User talk:217.43.199.251

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Demiurge 23:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Irish I don't think so I am Irish

Dear me somebody seems to have a bad case of only seeing things from their point of view. I presume you think I am Anti Irish/Republican because I am indicating that certain so called facts are disputed. Now thats what the people who set up Wikepedia tell us it's all about and is necessary for neutral articles.

I have provided substantial evidence for anything I am indicating is disputed on the Discussions Pages. Anyway indicating that a particular point of view is disputed is not the same as advocating the opposing view is it?

I am not interested in pushing the British/Unionist POV as anyone who isn't biased can see, but indicating where there are opposing points of view so that articles are not only from a narrow perspective.

Now if I am wrong on any of my research use the discussion page to indicate why like a sensible adult. However up until now your silence has been defeaning and others agree with my analysis.

Here a test refering to the Strabane Article. Send me a link to the European Court of Human Rights with the ruling on the three lads shot by the SAS. If you do that then we can change the article.

I've looked at numerous rulings from the ECHR and can't find any specifically mentioning the Strabane lads. I can find ones on Loughgall and Gibraltar, but unfortunately these don't rule on "Shoot-to-Kill"

I quote from the Gibraltar ruling.

180. In the light of its own examination of the material before it, the Court does not find it established that there was an execution plot at the highest level of command in the Ministry of Defence or in the Government, or that Soldiers A, B, C and D had been so encouraged or instructed by the superior officers who had briefed them prior to the operation, or indeed that they had decided on their own initiative to kill the suspects irrespective of the existence of any justification for the use of lethal force and in disobedience to the arrest instructions they had received. Nor is there evidence that there was an implicit encouragement by the authorities or hints and innuendoes to execute the three suspects.

Now by indicating that the Gibraltar Ruling was not on an official "Shoot-to-Kill" policy I'm not being biased thats the ruiling. It specifically says so and therefore only Point of View Analysis states incorrectly that thats what the ruling was. Therefore to indicate that "Shoot-to-Kill" is still controversial and disputed is correct. Also it is completly different than saying that it never existed as It may well have been a policy, but as yet no undisputed inquiry or ruling has emerged. Therefore like everybody I may have an opinion one way or the other, but I wouldn't be able to back this up. So all I can do to be neutral is use words like "alledged" "accuse" etc.

Now is that being biased I don't think so. --Strangelyb 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)