Bloody Sunday Killings ''UNLAWFUL''


IvoShandor

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
7,295
Twitter
yes
While the police can’t submit the savile report, they can conduct interviews and gather their own ballistic reports independent of past inquiries. I assume they’ve done this and forwarded their evidence to the PPS. So with independent eye witness testimony and ballistic evidence it seems surprising that one soldier can be charged while others walk.
I'm not surprised that Soldier F is the one charged, and the only one, as-if Saville is accurate-he was responsible for the greatest number of fatalities and injuries on the day, so it follows that there would be more evidence about him available.. For soldiers involved in single shootings only, gathering actionable evidence would be far more problematic, especially given the passage of time. Much of the evidence gained from Saville was from interviews with the soldiers themselves and this evidence might be much harder to glean in criminal proceedings.
 

Fr. Ted Crilly

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
5,154
They were

But we all know that is irrelevant to you .

It seems ignore might be the best way to deal with you as obviously your agenda fits in very well with the current level of moderation on this site .
That one is an unemployed f**ktard who spends his life doing Turas Nua courses at our expense while his daddy sits at home chatting to Martin Ferris about the good old days.
FACT!
 
Last edited:

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,082
I am on record here on many occasions stating that I wanted those responsible for the Bloody Sunday killings to be prosecuted. Although only one of them will be charged I'm glad that it is F, who I believe was the prime motivator in what occurred and the first one to open fire at the crowd.
Bloody Sunday was a very British atrocity – the top brass got away with it | Eamonn McCann
Was he really the prime motivator or was he just doing what Ford and whoever gave him directions wanted him to do?
3 weeks before the shooting Ford said
“I am coming to the conclusion that the minimum force necessary to achieve a restoration of law and order is to shoot selected ringleaders amongst the DYH [Derry Young Hooligans].”
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,990
Bloody Sunday was a very British atrocity – the top brass got away with it | Eamonn McCann
Was he really the prime motivator or was he just doing what Ford and whoever gave him directions wanted him to do?
3 weeks before the shooting Ford said
“I am coming to the conclusion that the minimum force necessary to achieve a restoration of law and order is to shoot selected ringleaders amongst the DYH [Derry Young Hooligans].”
All dealt with in the Saville Report, in detail.
 

Glaucon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
8,296
I'm not surprised that Soldier F is the one charged, and the only one, as-if Saville is accurate-he was responsible for the greatest number of fatalities and injuries on the day, so it follows that there would be more evidence about him available.. For soldiers involved in single shootings only, gathering actionable evidence would be far more problematic, especially given the passage of time. Much of the evidence gained from Saville was from interviews with the soldiers themselves and this evidence might be much harder to glean in criminal proceedings.
Soldier F was, and is, a degenerate animal. But why were paratroopers sent into Derry to handle demonstrators? The British top brass knew what was likely to happen and organized a whitewash when it did. The British approach to counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland was the same it had applied in other colonies (Malaysia, Kenya etc.), but in NI, it made better efforts to hide its tracks.

High ranking Generals and the politicians that aided and abetted them are now long dead and the Tory government maintains to this day that their dregs behaved with "dignity" while they butchered Irish civilians in their own streets. How anyone can expect "justice" from these people is beyond comprehension.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,567
Well done Gavin Williamson, we can always depend on a Tory Minister for a crass statement that seems positively designed to increase hostility and distrust. None of this namby-pamby pouring of oil on troubled waters for this government, oh no.

Even Doug Beattie, of the UUP has more empathy than Gavin Williamson :
Mr Williamson confirmed the Ministry of Defence would pay Soldier F’s legal costs and added: “The MoD is working [on] a new package of safeguards … The government will urgently reform the system for legacy issues. Our serving and former personnel cannot live in constant fear of prosecution.”

While Mr Williamson made no mention of those who died or their loved ones, Doug Beattie MC, now an Ulster Unionist Party member of Northern Ireland’s Legislative Assembly, wrote: “There are no winners here. Just victims. It’s important to remember their families today.”
 

