Reid, was later shot & killed in, ironically, Curtis Street.
The events of Bloody Sunday came one year later. A year which saw increasing use of 'come-on' tactics employed by the provos.
This is rarely taken into account.
As a rough comparison there have been about 400 British Forces personnel killed on active duty in Afghanistan in the last ten years.
There were over 1400 British Forces personnel killed on active service during Op Banner 1969 - 2007.
You work the math and then tell me it wasnt a war.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 03:07 AM

Why do I not believe your story of 96?
The Brit government and the Brit people do not and never wanted NI.
That government did not need yet another bomb to make them continue to do all they could to end the war.
But, your people needed to be given a myth about a military victory because what you were actually fighting for was not achievable.
After 30 years of death and destruction, still no-one either side of the border was interested.

All your terror bombs did was cause revulsion, especially in America where they were equated with the Islamic terror bombs used against them.

Your only legacy to the land you claimed to fight for was decades of death, destruction, misery and impoverishment.
And all for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 07:01 PM

If there were no troubles, the Army would not even have been there Martin.
This neat chart shows who took which lives.
Do look.
And it was all for nothing Martin.
It just put the clock back 30 years.
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html#statusperpetrator

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 04:59 PM

Keith, I don't know why you start threads like this.

May I just point out AGAIN that this thread died 5 years ago (shortly after it started). Maybe Keith is a complete idiot. Maybe Martin is a complete idiot. Maybe we ALL are complete idiots. ;-)

I'm pretty bloody sure that we'd all like the world to be a better place. As far as Nationalist & Republican goes, it does seem to be a better place now. Hallelujah for that, even if some of the actors carry some unsavoury reputations. If we gain anything by raking over old coals, then rake. But do we gain anything? Or would it be better to let the thread die?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 01:18 PM

I was referring to British army actions Keith, not loyalist paramilitaries. You seem to have trouble accepting the actions of the British army shooting civilians were often covered up, look at bloody Sunday as an example.

I understand both the events of 96 and the bank job are hard to believe, but I state them as fact, in time the truth will out, maybe you will believe another source.

As for Don's illogical comment that the people of the North of Ireland ended the war, it lacks credibility and knowledge, maybe he should recall the failed Peace movement of 1976, it vanished off the face of the earth when Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan gained fame, then after receiving the award and a cash sum took the money and ran.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 11:18 AM

I am glad to see you acknowledged the fact the nationalist community suffered at the hands of Ulster loyalist and unionist injustice. Something Keith often failed to notice.
Not true at all Martin.
I have always acknowledged that obvious fact, and denounced Loyalist paramilitaries with equal vigour.

I am equally certain that as with the US Civil Rights movement, you could have had what you now have back in the mid 70s and the "armed struggle" was entirely counter productive.

I am sure you believe that story Martin, but it is unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 11:05 AM

""I do feel the military campaign by the Provisionals brought about change. Britain was well aware the device used in London in February 1996 had siblings and the panic calls from London to an Irish government official requesting a meeting with Provisional representatives the next day proved that. It will always remain a bone of contention among senior members of the movement, fortunately a certain will known individual got his way.""

That may have got 'em talking in the first instance, but the Northern Irish people brought the troubles to an end when they told both sets of Mad Dog killers "Enough is enough, and we want our lives back".

But for that, the "death crazed fanatics" on both sides would still be fighting.

Keith, I don't know why you start threads like this. You must be aware that they will bring every Brit hating Irishman out of the woodwork, in a fury of righteous rage.

That's why you won't see them starting threads about the baby killing PIRA, or LDV heroes, who between them nearly destroyed Northern Ireland.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 11:03 AM

An excellent account Dead Horse, I have to agree with almost everything you said in that post, I thank you for your clarity. Yes I agree, anyone throwing a coffee jar device at personnel poses a threat to life and that falls into category of responsive action. A child throwing a stone is somewhat different.

I am glad to see you acknowledged the fact the nationalist community suffered at the hands of Ulster loyalist and unionist injustice. Something Keith often failed to notice.

Dead Horse, I am no fan of Gerard Adams or Marty McGuinness, please understand that. If I am honest, I am still at odds with myself which one was a British agent, one sure thing is, one of them were.

