Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful

karma_

joolsveer wrote: »

I am old enough to remember Bloody Sunday. I was growing up in a Dublin which seemed on another planet with regard to the troubles. As soon as this slaughter was perpetrated, however, I know of schoolmates who turned into militant republicans and travelled to the north to join up. The mother of a friend of mine set off for Derry to help out. It was a turning point in the view of many this side of the border. God knows what effect it had on those in Derry and Belfast.

I soon after witnessed the protests at the British Embassy in Merrion Square which led to the petrol bombing and burning of the building. There was an atmosphere of hatred towards the British establishment because of their ability to tar the victims as nail bombers and terrorists.

There is no doubt that Bloody Sunday lit the fuse for what then happened during the 70's and 80's in NI. Had the march been allowed to pass peacefully I can only imagine how different things could have turned out.

Zambia

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

"The soldiers of Support Company who entered the Bogside area of Derry 'did so as a result of an order ... which should have not been given' by their commander, the report said.
The civilians died after troops opened fire on a civil rights march.

Mr Cameron said Lord Saville 'finds that on balance the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army.
'He finds that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm.'"

Do you know what? Ask your Prime Minister, It's Cameron quoted here

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0615/bloodysunday.html

Any slim chance you can be happy the families have some peace of mind after 38 years of lies?

So you cannot give the name of the person.

Wilford only ordered his men into the bogside. There is no evidence he ordered them to shoot unarmed civilians.

The facts are shocking enough they don't need further salt.

Yesterday was a very good day for both the UK and Ireland I am indeed happy.

getz

karma_ wrote: »

There is no doubt that Bloody Sunday lit the fuse for what then happened during the 70's and 80's in NI. Had the march been allowed to pass peacefully I can only imagine how different things could have turned out.

i dont think things would have changed that much,i read somewhere that leading up to bloody sunday over 20,bombs had been set off already in derry

gurramok

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you have a video by any chance?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006v04h

Not sure if its available outside NI?

Short bit of an article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/northern_ireland/10325283.stm

Japer

getz wrote: »

i dont think things would have changed that much,i read somewhere that leading up to bloody sunday over 20,bombs had been set off already in derry

and I think 5 or 6 British soldiers had been killed in Derry in the 6 months before the March...if they had not been killed in the 6 months before the march things may have turned out differently too.
Thankfully those dark days of 3 and 4 decades ago are behind us now. I think most people want to move on.

OhNoYouDidn't

Moving on from those whose shoulder chips prevent them from reading a very clear report, I think the dignified manner in which the families of the victims and the people of Derry behaved yesterday is in stark contrast to the ramblings of the loyalist policitians.

Noreen1

Livvie wrote: »

Sorry - I didn't want to offend anyone. I was just referring to two people I know and saying how sad it was, not suggesting that the nation is full of people like that. It was in response to a comment about how British people allowed it all to happen...most British people were guilty of ignorance of the facts. They didn't know the history, and believed what the media fed them.

I'll second that. I can remember being in London in the late 80s/early 90s.
There was a lot of media coverage here about an unarmed young lad who was shot in the back after crossing the border (It turned out that he had been wearing headphones, and didn't hear the command to halt, or subsequent warning that he would be shot if he failed to stop.) I was actually amazed to find that there was absolutely no media coverage whatsoever of the event in Mainland UK. In all fairness, it's difficult for the ordinary citizens, whatever their nationality, to react to events if they are unaware of their existence.

Personally, I'm pleased at the outcome of the enquiry. It must have been really rubbing salt in the wounds of the bereaved to hear the lies that were spread about the innocent victims.
I genuinely believe that, though tensions already existed, Bloody Sunday was the incentive for many people to join the IRA. I'm old enough to remember Bloody Sunday - and I remember feeling the same outrage that I feel today about the attack on the aid flotilla.:mad:

I suppose, for me, the moral of the story is that violence and injustice only incites more violence. Hopefully, Governments throughout the world might take this lesson on board.
It might help to heal the wounds of the people who lost loved ones, whatever their political affiliations.

Noreen

Di0genes

getz wrote: »

i dont think things would have changed that much,i read somewhere that leading up to bloody sunday over 20,bombs had been set off already in derry

1/7th of the 3,500 deaths that occured during the troubles happened in the two years after bloody sunday.

dvpower

BroomBurner wrote: »

The only thing is that there can never be an inquiry in to the terrorist groups acting in Nothern Ireland, as they are not officially representing a government of any country.