Marcella

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
3,705
I'm not surprised that Soldier F is the one charged, and the only one, as-if Saville is accurate-he was responsible for the greatest number of fatalities and injuries on the day, so it follows that there would be more evidence about him available.. For soldiers involved in single shootings only, gathering actionable evidence would be far more problematic, especially given the passage of time. Much of the evidence gained from Saville was from interviews with the soldiers themselves and this evidence might be much harder to glean in criminal proceedings.
I doubt very much whether much of the evidence gained came from the soldiers themselves. To be blunt they told lies, to the point were Saville warmed them on the dangers of perjury.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
37,998
I doubt very much whether much of the evidence gained came from the soldiers themselves. To be blunt they told lies, to the point were Saville warmed them on the dangers of perjury.

The soldier buddies of soldier F have all passed on, can't therefore be called to the witness box, explains to me why he has been chosen to take the fall.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
37,998

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,118
'Part of a war' - Gen Sir David Richards, a Northern Ireland veteran who rose to become the head of the UK's armed forces as chief of the defence staff, understands the pressures the paratroopers were under.

"Bloody Sunday was part of a war. These are warriors, soldiers who are going into a situation uncertain of what may happen next.'
Gen Sir David Richard's comments as quoted by you were from the mentality of an occupying force. They would have felt threatened by the Civil Rights movement. This movement was aimed at correcting the gerrymandering that was condoned by the occupying forces - this was a civil rights issue and the Irish government would not have considered their support for the CR campaign as taking part in a war. I guess the Irish government were quickly brought to their senses when Taoiseach Lynch ordered the mobilisation of the Irish army directly after bloody Sunday, and half the trucks broke down on the way to the border.
“They were people acting under orders and under instruction and fulfilling their duty in a dignified and appropriate way” - Karen Bradley

Thank you for sharing your story, as I think real history is best told through the words of the people who lived it and there's nothing more powerful than oral history. The mentality of an occupying force in Ireland, is as old as the occupation, as too are the fears of the occupiers who feel threatened by that which seeks to dismantle it. As Seán Murray acknowledged on the 40th anniversary of the Burning of Bombay Street in 2009, when he said that, 'In July, 1920, eight local residents were murdered by the British Army', the events of 1968 and 1969 weren't unique, and the people of Belfast, and indeed of Ireland, have always made a distinction between civilians who have died as a result of the occupation and the combatants who have died as a result of resisting it. They are not one and the same thing. The distinction is important in how we define what constitutes a conflict-related killing and what constitutes cold-blooded murder. To put things simply, 15 year-old Gerard McAuley qualifies as a 'combatant', whereas, 9 year-old Patrick Rooney qualifies as a 'civilian.' The gunman who killed the former was 'doing his duty', whereas the gunman who killed the latter, was a murderer. It's morally wrong to re-cast people like Matilda Gould and Patrick Rooney as victims of the war being fought between the British Army and Republican Volunteers like Gerard McAuley, and there's a blatant attempt being made by the Propaganda organs of the former, to portray the Civil Rights marchers on Bloody Sunday who were murdered, in the same light as the latter. The people who carried out the murders should be no more entitled to An Amnesty than Fred West or Moira Hindley.

A Brief Timeline of Events:

May - 1966: The Ulster Volunteer Force murdered 70 year-old Matilda Gould, a Protestant whose home in the Shankill area was mistaken for that of a Catholic who lived next door. Seven weeks later she died from multiple burns.

August - 12 - 1969: The Battle of the Bogside in Derry began. At least eight people were killed over the next week as riots erupted across the north as fierce clashes took place and hundreds of homes and businesses were destroyed, the majority owned by Catholics and Nationalists. The British Army were deployed to the streets and the Irish Army set up field hospitals near the Irish border.

August - 15 - 1969: A member of Na Fianna Éireann, Fian Gerald McAuley, was murdered in Belfast.