Once Adams had Marie Drum out of the way,his political path was clear, he then wormed his way through Seamus Twomey, Joe Cahill and Ivor Bell to achieve his ultimate aim, the tail should never have been allowed to wag the dog.

Keith, history will deliver the truth regarding the February 96 deal and the Northern Bank, I have no reason to lie to you or mislead you, but take my word on both. The British government knew what they had to do and did it. Regarding 96, it was the right call, the window of opportunity of the Northern Bank occurred during a three week transition of sale between an Australian Banking company and a Danish one, very convenient. No paper trail leading back to number 10 I think the term used was.

Keith, there were many underhand deals done by the British government, and in turn many republican principles there sold by the cunning architect who has since walked away from his creation.

I wish you well Dead Horse.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 09:36 AM

It is interesting to see how my words have been interpreted by some on here.
I expect you think that I ate babies and went out of my way to look for trouble in a troubled land.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
As an uninformed soldier in training for Northern Ireland I was under the impression that we were going to meet and fight with the IRA and to protect the rest of the population against them.
It didnt take long for that idea to melt away.
After seeing how the catholic minority were being deprived of decent housing, jobs, and general acceptance into a bigotted society I felt nothing but sympathy for their cause.
The rioters, bombers, murderers and thugs were a different matter.
They were NOT children. They used children as cover, knowing that we could not fire into a crowd where their snipers were taking advantage.
Would you not want to shoot some scum that had just thrown a nail bomb at you and your mates, killing and injuring many?
Would you be happy to know that the bomber went on to be regarded as a hero for planting a device in school grounds that killed one of your colleagues?
Would you like to have seen Bin Laden jailed for a few years then be released and lauded as another Nelson Mandela?
I am not in favour of shooting innocents, but how much better would it have been if some unknown squaddie in WW1 had shot and killed a certain little Austrian corporal?
Just saying - not dreaming about it.
So Guest Martin, get back to your own dream world where Saint Gerry Adams et al reside.

P.S. I find it laughable that you castigate Keith for interpreting my words without permission, yet you have done the very same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 09:30 AM

It is not "a story" Keith anymore than the Northern Bank pension fund is.
I do not believe the story, but I am prepared to be convinced.
What evidence is there please?

I do believe that the Northern Bank was robbed by Republicans for their personal gain, and I think it was a base crime made worse because it cynically broke the promises made in the GFA.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:56 AM

Thankfully I am fortunate enough Alan not to suffer from delusional fantasies or grandiose ideas.

This individual didn't elaborate on his harrowing first hand experiences or confirmed diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder attributed to his service, so it seems you have an advantage over the rest us.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:47 AM

were all allowed our fantasies. if you'd been through what he had, maybe you'd be fantasising the same way.

Leave Dead Horse his troubled thoughts and dreams - you take care of your own. make sure they don't become reality.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:34 AM

Or ex British soldier Dead Horse.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: mayomick
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:28 AM

Yes, the marines arrested last week are innocent until proven guilty . They are entitled to a fair trial and not the sort of "sleeping pill" justice that the Taliban would probably want to mete out to them .

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:24 AM

Raedwulf, the bad apples within republicanism are incarcerated in Maghaberry prison.

That is the difference, do you recall any British soldiers being sent to the cages or the blocks in Long Kesh ?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:11 AM

It is not "a story" Keith anymore than the Northern Bank pension fund is.

Understand that the British government dealt with the Provisional leadership in a manner you would not be impressed with or clearly wish to accept as reality.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:08 AM

"the British army went home without a battle honour"
The British army wasn't fighting a war, hence its rules of engagement. Something your bias, Martin, seems to blind you to. Let's ALL be thankful they weren't given RoEs appropriate for war. It would have been a lot messier for both sides, and the "war" would probably still be going on. Instead, a better world is being built, and has been being built for a number of years.

I fail to see the worth in your resurrecting a 5 year old thread. There are undoubtedly bad apples in the British Army. These Marines may, or may not, be guilty as (not yet) charged. Are you telling us there are no bad apples in the Republican movement these days?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: mayomick
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 08:04 AM

.
Can't you understand how Irish people wouldn't want to "buy" what the former soldier, Dead Horse, is selling , Keith ? He doesn't say whether or not he actually murdered anybody while on duty over here , but has obviously been fantasizing about the notion of putting a " a 7.62 sleeping pill" into some Irish kid's head ever since he left the army .

