IRA "fired first" in 1987 attack in Loughgall

[SLIGONIAN]

I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo. So the question of who shot first in 1987 is irrelevant. I guess it will take another generation or 2 before all these reports cease and really dont matter anymore.

Because of the complexity and media manipulation both sides are guilty of hypocrisy and contraditions. It depends what your agenda is in terms of how you will perceive all this.

[Tonto]

I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo.

Well, actually the unarmed were targetted time and time again throughout the Troubles.

In war it is still illegal to kill the unarmed (whether or not you deem them to be "combatants"), so I guess Marty and co. can expect a call at some point from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

[MW]

Did the HET not announce earlier in the week that it is illegal under European law for the police to investigate themselves?

The SAS are part of the army, not the police.

[omagh_gael]

I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo.

Well, actually the unarmed were targetted time and time again throughout the Troubles.

In war it is still illegal to kill the unarmed (whether or not you deem them to be "combatants"), so I guess Marty and co. can expect a call at some point from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

As well as Maggie T, John Major the Queen etc.?

[Ulick]

been listening to this on the news, maybe I am being stupid here but how do they know who fired first?is it from the testimony of the SAS members who were there?

True, its not like they will have any IRA men to give evidence.  It is a nonsense and is all part of the media war.  I would also question why the SAS were involved, were they just sitting there by the by?  It was a f**king set up simple as that.  There was a tout in the IRA in the area and they set up the gang.

Not necessarily, more likely underestimated the Brits by using the same tactic once too often. They hit the Birtches a month or two before using a stolen digger and off the top of my head I can remember Ballygawlley and Castlederg barracks being destroyed the same way before that. In hindsight it would seem fairly obvious when a digger was reported stolen then that would be the cue to start setting up the ambush. After thon oul fcuker Gibson got taken out the Brits were always going to hit back hard. They boys should have been more careful.

[Ulick]

Did the HET not announce earlier in the week that it is illegal under European law for the police to investigate themselves?

The SAS are part of the army, not the police.

They RUC were there as well and ultimately they were all under the control of Herman.

[Captain Obvious]

I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo.

Well, actually the unarmed were targetted time and time again throughout the Troubles.

In war it is still illegal to kill the unarmed (whether or not you deem them to be "combatants"), so I guess Marty and co. can expect a call at some point from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

THe US called the invasion of Iraq a "war" & many unarmed civilians were killed.

[lynchbhoy]

I think people will see from this post , the difference between sf and the IRA.

sf (or some of them like mr mcelduff). We all know it was a war. thats why republicans accepted as well as mourned those killed at loughall.
I didnt realise that some republican families had received compo - not something that is pursued by republican families that I have heard of at least.

I know people are unhappy that those killed at loughall were done in an ambush, but again its a war and that the way war goes.
if it wasnt a war then the authorities would have tried to arrest them prior to this point.
Again it disproves the loyalist/unionst claims (from some of their posters on this board) that it wasnt a war.
Also that the war ended up in stalemate as they generally do with the republicans winning the sought after cessation of persecution to nationalist/Irish/republican peoples and winning the rights to move above second class citizenship.
The other aspect , the secondary aim - the reunification of Ireland - well thats ongoing as we see - and the recent media outbursts from dup conf and all other whinges against it are counter productive - as the more these unionist/loyalists highlight and talk about it the more it is going to gather momentum and when the world economy changes, this will partition will be rectified! I laugh at the unionists/loyalist over reaction to the inevitible on here and in the media - its obv they are running scared !
they doth protest WAY too much !! 

as for this report - well if there was any truth in it, this chink would have been exploited long ago - so I cant see it being the truth, but it is irrelevent anyway.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

The SAS unloaded over 600 rounds, the Provos 70 - that tells us enough about that particular incident. Not whinging about that ambush, it was war, though what would've sickened your shite was the incessant perfidious claims by the Brits that it wasn't war.

[lynchbhoy]

The SAS unloaded over 600 rounds, the Provos 70 - that tells us enough about that particular incident. Not whinging about that ambush, it was war, though what would've sickened your shite was the incessant perfidious claims by the Brits that it wasn't war.

yeah - the flip flopping that the unionist/loyalist/ruc/establishment whingers annually do is nothing short of a joke - its not a war when it suits them, then again - oh ...it is !!

youd think they would know by now their credibilty is non existent!

[Ulick]

LB, they didn't get that for the deaths it was awarded by the European Court of Human Rights because the Brits didn't carry out an investigation or inquiry after the deaths.

[Ulick]

Declan Aurthers had almost 40 rounds pumped into him and was unarmed. The SAS themselves later admited 4 or 5 of the men were shot while on the ground, executed.

[mylestheslasher]

Declan Aurthers had almost 40 rounds pumped into him and was unarmed. The SAS themselves later admited 4 or 5 of the men were shot while on the ground, executed.

I don't doubt that but of course there are a few cases where IRA men probably emptied their guns into British Soldiers. here was also a certain SAS man who ventured into Crossmaglen and was never seen again. So SF or whoever should stop whinging about this particular battle and take the "defeat" on the chin. For the life of me I have no idea what they want to come out of this.

[Ulick]

They're supporting the families Myles. The families believe the men could have been arrested instead of being killed and the fact that a number of them were summarily executed kind of supports their point.

[mylestheslasher]

They're supporting the families Myles. The families believe the men could have been arrested instead of being killed and the fact that a number of them were summarily executed kind of supports their point.

Maybe they are but it is hypocrisy. If like me you believe the conflict was a war then you can hardly expect to receive better than you give. For example,       should the ira pay compensation to every off duty soldier or ruc man they "executed". IRA men knew what they signed up for and were well aware they would most likely end up dead or in jail. Compo for families is ridiculous.