October - 12 - 1969: An RUC Officer, Victor Arbuckle, was shot dead by the UVF, in the Loyalist Shankill area of Belfast. Loyalists had taken to the streets in protest at the Hunt Report, which called for the disarming of the RUC, the disbanding of the B-Specials and their replacement by a new Ulster Defence Regiment, which both communities would be encouraged to join, under the control of the British Army. Arbuckle, the first member of the Security Forces to die, was a Protestant.

October - 19: A member of the UVF, Thomas McDowell, was badly injured in a botched attack on a hydroelectric power station near Ballyshannon, County Donegal. McDowell was also a member of the Ulster Protestant Volunteers. It was the first attempted attack by the UVF in the south. He died of his injuries two days later. This is when it was realized that the earlier bombings had also been carried out by Loyalists and not Republicans. The UVF issued a Press Statement which threatened further attacks against the Irish Army who had set up field hospitals near the Irish border which it described as:

“Still massed on the border in County Donegal.”

The statement added:

“We wish to state that an Active Service Unit from Northern Ireland was dispatched to undertake this task. So long as the threats from Éire continue, so long will the Volunteers of Ulster’s People’s Army strike at targets in Southern Ireland.”

The rationale for this was to punish the Irish State for its alleged interference in the affairs of Northern Ireland by moving troops and ambulance units to the border at the height of the August 1969 crisis, which had brought British troops on to the streets of the Bogside and Belfast.

The Burning of Bombay Street Remembered

“The garden behind us incorporates three main commemorative plaques. The centre piece records all the Volunteers from C-Company on the Roll-Of-Honour alongside civilians from the Clonard area who were killed over the years by British Forces and their Loyalist Murder Gangs.

“On the right hand side of the garden the plaque perpetuates the memory of all deceased Prisoners-Of-War from the area from 1916 until this present day, many of whom gave a life time of service to the Republican Movement.

“Last, but not least, on the far side of the garden a plaque acknowledges the essential role in our struggle played by our ‘unsung heroes’ who, in their own quiet way, assisted over the years by opening their doors and their hearts to the IRA. Without your assistance the struggle would not have survived and we owe you everything.

“Forty years ago, this area, like the Falls and Ardoyne, was in a state of shock, trepidation and disbelief, at what had unfolded before our very eyes over the previous 48 hours. And of course, this was not the first time that this community had been subject to murder and terror.

“In July, 1920, eight local residents were murdered by the British Army, including Brother Michael Morgan from Clonard Monastery. The rationale for the attacks in the 1920s was to coerce, intimidate and terrorise Nationalists into tolerating partition and the establishment of the Orange State.

“In 1969, the Loyalist pogrom across Belfast was the Orange States response to our just demands for basic human and civil rights, for housing and the right to vote. 8 died, 750 were injured and 133 were treated for gunshot wounds. 1,505 Nationalist families were driven from their homes through burning and intimidation. 179 homes and buildings were completely destroyed and almost 400 were damaged. - Seán Ó Murraí
 
Last edited:

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,118
Post 2571 Cont:

The Story of Fian Gerard McAuley

On Thursday, the 14th of August, 1969, soldiers from the First Battalion of the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of the British Army were sent onto the streets of Derry to ‘aid the civil power.’ The disturbances in the Bogside quickly spread to other Nationalist areas, including Belfast, where Loyalists took advantage of the IRA's disorganisation and lack of weaponry to invade Nationalist areas, burning and looting, and driving people from their homes. Although the IRA was badly prepared for the Loyalist onslaught, some were ready to stand and fight with what weapons they had. In the Clonard, Billy McKee had set up the Clonard Defence with a handful of IRA Volunteers armed with Shotguns and .22 Rifles. Bombay Street, off the Falls Road, was burned out while the British Troops were still moving in a few streets away. While helping families move out of the burned street, 15 year-old Fian Gerard McAuley, a member of Na Fianna Éireann, was shot dead on Waterville Street by a Loyalist gunman. He was the first Republican activist to die in the 1969-1998 phase of the Anglo-Irish Conflict.