After the Royal Military Police arrested seven Royal Marines last week on suspicion of murder in relation to an incident that occurred in Afghanistan in 2011, an armed forces' spokesman told the media :

"These arrests demonstrate the department and the armed forces' determination to ensure UK personnel act in accordance with their rules of engagement and our standards."

Your military top-brass obviously doesn't want their lower ranks being regarded as a bunch of " death crazed fanatics ", but that's the impression that Death Horse seems anxious to promote here. Please don't indulge him .

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 07:54 AM

I suspect that the story was used to sell the GFA to the rank and file.
They thought they were fighting and dying for a United Ireland, not a bit more electoral reform.
If it is true, it is not a progressive way to gain political power is it?
Direct Rule came in 1972, the Civil Rights movement in the North of Ireland was all but dead by that stage. British public opinion didn't come into it,
NICRA did not die.
It was wound up because all its aims were achieved, and it became the SDLP.
British public opinion certainly did come into it.
No referendum was needed to know that we were all appalled at what had been going on.
We supported the Civil Rights movements in NI and US.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 07:24 AM

I agree with your sentiments Keith, the SDLP are now a minority party, Sinn Fein speak for Nationalists and republicans.

Sinn Fein never openly supported violence, they took the conventional political route from 1986, I think you will agree that a lot happened over there after that date much of it involved Sinn Fein members being charged with terrorist activity, so their success wasn't as a result of their 1986 approach.

Direct Rule came in 1972, the Civil Rights movement in the North of Ireland was all but dead by that stage. British public opinion didn't come into it, there was never a referendum held. American pressure of Britain's abuse of Human Rights such as the torture of political suspects in 1971 "The Hooded Men" something they were later found guilty of in a European Court, also played a part.

I do feel the military campaign by the Provisionals brought about change. Britain was well aware the device used in London in February 1996 had siblings and the panic calls from London to an Irish government official requesting a meeting with Provisional representatives the next day proved that. It will always remain a bone of contention among senior members of the movement, fortunately a certain will known individual got his way. That was the day Keith that changed the political situation.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:54 AM

Those bandsmen deserve their fate.
Sinn Fein would never have gained seats or a voice in local government,
The Nationalist SDLP used democratic means to represent Nationalists.
Sinn Fein started to get electoral success when it stopped supporting violence.
The British government was forced to remove the Unionist government not by paramilitary might, but by the Civil Rights movement and British public opinion.
The bombings and shootings just entrenched enmity and hatred and derailed the progress that was being made.

If you believe violence is acceptable against a people who do not like or want what you are selling, you are just the same as the Taliban.
No difference in bombing Canary Wharf or flying a plane into it.
Death crazed fanatics.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:44 AM

"The kind of arrangement that now exists could have been had decades ago."
Not with a unionist veto sitting in Stormont carving out electoral regions as they did., nationalists were treated as second class as you are aware.

Sinn Fein would never have gained seats or a voice in local government, the Unionist majority would have seen to that.

The only way it could happen was forcing the British government to remove the unionist government as they did in 1972, then force the British government to the table. It worked, the results are there to be seen. Technically shafting the Ulster Unionists. Carson must be revolving in his grave.

By the way, 11 members of that band who played sectarian songs outside the catholic church in July were arrested by police yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:24 AM

I was expressing my opinion, not answering for anyone else.
The "bloody point of any of it" was that bombs, bullets, intimidation and murder were not allowed to subvert the democratically expressed will of the people.
NI was not forced against the will of its people into a union with Eire.
The kind of arrangement that now exists could have been had decades ago.
All the gunmen did was deprive NI of decades of prosperity, and bring untold misery into thousands of lives.
History will not be kind to them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:44 AM

Keith, I don't think it appropriate that you answer for another member, unless they instructed you to do so.

Keith, you express frustration at the rules of engagement. These rules (as stated in the blue and yellow cards issued prior to your deployment tour) are laid out by the Ministry of Defence and the appropriate government departments. Soldiers are expected to follow orders, I do hope you understand that.