There have been many enquiries into the actions of terrorist groups in NI, by the PSNI and the RUC before them. And many of the terrorists have been convicted and imprisoned.

Nodin

dclane wrote: »

The insult is childish tbh dude. As a matter of fact, How many unarmed people did the IRA execute in its 40 + years of murder? Women buried in umarked graves, fathers blown to bits, children (unborn) in Omagh murdered for no reason, (......)killed by their actions.

japer wrote:

and I think 5 or 6 British soldiers had been killed in Derry in the 6 months before the March...if they had not been killed in the 6 months before the march things may have turned out differently too..

What part of 'British army solely responsible' (as per the report) do you have trouble understanding?

Fuhrer

I thought this was interesting.


Its the comments from an opinion piece in The Times about it

"They were totally wrong as were their orders, but it was done in the heat of the moment- unlike the many atrocities commited by Mcguiness and Adams etc, now all forgiven and forgotten. To attempt to prosecute these men now would be an outrage."



"As the solicitor for the soldiers said, this inquiry cherry-picked the evidence, which could just as easily have led to the opposite conclusion.

Saville is the new Widgery, just with a different slant."



"The lesson is "Do not go on a march that includes armed terrorists."



"The Irish revel in victim hood many talk about the Easter rising as if it happened last tuesday or the potato famine occurred last week."



"Why did he simply not say sorry and have done with it. Now we have the prospect of the likes of McGuiness (probably had a machine gun on the day) and Adams pontificating about their rightness of the cause."

getz

when i was in northern ireland in 1958 you could tell it was a powder keg ready to go off,also in london in the irish clubs at that time,i was often stopped and asked to give a donation to help kick the british out of ireland, i think the IRA and the british army hope this will now go away.before people do a little more digging

gurramok

Fuhrer wrote: »

I thought this was interesting.

"The lesson is "Do not go on a march that includes armed terrorists."

Thats an extremist view like something out of the BNP and right thinking people would not agree with it. Even the Tories(non-extremist right wing) disagree with that point of view.

Nijmegen

There's several things to bear in mind:

Firstly, the soldiers were under pressure and I could see them cracking, a bit... But what happened there was a complete loss of control and a well trained military unit should be designed specifically to prevent this, either on the battlefield or in any other circumstance.

Secondly, an officer in command is responsible for the conduct of the men under his command - even when they go off on one. It's his job to ensure that they don't, and he has failed when he has.

Thirdly, the "I was only following orders" line has been famously used and misused. There are circumstances where soldiers are put into impossible positions and it is relevant to their defence as a statement of their motives. But in this case, they were shooting injured people and those running away.

The Para's were a well trained military unit, they were cuter than that. They knew what they were about that day.

All this being said, I can see why the British might also want their apology, from the far side of the line.

All wars are dirty, but agree or disagree with their aims and methods, the Republicans have plenty to apoligize for out of that nasty war as do the British.

Fuhrer

Nijmegen wrote: »

All wars are dirty, but agree or disagree with their aims and methods, the Republicans have plenty to apoligize for out of that nasty war as do the British.

How many British Army were interned without trial or jailed for their crimes compared to Republicans?

junder

Now that this enquiry is over parhaps now we can have an enquiry into the actions of the pira 2ic now that we know who he is .although he himself has pointed out that the saville enquiry is inaccurate since it states he was proberly armed with a thompson machine gun, but martin says this is not true

Nijmegen

Fuhrer wrote: »

How many British Army were interned without trial or jailed for their crimes compared to Republicans?

I do believe I said that the British had plenty to apologize for?

The IRA did a lot of nasty things, too. Everyone ought to apoligize to everyone for every damn thing that went on up there. Catholics should never have been oppressed as they were, and I would point the original finger of blame towards the British for kicking the whole thing off. But Bloody Sunday was about the actions of individuals within the wider context of what was happening.

A human being is a human being. When they're dead, they're dead. The IRA killed people it shouldn't have, in ways it shouldn't have, as did the British. The British are actually offering apologies.

Nodin

junder wrote: »

Now that this enquiry is over parhaps now we can have an enquiry into the actions of the pira 2ic now that we know who he is .although he himself has pointed out that the saville enquiry is inaccurate since it states he was proberly armed with a thompson machine gun, but martin says this is not true

Why not start a thread on it.

Fuhrer

Nijmegen wrote: »

A human being is a human being. When they're dead, they're dead. The IRA killed people it shouldn't have, in ways it shouldn't have, as did the British. The British are actually offering apologies.

But yet again....


