Goonersworld

i believe u mean freedom fighters

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:15 year old kid shot twice in the head by a professional soldier

I repeat. Shot in the head twice.

Its not wrong that he's facing a trial. The length of time passed is horrendous and it does in my personal opinion weaken the case, but that is for a jury to consider

The soldier was probably not much older.

There is no excuse

There are no yeah buts

A British soldier shot a 15 year old British citizen in the head twice

Well as I’ve said, lots of innocent people died, and lots of people who committed atrocities have been virtually pardoned.

What’s good for the goose etc. You can’t amnesty one and continue to prosecute the other.

Bullshit

Youre comparing a paid soldier, being paid to keep the peace, with a terrorist

Your comparison

You choose. Are the British Army paid professionals and therefore accountable, or are they equal to terrorists and thugs?

Because you can't have your cake and eat it

It’s not bullshit.

If you call an amnesty and say it’s all over and everyone can go home and live in peace, you can’t make exceptions.

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:15 year old kid shot twice in the head by a professional soldier

I repeat. Shot in the head twice.

Its not wrong that he's facing a trial. The length of time passed is horrendous and it does in my personal opinion weaken the case, but that is for a jury to consider

The soldier was probably not much older.

There is no excuse

There are no yeah buts

A British soldier shot a 15 year old British citizen in the head twice

Well as I’ve said, lots of innocent people died, and lots of people who committed atrocities have been virtually pardoned.

What’s good for the goose etc. You can’t amnesty one and continue to prosecute the other.

Bullshit

Youre comparing a paid soldier, being paid to keep the peace, with a terrorist

Your comparison

You choose. Are the British Army paid professionals and therefore accountable, or are they equal to terrorists and thugs?

Because you can't have your cake and eat it

It’s not bullshit.

If you call an amnesty and say it’s all over and everyone can go home and live in peace, you can’t make exceptions.

So your choice is that they are equal with terrorists

What an insult to the British Army

That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

The soldier isn't even necessarily bad in the evil sense of the word. As you say, at that time there were a lot of very young men put into the sort of horrendous situations that might make the most mature and strongest men react erratically.

And yes, you're absolutely right.

The authorities dragging this up 50 years after the event is completely wrong. Especially when you consider that the same authorities chose in the name of achieving peace to release people from the same era who had bombed, maimed and murdered hundreds of people.

Either it's all over or it isn't. If it is, fair enough. If it isn't, re-open all of the closed files. All of them.

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

UFGN wrote:

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

What about the terrorists who evaded justice as a result of files being closed as part of the GFA?

As I say, either the whole thing is put to bed or it isn't.

Lots of bad things happened. Either keep this chapter in the history of our islands closed, or open it up completely. Picking out selected events is not right, no matter who the person is.

Just put it to bed.

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

What about the terrorists who evaded justice as a result of files being closed as part of the GFA?

As I say, either the whole thing is put to bed or it isn't.

Lots of bad things happened. Either keep this chapter in the history of our islands closed, or open it up completely. Picking out selected events is not right, no matter who the person is.

Just put it to bed.

If there had been the evidence this soldier has against him they would have been charged

He got preferential treatment at the time because he was a soldier

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

What about the terrorists who evaded justice as a result of files being closed as part of the GFA?

As I say, either the whole thing is put to bed or it isn't.

Lots of bad things happened. Either keep this chapter in the history of our islands closed, or open it up completely. Picking out selected events is not right, no matter who the person is.

Just put it to bed.

If there had been the evidence this soldier has against him they would have been charged

He got preferential treatment at the time because he was a soldier

That's not correct.

Dozens of IRA fugitives wanted in connection with crimes committed before the Good Friday agreement in 1998 will be able to go home without serving prison sentences under legislation introduced by the government yesterday.
The republican "on-the-runs" will be eligible for the scheme, as will loyalists as well as soldiers and police officers accused of committing crimes while combating terrorism during the 30-year Troubles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov ... rnireland1

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

What about the terrorists who evaded justice as a result of files being closed as part of the GFA?

As I say, either the whole thing is put to bed or it isn't.

Lots of bad things happened. Either keep this chapter in the history of our islands closed, or open it up completely. Picking out selected events is not right, no matter who the person is.

Just put it to bed.

If there had been the evidence this soldier has against him they would have been charged

He got preferential treatment at the time because he was a soldier

That's not correct.

Dozens of IRA fugitives wanted in connection with crimes committed before the Good Friday agreement in 1998 will be able to go home without serving prison sentences under legislation introduced by the government yesterday.
The republican "on-the-runs" will be eligible for the scheme, as will loyalists as well as soldiers and police officers accused of committing crimes while combating terrorism during the 30-year Troubles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov ... rnireland1

But he was never on the run was he

He didnt face action despite evidence precisely because of who he was. And now you want him to have the best of both worlds and also be protected by the GFA

Stop pouring your heart out for a child killer

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

What about the terrorists who evaded justice as a result of files being closed as part of the GFA?

As I say, either the whole thing is put to bed or it isn't.