The war in the North of Ireland was guerrilla. It wasn't conventional. Units operating in rural or urban areas had to improvise according to the terrain. A Mk 15 was ideal in border regions for use against forfeited barracks. A proxy van was ideal for use against torture centres such as Gough,Castlereagh or a forensic lab. A lot of the centres were deliberately built in residential areas by the M.O.D. to use residents as human shields.

I will accept the government publicly placed restrictions on what a soldier on the ground could or could not do, but privately they allowed a lot more, often turning a blind eye and soldiers knew that firing a plastic or rubber bullet into the face of a young child, as they often did would never result in a prosecution.

As I said it is all immaterial now. Canary Wharf in 96 had the British government on the phone to intermediates,let's just say in the knowledge that in those days of February 1996 similar events could have occurred. The seven man army council of the Provisional army saw five of it's members selected for key governmental positions. Militant Unionism were told by Tony Blair at St, Andrews, accept Sinn Fein in government or prepare for a declaration of joint sovereignty between Dublin and London.

And then there was the Northern Bank deposit, 26 million placed in a bank awaiting collection in the knowledge that no road blocks would be in place anywhere within a 37 mile radius of the bank and no prosecutions would ever follow.

So, a generous pension fund set up courtesy of the British taxpayer, governmental positions given and not forgetting the disbandment of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the notorious Royal Ulster Constabulary thrown in as a sweetener.

All in all, not hard to see who the winners and losers were in this game.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:04 AM

Not a lot of point in arguing Keith. our minds are made up. their minds are definitely made up.

persoanlly I resent the life of every English kid in army unform lost on the streets of NI, or in the shitholes o Afghanistan and and Iraq.

What has been the bloody point of any of it. McGuinness in government over in Ireland, all kinds of dodgy buggers in all the other places.

When I lived in the mining areas (ex mining areas -where jobs for kids had dried up in mining and manufacturing) there seemed to be a funeral in some nearby village every week for some local kid. Why and for what have those families been to hell and back?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 02:06 AM

You misrepresent what Dead Horse said.
He was a soldier who wanted to be allowed to fight the enemy, but was under restrictions that gave his enemy the advantage.
A gunman tries to kill you, and you are only allowed to fire back when he is in the aim, not when he is maneuvering.
If they catch you, you are tortured and killed.
Their clever lawyers will probably get them off, or there will be an eventual amnesty anyway.
To keep the streets safe for others, you have to be on them.
They can shoot you in the back from a safe distance and run away.
A stolen car crashes through your road block, but you must not shoot.

No other army in the world is ever expected to show such restraint.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 02:30 PM

Nice to see Dead Horse admitting the role of the British army in the North of Ireland. A round from an SLR seems to have been his cure for all ill's. Rioting was the preserve of children over there, few would have been sent to the states to raise funds.

Anyway, it is all water under the bridge now, Sinn Fein took control of the Provisionals back in 1986, their political approach paid off, they are now in government and making governmental decisions and earning world respect and the British army went home without a battle honour to their name after 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: bubblyrat
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 01:11 PM

Please stop referring to personnel as" Royal Marines" ; yes, they are IN the Royal Marines ,but they are only "Marines" . I was in the Royal Navy , but I wasn't a "Royal Sailor" , nor was my late , ex-Royal Air Force father a "Royal Airman".
                              Meanwhile ,think about this ; for many years now ,under International Law , anti-personnel mines have been proscribed , and nobody , especially members of the British Armed Forces ,is /are allowed to use or deploy them. The Taliban , however ,and other terrorist organisations , don't hesitate to use these dreadful , despicable , Improvised Explosive Devices ( yes, Anti-Personnel mines )that blow mens' legs ,arms and balls off , so I have every sympathy for members of our Armed Forces if they are sometimes less than kind and charitable towards their captives on occasion .

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 10:48 AM

Interesting take on things from Dead Horse. That's the very sort of psychopath cum peace-keeper we've had to put up with over the years.    Fighting a war with one hand tied behind his back and fantasising about murdering somebody with a bullet to the brain. I assume that that's what Dead Horse refers to when he writes about " a 7.62 sleeping pill" Such charming army slang ! War is war and all that.

