Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Politics, Covid19 and Brexit
The NI/ROI Protocol
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Agrarian" data-source="post: 7917629" data-attributes="member: 3656"><p>We can only speculate what the motives were behind those decisions, as we don't now have a 1970's field of view. It may have been that the government calculated that to expose unlawful killings would have been to increase hostility and tension in an already dangerous environment. We can debate whether the suppression of investigation increased terrorist recruitment, or whether media coverage of the trials would have increased the recruitment, but we won't know the answer to that. My own view is that trials and convictions wouldn't have caused any more terrorism than did occur, and the smear on the reputation of the government and security forces would have been lesser had it been dealt with sooner. It's rarely a good idea to let rogue members of forces go unpunished/unhindered, as the USA found also found out in Nam. The terrorists clearly bore the blame for most of the deaths, tens of thousands of horrific injuries, incalculable grief and economic destruction of so much of the region - so it was, with hindsight, I think a poor calculation to veer off the moral high ground. It invariably is. And it let down the vast majority of serving security personnel in the RUC and army, who served justly and with dedication to preserving the peace and safety of civilians.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Agrarian, post: 7917629, member: 3656"] We can only speculate what the motives were behind those decisions, as we don't now have a 1970's field of view. It may have been that the government calculated that to expose unlawful killings would have been to increase hostility and tension in an already dangerous environment. We can debate whether the suppression of investigation increased terrorist recruitment, or whether media coverage of the trials would have increased the recruitment, but we won't know the answer to that. My own view is that trials and convictions wouldn't have caused any more terrorism than did occur, and the smear on the reputation of the government and security forces would have been lesser had it been dealt with sooner. It's rarely a good idea to let rogue members of forces go unpunished/unhindered, as the USA found also found out in Nam. The terrorists clearly bore the blame for most of the deaths, tens of thousands of horrific injuries, incalculable grief and economic destruction of so much of the region - so it was, with hindsight, I think a poor calculation to veer off the moral high ground. It invariably is. And it let down the vast majority of serving security personnel in the RUC and army, who served justly and with dedication to preserving the peace and safety of civilians. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Politics, Covid19 and Brexit
The NI/ROI Protocol
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top