Lots of bad things happened. Either keep this chapter in the history of our islands closed, or open it up completely. Picking out selected events is not right, no matter who the person is.

Just put it to bed.

If there had been the evidence this soldier has against him they would have been charged

He got preferential treatment at the time because he was a soldier

That's not correct.

Dozens of IRA fugitives wanted in connection with crimes committed before the Good Friday agreement in 1998 will be able to go home without serving prison sentences under legislation introduced by the government yesterday.
The republican "on-the-runs" will be eligible for the scheme, as will loyalists as well as soldiers and police officers accused of committing crimes while combating terrorism during the 30-year Troubles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov ... rnireland1

But he was never on the run was he

He didnt face action despite evidence precisely because of who he was. And now you want him to have the best of both worlds and also be protected by the GFA

Stop pouring your heart out for a child killer

It doesn't make any difference whether the paramilitaries faced action or not. They never got to face justice, because of the amnesty.

You say you agree with those principles of the GFA in regard to stopping action against the IRA, yet you don't want them extended to British soldiers. Typical left wing liberal hypocrisy.

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

What about the terrorists who evaded justice as a result of files being closed as part of the GFA?

As I say, either the whole thing is put to bed or it isn't.

Lots of bad things happened. Either keep this chapter in the history of our islands closed, or open it up completely. Picking out selected events is not right, no matter who the person is.

Just put it to bed.

If there had been the evidence this soldier has against him they would have been charged

He got preferential treatment at the time because he was a soldier

That's not correct.

Dozens of IRA fugitives wanted in connection with crimes committed before the Good Friday agreement in 1998 will be able to go home without serving prison sentences under legislation introduced by the government yesterday.
The republican "on-the-runs" will be eligible for the scheme, as will loyalists as well as soldiers and police officers accused of committing crimes while combating terrorism during the 30-year Troubles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov ... rnireland1

But he was never on the run was he

He didnt face action despite evidence precisely because of who he was. And now you want him to have the best of both worlds and also be protected by the GFA

Stop pouring your heart out for a child killer

It doesn't make any difference whether the paramilitaries faced action or not. They never got to face justice, because of the amnesty.

You say you agree with those principles of the GFA in regard to stopping action against the IRA, yet you don't want them extended to British soldiers. Typical left wing liberal hypocrisy.

Oh here we go with the left wing bullshit

Right wing Thatcher boy defending a child killing soldier because the victim was Catholic...... shall we go there? No? Shut up then

Go back and read what I said about that particular issue you absolute cretin

I said this particular case is an exception

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Phil71 wrote:

UFGN wrote:

DiamondGooner wrote:That's such a BS argument UFGN.

He's saying everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

That does not equate to a Terrorist being scum and a soldier being scum, fact is there are bad soldiers and there are terrorists, both should be tried equally, not excuse the terrorists for political pandering then jump over soldiers who served the country and our politicians put them in an impossible hell hole of a situation.

I do believe that the GFA is a good thing and that when it comes to difficult decisions being made to release people, clearly a lot have been.made and a lot if victims have had to bare that, which must be very difficult

However this case is and should be an exception. Its terrible. This guy was a paid professional soldier, paid to protect and keep the peace. And he brutally killed a child.

There isn't much concern for the victim here

We all know about the Warrington bomb. And the attack on Mountbatten which killed two kids. Sickening. But this guy never faced justice in first place. Why? Because he was a soldier. Had he been a terrorist, with similar weight of evidence against him he would have been tried, convicted and served time and then you might have a point that his case is equal under the law. But it isn't.

What about the terrorists who evaded justice as a result of files being closed as part of the GFA?

As I say, either the whole thing is put to bed or it isn't.

Lots of bad things happened. Either keep this chapter in the history of our islands closed, or open it up completely. Picking out selected events is not right, no matter who the person is.

Just put it to bed.

If there had been the evidence this soldier has against him they would have been charged

He got preferential treatment at the time because he was a soldier

That's not correct.

Dozens of IRA fugitives wanted in connection with crimes committed before the Good Friday agreement in 1998 will be able to go home without serving prison sentences under legislation introduced by the government yesterday.
The republican "on-the-runs" will be eligible for the scheme, as will loyalists as well as soldiers and police officers accused of committing crimes while combating terrorism during the 30-year Troubles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov ... rnireland1

But he was never on the run was he

He didnt face action despite evidence precisely because of who he was. And now you want him to have the best of both worlds and also be protected by the GFA

Stop pouring your heart out for a child killer

It doesn't make any difference whether the paramilitaries faced action or not. They never got to face justice, because of the amnesty.

You say you agree with those principles of the GFA in regard to stopping action against the IRA, yet you don't want them extended to British soldiers. Typical left wing liberal hypocrisy.

Oh here we go with the left wing bullshit

Right wing Thatcher boy defending a child killing soldier because the victim was Catholic...... shall we go there? No? Shut up then

Go back and read what I said about that particular issue you absolute cretin

I said this particular case is an exception

You're obviously biased so I won't bother.

Enjoy your lentil and mung bean sandwich.

OK child killer loving Thatcher boy

Im biassed because I support a fair trial happening

Ok