Successive UK governments always maintained though that , during the course of the recent troubles in Ireland , British soldiers were not taking part in a war , but assisting the police force to keep the peace and stop the mad paddies from murdering each other. Isn't that what they told you all you when they sent you out on to the streets, Dead Horse?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 09:44 AM

Ah. The good old 'Rules of Engagement' is rearing its ugly head again.
If a rioter is in the act of throwing a bomb, he must be warned that the troops are armed and will shoot. In Northern Ireland we were obliged to warn the bomber three times before it was deemed OK to shoot.
If he has already thrown the bomb he is no longer, in himself, a threat - so you are not entitled to shoot him. You can arrest him, and he will no doubt go through the process of law and be sent to prison with others of his kind who will all learn to be better at what they do. Then he will be released and go back to doing what he did before - only better.
But his face is well known to the soldiers on the streets so he has become a bit of a liability to his mates, who send him to the States to collect funds through NORAID which will go directly to Gaddafi to provide arms and explosives to kill and maim many more soldiers and innocent civilians. And a few years down the line he will probably claim compensation for loss of human rights, or be invited to share the future running of the country.
How much better to have put a 7.62 sleeping pill into his brain when you had the chance.
There is nothing like having to fight a war with one hand tied behind ones back, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 04:28 AM

I just thought it important that people are made aware of the story in case it didn't make the international news. PR is very important.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM

Thanks Martin.
No point in waiting until actual charges have been made, never mind a conviction.
If it was a breach of Rules of Engagemnt, remember ours are stricter than anyone else's.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 03:11 AM

Seven British Royal Marines have been arrested on suspicion of murder.
More here.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/seven-royal-marines-held-over-afghan-murder-201739065.html

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:12 PM

from Ave Imperatrix
by Oscar Wilde

For not in quiet English fields
Are these, our brothers, laid to rest,
Where we might deck their broken shields
With all the flowers the dead love best.

For some are by the Delhi walls,
And many in the Afghan land,
And many where the Ganges falls
Through seven mouths of shifting sand.

And some in Russian waters lie,
And others in the seas which are
The portals to the East, or by
The wind-swept heights of Trafalgar.

And thou whose wounds are never healed,
Whose weary race is never won,
0 Cromwelrs England! must thou yield
For every inch of ground a son?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 05:52 PM

ROTFLMAO

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Phil
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:05 AM

Do not know what they are AT, but I will wager the British army will be the best in the world AT what they are doing.
Bring the Troops home. NOW. Heroes one and all.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Les from Hull
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:08 AM

EUFOR troop strength

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:40 AM

the whole point of having an army isn't actually to organise tranquil days out for them

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:24 AM

Cool as folk, I was a spectator on a few occasions in London in the 1960S, during the Whit week-end Gaelic games at WEMBLEY.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:17 AM

McGrath, Yes the irony of it all being transported from a now tranquil Bosnia to the hell-hole which is Afghanistan. You don`t have to point out that some of us have according to you,"missed the point", far from it, just indicating the stupidity of an army which sometimes meekly questions their masters, but in the end meekly obeys.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Cool as Folk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:56 PM

So good to see the Irish enthusiastic about the English sport of Rugby. It would appear that soccer (another English sport)is the most popular sport in Ireland ! Really can't see a hurling match taking place in Lords can you ?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM

Some people do seem to find it remarkably hard to recognise irony in a thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM

Grab,

There is a general misconception with regard to the role of UN "Peacekeepers", that they are sent into situations to "solve" things. They are not, and the restrictions on the make up of "peacekeeping" forces and their numbers and their tasking clearly prevent any such action.

Before UN peacekeepers are deployed the following conditions must be met:
- The parties involved in the conflict must be willing to negotiate a settlement;
- There must be a clear demarcation line dividing the combatants;
- All fighting must have stopped, there must be a "local" ceasefire in place;
- If fighting should break out between the combatants, the UN peacekeepers are automatically and immediately withdrawn.