IRA members have been jailed for their actions, how many British soldiers have been jailed for theirs?


Or is just saying sorry ok?

Fratton Fred

I think it would be fair to say the PIRA got very very lucky that day.

If the Paras hadn't started killing innocent people and providing them with tones of free PR and support, it looks like they would have hijacked the march to start killing people, which would probably have had the opposite effect.

Whilst he has been milking the publicity all this gives him, has anyone asked Mr McGuinness why he was attending a civil rights march carrying a sub machine gun?

Nijmegen

Fuhrer wrote: »

But yet again....


IRA members have been jailed for their actions, how many British soldiers have been jailed for theirs?


Or is just saying sorry ok?

And many of them were released under the Good Friday Agreement, which recognised - as they did, for example, in South Africa - that sometimes it's better to come clean, say sorry and let it lie at that.

But sure, chase the Paras who lied about their actions during the inquiry. But I don't think it would be productive to wheel in people to stand trial for killings during that time. It would be a division opening exercise that would find it difficult to find many convictions.

Northern Ireland needs to put its history to bed.

caseyann

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think it would be fair to say the PIRA got very very lucky that day.

If the Paras hadn't started killing innocent people and providing them with tones of free PR and support, it looks like they would have hijacked the march to start killing people, which would probably have had the opposite effect.

Whilst he has been milking the publicity all this gives him, has anyone asked Mr McGuinness why he was attending a civil rights march carrying a sub machine gun?

You don't know that and cant ever possibly know that.And i think that statement is possibly carrying a gun isn't it.I haven't seen fact to that yet?

Nijmegen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think it would be fair to say the PIRA got very very lucky that day.

If the Paras hadn't started killing innocent people and providing them with tones of free PR and support, it looks like they would have hijacked the march to start killing people, which would probably have had the opposite effect.

Whilst he has been milking the publicity all this gives him, has anyone asked Mr McGuinness why he was attending a civil rights march carrying a sub machine gun?

He wasn't attending the march, he was in the area.

OhNoYouDidn't

Nijmegen wrote: »

A human being is a human being. When they're dead, they're dead. The IRA killed people it shouldn't have, in ways it shouldn't have, as did the British. The British are actually offering apologies.

The IRA apologised to all innocents in killed in 2002, not that its of any relevance to this thead.

Fuhrer

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think it would be fair to say the PIRA got very very lucky that day.

If the Paras hadn't started killing innocent people and providing them with tones of free PR and support, it looks like they would have hijacked the march to start killing people, which would probably have had the opposite effect.

Whilst he has been milking the publicity all this gives him, has anyone asked Mr McGuinness why he was attending a civil rights march carrying a sub machine gun?

Either that or the march would have taken place peacefully.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Whilst he has been milking the publicity all this gives him, has anyone asked Mr McGuinness why he was attending a civil rights march carrying a sub machine gun?

Yes, on RTE news last night. He says he wasn't and that he was photographed on the march and asked where he would have hid it

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If the Paras hadn't started killing innocent people and providing them with tones of free PR and support, it looks like they would have hijacked the march to start killing people, which would probably have had the opposite effect.

That doesn't make sense to me, please expand

Fratton Fred

caseyann wrote: »

You don't know that and cant ever possibly know that.And i think that statement is possibly carrying a gun isn't it.I haven't seen fact to that yet?

According to the report, the IRA were there. Nail Bombs were found, as was a car full of arms. There is even mention of IRA snipers that were firing not in response to the firing by the soldiers.

This does not detract from the fact 14 innocent people were killed, but it is a relevant conclusion of the report.

Fuhrer

Fratton Fred wrote: »

According to the report, the IRA were there. Nail Bombs were found, as was a car full of arms. There is even mention of IRA snipers that were firing not in response to the firing by the soldiers.

This does not detract from the fact 14 innocent people were killed, but it is a relevant conclusion of the report.

I haven't read the report in full but didn't it claim the exact opposite?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think it would(.......)a civil rights march carrying a sub machine gun?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

According to the report, (......) conclusion of the report.

Let's try this again

The Prime Minister said:

• No warning had been given to any civilians before the soldiers opened fire
• None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers
• Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying
• None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting
• Many of the soldiers lied about their actions
• The events of Bloody Sunday were not premeditated
• Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein, was present at the time of the violence and "probably armed with a sub-machine gun" but did not engage in "any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/northern_ireland/10320609.stm

All your "if","would have", "probably would have" and Martin McGuiness have no bearing on it. Its just mud you're chucking in the water.