• Undercover British army unit 'shot civilians' in west Belfast 40 years ago
    14 replies, posted
[IMG]http://img.rasset.ie/00082834-642.jpg[/IMG] sources: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24987465[/URL] [URL]http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1121/488078-undercover-army-unit-shot-civilians-in-belfast/[/URL] [QUOTE]Former members of the unit told the BBC's Panorama programme, to be broadcast tonight, that they also carried out drive-by shootings of nationalists, even though there was no independent evidence any of them were IRA members.Speaking publicly for the first time, ex-members of the Military Reaction Force said they had been tasked with "hunting down" IRA members in Belfast. The unit operated for 18 months before being disbanded in 1973 and its records have since been destroyed. The British Ministry of Defence said it had referred the disclosures to police. The reaction force had around 40 hand-picked men from across the British army who addressed each other by first name and dispensed with ranks and identification tags. They operated at the height of the Troubles in the early 1970s, when bombings and shootings by paramilitaries occurred almost daily. Another ex-member said it was part of his mission to draw out the IRA and minimise its activities. "If they needed shooting they'd be shot," he said.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Generally, lethal force was only lawful when the lives of members of the security forces or others were in immediate danger.Another soldier said: "If you had a player who was a well-known shooter who carried out quite a lot of assassinations... it would have been very simple, he had to be taken out." According to the Panorama programme, seven former members of the force believed the Yellow Card did not apply to them and one described it as a "fuzzy red line", meaning they acted as they saw fit. Some said they would shoot unarmed targets. The MRF's records have been destroyed but the soldiers denied they were part of a death or assassination squad. Tony Le Tissier, a major in the Royal Military Police, said: "They were playing at being bandits, they were meant to be sort of IRA outlaws. "That's why they were in plain clothes, operating plain vehicles and using a Thompson sub machine gun (favoured by the IRA)."[/QUOTE] If there ever was a point of contention among Dublin and London it was responsibility, there was a lot of civilians shot by British security forces during the troubles, and no one was ever punished or even reprimanded for those actions. Up until only recently after the 2010 report the civil rights marchers that were gunned down during bloody sunday were branded as criminals and they were finally exonerated, although no one was ever brought up on the shootings themselves. Collusion between the security forces and Loyalist Paramilitaries is another problem. I find it sad that even after so much progress things like these are denied or pushed under the carpet.
Let's of course not forget about the IRA members who killed innocents and haven't been prosecuted, Mr Adams and Mr McGuiness I'm looking at you
[QUOTE=Killzone(Dylan);42934815]Let's of course not forget about the IRA members who killed innocents and haven't been prosecuted, Mr Adams and Mr McGuiness I'm looking at you[/QUOTE] Two wrongs don't make a right.
[QUOTE=Riller;42934831]Two wrongs don't make a right.[/QUOTE] Exactly so lets make it right and prosecute both sides responsible for killings of innocent people
The thing is the IRA are terrorists and the British Military is the military. Shooting unarmed civilians isn't what the military is meant to do. Also, the IRA usually warned people when they planted a bomb to avoid the loss of innocent peoples' lives.
So your saying that since they were a less formal organisation they have more of a right to kill civilians?
[QUOTE=Killzone(Dylan);42934858]So your saying that since they were a less formal organisation they have more of a right to kill civilians?[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that even though they are terrorists they are more honorable than the British Military. [editline]21st November 2013[/editline] There was a case when they shot two Australian tourists because they thought they were off-duty British troops and apologized for the mistake. So at least they've apologized for something.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;42934870]No, I'm saying that even though they are terrorists they are more honorable than the British Military.[/QUOTE] You seem to be under the idea that the IRA's goal in general was honorable "Oh ye olde Ireland, Tiocfaidh ár lá" they tried to achieve their goal via violence and bombed innocent protestants homes and pubs, simply because it was the closest thing they could get to the English.
[QUOTE=Killzone(Dylan);42934908]You seem to be under the idea that the IRA's goal in general was honorable "Oh ye olde Ireland, Tiocfaidh ár lá" they tried to achieve their goal via violence and bombed innocent protestants homes and pubs, simply because it was the closest thing they could get to the English.[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying they are terrorists, but the British Military isn't so they shouldn't perform drive bys on innocent unarmed civilians. [editline]21st November 2013[/editline] In all, the army's job is to protect civilians from terrorist organizations such as the IRA rather than acting like them.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;42934919]No, I'm saying they are terrorists, but the British Military isn't so they shouldn't perform drive bys on innocent unarmed civilians.[/QUOTE] So again you are saying terrorists are exemplified of their actions because they aren't as formal as the British Army.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;42934919][B]In all, the army's job is to protect civilians from terrorist organizations such as the IRA rather than acting like them.[/B][/QUOTE]
There are 113,970 soldiers in the British army, 40 of which were in this division. I'm not saying they should be given special treatment I am saying if these men are to be prosecuted then why haven't known IRA members been.
[QUOTE=Killzone(Dylan);42934962]There are 113,970 soldiers in the British army, 40 of which were in this division. I'm not saying they should be given special treatment I am saying if these men are to be prosecuted then why haven't known IRA members been.[/QUOTE] Because they need evidence to prosecute them.
There is more than enough evidence that Martin McGuinness was involved in multiple murders, the only reason he has not been prosecuted is because the British fear the troubles starting again, due to backlash from the Republican community. All I'm saying is if one side doesn't have their war criminals prosecuted why is another obligated to because they had the upper hand.
[QUOTE=Killzone(Dylan);42935002]There is more than enough evidence that Martin McGuinness was involved in multiple murders, the only reason he has not been prosecuted is because the British fear the troubles starting again, due to backlash from the Republican community. All I'm saying is if one side doesn't have their war criminals prosecuted why is another obligated to because they had the upper hand.[/QUOTE] Well a lot of people have been prosecuted on both sides, but not everyone has on both sides either. But you do have a point. If there is enough evidence then he should be prosecuted. Although, most people would probably want peace to remain in Northern Ireland so maybe not prosecuting him is a good idea.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.