“He's not coming home.” - Eillen McAuley

“He's not coming home. They were the words that confirmed my worst fears”, said his mother, Eileen McAuley. A large black and white pen portrait of her son hangs in the living room of Nellie's terrace street home. “It was drawn by one of the prisoners in Long Kesh, and given to Gerald's uncle. It's a good likeness.” Gerald McAuley was 15 years-old when he was shot dead while defending the Clonard district from Loyalist attack. The likeness shows all the optimism and confidence of youth. The kind of face which should have been more at home on a GAA pitch challenging his peers, than facing a pitched battle against a rampaging Orange mob. At 7:00 AM on Friday, the 15th of August, Nellie was in Belfast City centre where she was working as a cleaner in one of the big stores. “I was working when I heard the news that a wee boy, Patrick Rooney, had been shot dead by the RUC in Divis Flats the night before”, said Nellie. There were no buses for the return journey home. “A young woman was standing at the bus stop in the town. She was a Protestant”, the girl told Nellie, and was too afraid to walk home through West Belfast. “I told her she'd be alright with me, and we linked arms and walked home together.” Years later, the two women met again. “She remembered me and also knew that my son had been shot dead just hours after we first met.” She thanked Nellie for her kindness and said she had been sorry to hear Gerald had been killed. “It was ironic”, she said. “No, it was tragic”, said Nellie. “I'd been out queuing for bread, and when I returned home there was a commotion at the house. Someone said Gerald had been shot. Another neighbour said he'd only been hit with a stone.” With an increasing sense of foreboding, Nellie began a desperate search for her son. “I heard some of the wounded had been taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital. I pleaded with a nurse to let me search the wards.” A neighbour waiting in Casualty for his injuries to be treated confirmed that Gerald had been shot but he wasn't at the Royal. Back at home, news reporters had visited the McAuley's, asking for a photograph of Gerald. “He must be dead”, Nellie told her daughter Frances. Finbar McKenna's father took Nellie to the City Hospital. “A sister at the hospital said Gerald wasn't there but there was a 19 year-old youth in the morgue at Musgrove Barracks”, said Nellie. “I knew it was Gerald. He was only 15 but he was big for his age.” Returning home, the reaction of people manning a barricade at Kennedy Way added to Nellie McAuley's fears. “They moved so quickly and quietly out of our way.” From across a road a priest called to Nellie. “Are you looking for your son?”, the priest asked. “He's not coming home, go home now, he died for his faith.” Later that night Gerald's father travelled to Musgrove to identify his son's body. “I didn't know Gerald was a member of the Fianna”, said Nellie. “He was often away from home cycling and camping but I never thought anything of it. I was told later that he had been helping evacuate families, loading their furniture onto the back of a lorry.” The McAuley family's ordeal did not end there. Three weeks later a British Army Captain knocked on their front door. “He asked for my husband and told him he was wanted down the barracks to identity his son. My husband told him Gerald was dead and buried but he insisted. Is it Jim?” he asked. At the barracks the RUC roared with laughter. It was their idea of a joke, a sort of initiation stunt for the British Army Officer.”
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
6,683
The PIRA and their supporters continually say the same thing regarding PIRA attacks.

"Oh the PIRA men didn't mean to kill civilians" even though they had bombed a shopping street and killed civilians. The same excuse was used by those IRs who carried out the Omagh bombing.
It doesn't make Johnson's argument any more valid. I have no sympathy with that pro-IRA argument by the way. By the middle of 1972 you'd need to have been utterly thick not to know from previous experience that mounting bombing attacks on so called commercial targets would go wrong in a large number of cases and that civilians would be murdered, even if they weren't the target.
As it happens just last night I had a meal with my wife and one of my sons in a Derry restaurant just yards from where I almost became a Troubles statistic as a result of an IRA car bomb over 40 years ago. A large piece of shrapnel missed me by about five feet on that occasion. This morning I walked past another restaurant where I was having lunch during the same era and just managed to take cover under the table before it was showered with glass by a large overhead window when another bomb went off. Looking back at those times, it was utterly insane.
 