Restrictions related to Peacekeeping Forces:
- Their numbers have to be comensurate with the task at hand, i.e. they cannot "swamp" the area;
- They must be impartial in the execution of their duties;
- Their primary duty is to present a dividing line between the combatants and monitor the ceasefire;
- Their "Rules of Engagement" only cover responding to fire directly at them by one side or the other.
- They are not allowed heavy weapons such as artillery or armour (Tanks, etc), armoured personnel carriers are allowed and soft skinned transport;
- They are not allowed tactical air support of any kind, although transport helicopters and transport aircraft are permitted.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

Greg, This was our fourth win in a row, we also went five in a row from 1972-76, very good for our wee country.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:27 PM

Dave I am with you all the way, I would prefer to see ALL national anthems confined to history, although if you are allowed one at every game, the Welsh anthem would do for me.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Dotsy
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:50 PM

Didn't do much of a job peace keeping in Kenya, Ulster or the Congo.
Why the thread title ?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Grab
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:13 AM

Sounds good Keith - I'll go with that. :-) Sorry, I really didn't follow where you were going with those initial posts.

Does the UK really get disproportionate assignments on UN peacekeeping missions? Have to dig out some stats. Likely there's always going to be *some* peacekeeping mission going on, but dunno whether it's disproportionate.

My problem with "peacekeeping" is that it only seems to work if the other two sides want peace. If they don't (as in NI, Bosnia, Iraq and Palestine), the peacekeepers are generally screwed, because they don't have the numbers to do anything significant. And worst-case, the troops get drawn into one side or the other (as in NI), become part of the problem and perpetuate the circle of violence.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: greg stephens
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:23 AM

ard mhacha: out of historical sensitivity and innate good manners, the English team did indeed allow the Irish team to win. This is, however, unlikely to be repeated.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

Excellent game Ard and a very good result for the Irish lads. I now sincerely hope somebody does turn over France for I would hate to see them win the Grand Slam on that one minute and thirty-eight lapse on the part of the Irish after having fought so well to get back into the game and lead against France.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:04 AM

Its comprehensible Ard in the light of you and your mates always getting the boot in about the English army 'at every social gathering' - as the folksong says.

Its obviously something Keith feels strongly about, in the opposite direction that you do.

The poor chap suffers from a sense of injustice

say something soothing to him, like God save the Queen, or Well done Keith! - you've certainly made me see things differently.....

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:02 AM

It was me that asked about the English fans. Ard. Glad they were well behaved. Nice to know we are not all yobs and hooligans:-)

I'm also very pleased that the political significance of the game did not go un-noticed. I believe both the GAA and the RFU behaved impecably and wish that we could all do the same.

Now if only we can all work towards getting that bloody dirge of an anthem stopped at EVERY event the world could be a much happier place:-)

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:01 AM

Ard, second sentence of thread,
"They and other EU forces are no longer needed to keep the peace and rebuild."

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:18 AM

Captain Ginger, The English Rugby fans were tops, they took their defeat in good spirits, this info from my two nephews who were at the game.To get back to the incomprehensible theme of this Thread,I fail to see why all of the European peace keeping forces didn`t get a mention,I shouldn`t wonder when I see Keith`s name at the top.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:10 AM

Alan,
In November 1993, the Government agreed to allow 1000 Bosnian men who had been detained in Bosnian Serb camps to come to the UK with their families (a total of 4,000). The Refugee Council, together with the British Red Cross set up a programme to receive and settle Bosnian refugees. Reception centres were established in various parts of the UK responsible for the initial accommodation and welfare of the refugees prior to the move into more independent living arrangements. In 1995, a further 500 Bosnian refugees were offered temporary refuge in the UK, plus some 20 medical evacuees. The majority of refugees from Bosnia did not arrive under the 'programme'. Around 14,000 Bosnians applied for asylum independently after the war in Bosnia broke out.

Violent events in Kosovo at the beginning of 1999 led to the largest exodus of refugees of the decade. Some 900,000 people were forcibly expelled from Kosovo. As part of a contingency plan, the UK government asked the Refugee Council and its three partner agencies, the British Red Cross, Refugee Action and the Scottish Refugee Council, to organise a reception programme for Kosovar evacuees

Most of the guns from Bosnia will have been brought in by the thousands of refugees who now live here.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Alan Bateman
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:03 AM

Gun crime in Britain is at an all time high. Police say most of the illegal guns on the streets of Britain today came in from Bosnia.

