On 3/11/2025 at 9:54 AM, KhunLA said:

Reads like they murdered 4 civilians, suspected of a crime, without due process.  Unless they were pointing a weapon at them, or in danger, did they have the right to kill the 4 civilians.   What were their 'rules of engagement'.

 

While shooing at the building, did they actually kill or harm anyone ?   Were the 4 that were killed, even involved with shooting up the building ?

 

Does seem excessive force was used, along with, the SAS were not in danger or being shot at.

 

 

The Police Station (known in Northern Ireland as Police Barracks) was attacked with a very large bomb carried in the front bucket of a digger, which breached the security fence. The expectation was that there would be policemen in the building. The remains of the building were then machine gunned with a Soviet 12.7mm machine gun ( the equivalent of a .50 Browning machine gun). The bullets from that weapon would have passed through the building and carried on for hundreds of metres with sufficient velocity to further penetrate buildings and kill. There were a number of dwellings near the Police Barracks.

 

The 4 dead PIRA were loading the 12.7mm MG into a van to escape when they were hit. 

 

The rules for opening fire were strict, but they allowed soldiers to fire when the terrorists were clearly armed, and were preparing to fire, firing or had just fired and were carrying the weapons.

 

The "East Tyrone Brigade" had been responsible for a number of attacks, including, regularly, the murder of off duty policemen and soldiers, and of course many civilians. They had carried out several "spectaculars", Loughgall was their last one. They were caught.

 

There is a phrase -" big boy's rules".

On 3/10/2025 at 7:03 PM, Social Media said:

This officer points to a fundamental “displacement between decision-makers and the delivery end.” He believes that politicians and military leaders must fully comprehend the implications of sending soldiers into conflict zones. “Leaders that truly take time to understand their decisions to go to war or join coalitions would understand what they are asking people to do. That often means killing people, especially for the special forces, and this was the case in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to tell people to carry out those operations, then the government must make sure they are properly protected months and years down the road – otherwise you’ll end up with no one wanting to do it.”

This is "Beyond The Pale" and absolutely disgusting, speaking as a bredren.

They should apply for asylum in the US. In about 6 months there are going to be job openings for them as "Security" for American mining companies in Ukraine. Their job would remain the same but the pay would go up 20 fold. Bet that would improve their recruitment. 😁

8 hours ago, KhunLA said:

MOD EDIT: [Quoted post removed for fair use policy and misrepresenting the lengthy article]

 

 

Don't mess with the SAS 

16 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Yes I have, and I voluntarily enlisted, not drafted/conscripted.  Thank you.

 

Read the link I provided, about the incident in question, and explain to me, why they had to kill 4 people, that were not shooting at them ?

 

They fired 570 rounds, that almost 2 full 30 round mags for 10 people, or 1 mag for 20 people, to kill 4 people.

 

Yea, I think that's a bit excessive.

Thank you for responding, and good for you serving. I also volunteered and served for 22 years, though part of that was in Territorials.

 

I'm somewhat surprised that you think the SAS is bothered by a bit of ultraviolence though, as that is the sort of guys we want doing the really hard yards that not many want to do.

 

Far as I'm concerned, someone wants to be a terrorist or a freedom fighter, don't complain if it ends badly.

I'm not bothered if some bad guys end up in a box, rather than a cell, costing the taxpayer money.

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not bothered if some bad guys end up in a box, rather than a cell, costing the taxpayer money.

Can't argue that, if they know they were the perpetrators of terror.  Next time be smart, CYA and don't leave any witnesses.

 

IRA targeted civilians, and once you do that, whether govt officials or not, you lose all support.  Invade & occupy doesn't get much support either from me either, and with the lying MSM, you unfortunately don't know who to believe. 

 

I'm a fan of due process, being on the other side of that process at times.  Why I don't trust authoritarian folks at times, knowing how bent they can be.   

 

Hard to dispute the findings and judgement of 'excessive force' when 570 rounds are fired 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Can't argue that, if they know they were the perpetrators of terror.  Next time be smart, CYA and don't leave any witnesses.

 

IRA targeted civilians, and once you do that, whether govt officials or not, you lose all support.  Invade & occupy doesn't get much support either from me either, and with the lying MSM, you unfortunately don't know who to believe. 

 

I'm a fan of due process, being on the other side of that process at times.  Why I don't trust authoritarian folks at times, knowing how bent they can be.   

 

Hard to dispute the findings and judgement of 'excessive force' when 570 rounds are fired 

Everything I know about the SAS says that they are a highly professional group and they don't go around killing people for no good reason. If they killed those guys, they had good reason to do so.

In any event, this is obviously political BS years later- if it was wrong at the time it would have been dealt with at the time.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Hard to dispute the findings and judgement of 'excessive force' when 570 rounds are fired

 

 

Given it took thousands of rounds to kill one soldier in WW2, 570 for 4 is quite economical.

 

https://historicalbattles.quora.com/How-many-bullets-were-fired-during-World-War-II

During World War II, an estimated 45,000 rounds of small arms ammunition were fired to kill one enemy soldier.

On 3/12/2025 at 8:36 AM, Bannoi said:

Not questionable at all as far as the IRA were concerned it was a war. 

 

They were at war with the British Army who they considered a foreign army  

The Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) that was formed after the B Specials were disbanded.

The B Specials were 99% Protestant and were a part time armed special police force formed in 1920 whose main job was to counter the IRA, distrusted and hated by the Catholic Community.

And the Royal Ulster Constabulary the police (RUC) who they considered part of the British Establishment even though it was comprised of both Protestant and Catholics.

British forces were involved in a low-level civil war in Malaya in the 1950's, but it was referred to as an "Emergency" rather than a war, apparently this was partly due to the fact that if it were regarded as a war it would've severely affected the insurance premiums of rubber plantations.

The Falklands was referred to as a conflict, not a war, I think because there was no declaration of war. It's semantics.

This is what I'm getting at, I didn't need a history lesson about Ireland.