Newrybhoy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
2,235
While the police can’t submit the savile report, they can conduct interviews and gather their own ballistic reports independent of past inquiries. I assume they’ve done this and forwarded their evidence to the PPS. So with independent eye witness testimony and ballistic evidence it seems surprising that one soldier can be charged while others walk.
IIRC most but not all of the rifles used that day were sold or destroyed in the interim. It would be impossible to use ballistics to convict people without ring able to tie a given person to a given weapon.

Soldier F may have made admissions in interview that have led to his being prosecuted.
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,990
IIRC most but not all of the rifles used that day were sold or destroyed in the interim. It would be impossible to use ballistics to convict people without ring able to tie a given person to a given weapon.

Soldier F may have made admissions in interview that have led to his being prosecuted.
His rifle, like those of all the others involved, was seized and sent to a Forensics lab for examination and ballistic testing. The results of those tests still exist so the fact that some of the weapons have been disposed of since then is probably immaterial. A round matched to his rifle was taken from the body of one of those killed, a fact that he had lied about in his initial statement to the RMP on the night of the shootings. He then lied again at the Widgery Tribunal in an attempt to cover up the first one.
 

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,118
It's certainly possible. One should not trust anything the British authorities (or their media factotums like Ruth Dudley Edwards) have to say about the conflict in Ireland. They orchestrated the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, ran the Glenanne Gang and assorted other Loyalist maniacs who slit Catholic throats and sowed death and destruction for decades. This is another reason why that chapter of history should be closed and all prosecutions should be taken off the table. Victims' families are given unfounded hope and then left devestated when the inevitable happens.
The people responsible for the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings and the Shankill Butchers shouldn't qualify for An Amnesty, due to membership of the British Army and the Ulster Volunteer Force, as none of the victims in those attacks fit the description of 'combatants', in the same way people involved with the Civil Rights Movement protesting for A) Housing; B) Education; and C) For the right to a trial, don't fit the description of 'combatants', and the victims in each instance weren't killed accidentally.

Apart from that, the Irish government should be weighing in behind the victims families, and not Colluding with the British State to brush the murder of Irish civilians under the carpet. The British State want this chapter of Irish history closed, and the Irish State through the current government have been weighing in behind them since they appointed Drew Harris, who has a track record in obstructing inquiries into State-sanctioned murders, which all flies in the face of what the relatives for justice want:

[B]Relatives 4 Justice[/B]‏ @[B]RelsForJustice[/B] 4 - "John Copeland was murdered. There should have been a proper investigation. Soldier A should have been charged with murder. Soldiers B and C should have been charged with perverting the course of justice. Instead they benfitted from impunity."

The fact that Bloody Sunday, the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings and the killings carried out by the Shankill Butchers happened during what General David Richards has described as a war, does not make them 'combatants' and victims of that war. They weren't.

[B]Relatives 4 Justice[/B]‏ @[B]RelsForJustice[/B] 12 - "Remembering Rosemary Nelson this morning, the 20th anniversary of her killing. Thoughts with her family."

The Glenanne Gang and the Shankill Butchers are every bit as guilty as the people who murdered Rosemary Nelson, and a piece of paper doesn't alter that. Murder is murder.
 
Last edited:

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,118
Murder has not been proven yet.
"As this is now an ongoing legal matter, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further." - Karen Bradley

No, it hasn't, so perhaps you should think long and hard before you continue throwing accusations around like confetti, inventing gun battles that never took place, accusing dead people of crimes they were neither convicted nor charged for and being a general all-round jackass.
 

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,118
Only in the same way the French Resistance should be held to account for murdering Nazis during their country's occupation.
Every time someone answers a question of that nature on a thread like this, they turn the victims into 'combatants' and 'victims of the war', which is exactly what the British want. I've made that mistake umpteen times, and I think I've done a disservice to the relatives of the victims by doing so, albeit completely unintentional. The average Joe Soap and English people are oblivious to the basic facts concerning the British occupation of Ireland, and as far as most people are concerned Bloody Sunday may as well have been organized by Sinn Féin and not the Civil Rights Movement, and again, most people are oblivious to the difference between the two and are most likely unaware of that they are completely unrelated. Despite the fact that Bloody Sunday had nothing got to do with the war General David Richards admitted he was involved in, the latters IRA have been mentioned in excess of 10,000 times on this thread. Tell a lie often enough and it eventually becomes the truth. The following is not for your benefit, but for the pig-ignorant and hard-of-hearing:

Fact Sheet:

- Sinn Féin did not organize the Bloody Sunday March

- The IRA did not organize the Bloody Sunday March

- The Civil Rights Movement wasn't affiliated to SF or the IRA

- The Civil Rights Movement was a peaceful non-violent protest movement which agitated for among other things:

A) Better Housing

B) Better Education

C) The right to a trial

The people who were murdered were civilians and not 'combatants.' Thus, the people who killed them don't fit the criteria for An Amnesty, which is what the British State are pushing for, and they are trying to set a precedent in order to whitewash the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of Irish civilians. It's a bitter pill for the families of the dead to have to swallow, but the Irish State are clearly Colluding with their efforts to do that, and the fact that they were issuing messages telling people to 'Move On' within 24 hrs of the 'outrage' they expressed in the wake of Bradley's initial comments, tells us everything we need to know about their true intentions and where they really stand on the matter. Can you imagine the American Government telling the relatives of those murdered in the terror attack on the Twin Towers to 'Move On?' OK, it differs in scale to Bloody Sunday and the Dublin & Monaghan Bombings, but the attempt to portray the dead as 'combatants' would be the equivalent of portraying the dead from the Twin Towers terror attack as Al-Qaeda operatives.
 

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,118
It doesn't make Johnson's argument any more valid. I have no sympathy with that pro-IRA argument by the way. By the middle of 1972 you'd need to have been utterly thick not to know from previous experience that mounting bombing attacks on so called commercial targets would go wrong in a large number of cases and that civilians would be murdered, even if they weren't the target.

As it happens just last night I had a meal with my wife and one of my sons in a Derry restaurant just yards from where I almost became a Troubles statistic as a result of an IRA car bomb over 40 years ago. A large piece of shrapnel missed me by about five feet on that occasion. This morning I walked past another restaurant where I was having lunch during the same era and just managed to take cover under the table before it was showered with glass by a large overhead window when another bomb went off. Looking back at those times, it was utterly insane.
I'm sorry to hear that and I'm glad you survived, but the fundamental objective of the British State is An Amnesty for the murder of Irish civilians on an Industrial scale, carried out by the British Army during a period that they were engaged in what their overall commander has described as a war, and in order to do that, they need to turn non-combatants into participants in that war. Beachcomber has created gun-battles which never took place, insinuated that the Civil Rights marchers were 'legitimate targets', due to the fact that what he claims were PIRA Volunteers participated in the Bloody Sunday march and went so far as to claim that some of the marchers were armed. To add insult to injury he also claimed that the families of the dead were being vindicate and undermining the Peace Process for having the temerity to seek justice for their murdered loved ones.

- Fianna Fáil's justice spokesperson Jim O'Callaghan also said his party was not calling Ms Bradley to resign.

- The Fine Gael Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty said Ms Bradley has a real opportunity now to move on from words and prove her sincerity to the people of Northern Ireland.

- Relatives of those killed in shootings involving the army in Ballymurphy in west Belfast in 1971 refused to meet the Conservative MP. John Teggart, whose father Danny was shot 14 times at Ballymurphy, said Mrs Bradley should resign.

"We will not meet her, and have one request for Mrs Bradley and that is for her to resign immediately," he said.

"Families request that those parties who support our campaign join us and refuse to meet with Karen Bradley.

In a Representative Democracy, the Political Class are answerable to the people, the people are not answerable to the Politicians. The correct thing for everyone to do is to weigh in behind what the relatives want. It's not the place of people like O'Callaghan or Doherty to tell the families of the 'non-combatants' who were murdered to 'Move On.' What a truly despicable thing to do at a time like this, considering they have waited 47 years to see one solitary trigger-man face up to the crimes he committed as a mercenary against defenseless people.
 
Top