I clearly remember British soldiers arriving home from here being charged with bringing illegal weapons into the the country. Were these just souvenirs or memento's ?

Gardi in Dublin found the body of a man floating in the river. He was wearing stockings, suspenders and a padded bra under his English rugby shirt.

The police removed the English rugby shirt from the body to save the dead man's family any embarrassment.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:08 AM

Keith, I really don't think you are going to convince some people here that the British army is good news. Even though some of those people would have been living under the Nazi yoke, without the British army.

live with it.

some of us have blind spots. I have the same sort of thing with traditional folk music, when the traditions don't even extend back to my parents. For many people it is the heartbeat of life - to me, it offends my intelligence.

there is no blueprint saying we all have to feel the same - otherwise the Nazis might as well have won.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:24 AM

Hello Dave.

Grab and Skipy, I wanted to start a good news thread about the army, after a stream of accusing ones.
The army has been in Bosnia for 15 years, first with UN then NATO and now EU. A genocide was prevented and the country stabilised.
I understood that an army is defined as being in excess of 100 000.
Being understrength those on deployment work round the clock and suffer chronic sleep deprivation. That should make them aggressive and incompetent but they perform as well as any army and better than most, notwithstanding the abuse they get on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:08 AM

Very good score, Ard, and well deserved. Just you wait though...;-)

How was the behaviour of the English rugby fans?

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:54 AM

Agreed - it was a good match, and given the significance of the setting, an object lesson in reconciliation. Somehow an Irish victory seemed appropriate. Next time, however... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Sparticus
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:46 AM

ard,

They were lucky!























That they got away so lightly.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:57 AM

Teribus Surely even a died in the wool Brit like you is aware of the role played by the Republic of Irelands troops as peacekeepers throughout most of the worlds trouble spots.
Forgive me if I stray from the point, I thought you as a Rugby fan would have been impressed by the conduct of the Irish fans at the game with England, surely a lesson in manners for the soccer yobos of England, repeat score Ireland 43 England 13, not bad, what ,what, old boy.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:35 PM

How many Irish "European" troops are present Ard? Bet they don't get speeding fines and parking tickets, not to mention all those non-existent convictions for murder and rape - Valiant lads, every one of them, to a man - Eh?

Grab, what they may well call it is imaterial. I believe that what Keith is refering to is the standard put on Germany under the terms of the Treaty Of Versielles. Germany was allowed a "Defence Force" whose number could not exceed 100,000 men, however to be strict in its application they were not allowed:
- Armour
- Heavy Artillery
- An Air Force
- Submarines, or any naval unit larger that a Cruiser of a stipulated tonnage (This latter restriction created the design known as the "Pocket Battleship")

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: skipy
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM

Kieth, please clarify your point.
Regards Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:44 PM

The 6,000 European peace keeping forces in Bosnia have now been reduced to 2,500, note European.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Grab
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

I think you'll find they do call it an army, Keith... :-)

And I still don't get it. What did you start the thread for? Is it defence of the British Army, being asked to do lots of difficult and risky jobs around the world? Or to criticise how they do that job? Is it to criticise the UK politicians who decide to take on those jobs? Or to criticise the UN who asks them to do peacekeeping duties? Or to criticise the foreign nations who go postal and need peacekeepers in there? Or to be glad that one round of peacekeeping is done and the poor sods can go home?

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:31 AM

Ah, but Keith, will the crime rate in Bosnia now fall dramatically, particularly in the sector of motoring offences and parking tickets?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:14 AM

Grab,
Strictly, Britain has no army.
Numbering less than 100,000 it is merely a national defence force.
What it is at, is taking on a disproportionate role in the world's trouble spots.
It has more threads about it started here than any other army, and usually with titles like this one.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Grab
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:58 AM

What are they "at", Keith?

Subject: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:00 AM

Hundreds of British troops have had to be sent home from Bosnia.
They and other EU forces are no longer needed to keep the peace and rebuild.
The Muslim people NATO moved in to protect are now secure.
And not a drop of oil in the place.