Bloody Sunday 30 January 1972 40th Anniversary Today

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

A cursory glance of Dublin 1916 which no doubt is taught to the military and politicians would have made them well aware would have told them how this would play out.

CDfm wrote: »

An awareness of 1916 would have shown the authorities that the use of deadly force on civilians causes that reaction and that a rise in support for paramilitarism and terrorism was predictable and inevitable.

The Civil Rights Movement ended that day and while there was a peace movement for a few years afterwards, the momentum was gone.

Could this have been an aim?

The British army could legitimise its actions if it were taking on a terrorist organisation (it was ligitimate as they were fighting an illegal organisation). Before Bloody Sunday it was fighting against civil rights and this did not look good and was getting harder to legitimise on an international stage in the face of international media. So whilst Bloody Sunday brought criticism of the British army it also led to a situation where there operations in NI became easier to justify.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Could this have been an aim?

It might have been but that would mean that the army was not under the control of the politicians.

The British army could legitimise its actions if it were taking on a terrorist organisation (it was ligitimate as they were fighting an illegal organisation). Before Bloody Sunday it was fighting against civil rights and this did not look good and was getting harder to legitimise on an international stage in the face of international media. So whilst Bloody Sunday brought criticism of the British army it also led to a situation where there operations in NI became easier to justify.

After the event itself the problem was a political issue.

So this was the situation The British armyGovernment could legitimise its actions

Those who always who get off lightly are the British Labour Party who were in power during the 60's and 70's when the civil rights issues should have been dealt with.

Terrence O'Neill was a good man who got no support and gets airbrushed out for his efforts.

Fenian Army

The reality on the ground is that its simply too dangerous for many of the walls to come down unfortunatly.

Fenian Army

The reality on the ground is that its simply too dangerous for many of the walls to come down unfortunatly.

secondopinion

I wonder if U2 will ever release a single called 'Bloody Friday'? Or even 'Bloody Monday to Bloody Sunday' which would be even more appropriate where PIRA were concerned.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Those who always who get off lightly are the British Labour Party who were in power during the 60's and 70's when the civil rights issues should have been dealt with.

Terrence O'Neill was a good man who got no support and gets airbrushed out for his efforts.

O'Neill was progressive but he did not bring his own community with him. It is hard to put much value on his contribution because of this. I think he was succeeded as MP by Paisley in 1970 which suggests very strongly the direction that the North was headed. 30+ years of troubles followed.

What do you think labour should have done?

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What do you think labour should have done?

The British Labour Party traded on their socialist principles but didn't apply them to Ireland.

secondopinion

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

O'Neill was progressive but he did not bring his own community with him. It is hard to put much value on his contribution because of this. I think he was succeeded as MP by Paisley in 1970 which suggests very strongly the direction that the North was headed. 30+ years of troubles followed.

What do you think labour should have done?

I'll tell you what they should have done - with The Conservatives...

Discrimination in NI was a direct result of fear of a fifth column within the territory, acting in cohorts with a hostile nation to the south. The Free State/ROI should have made it clear to northern nationalists that the border was there to stay and that The Irish nation's territory was complete. Northern nationalists should have been urged to accept UK rule in all it's forms and to abandon forever any hopes of Irish unity. In return The UK State should have insured equality within that part of it's sovereign territory. The issue of the Catholic reproductive rate would have had to have been addressed in some manner, if social equality did not bring it into line with UK norms.

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

I'll tell you what they should have done - with The Conservatives...

Discrimination in NI was a direct result of fear of a fifth column within the territory, acting in cohorts with a hostile nation to the south. The Free State/ROI should have made it clear to northern nationalists that the border was there to stay and that The Irish nation's territory was complete. Northern nationalists should have been urged to accept UK rule in all it's forms and to abandon forever any hopes of Irish unity. In return The UK State should have insured equality within that part of it's sovereign territory. The issue of the Catholic reproductive rate would have had to have been addressed in some manner, if social equality did not bring it into line with UK norms.

What a load of utter nonsense.

Catholics were not concerned with a UI when they were murdered by British soldiers on the streets of Derry. Civil rights was what was sought - remember it was a civil rights movement not a 'unite the island movement'. The IRA were a fringe element of the Catholic population at the time in spite of the experiences of intimidation by the other tradition and it's militias - particularly the feeble minded bully boys that made up the B Specials who subsequently made up a considerable portion of the UDR.

Unfortunately the message received after Bloody Sunday was that if you are seeking equality under British rule you can expect, eventually, to be shot by British soldiers or beaten by loyalist thugs while the state apparatus does nothing. That is what energized the IRA.

Even if Catholics had sought a reunification of the island - so what? They had every right to in a supposed democratic country like the venerable UK.

jonniebgood1

secondopinion wrote: »

I'll tell you what they should have done - with The Conservatives...

Discrimination in NI was a direct result of fear of a fifth column within the territory, acting in cohorts with a hostile nation to the south. The Free State/ROI should have made it clear to northern nationalists that the border was there to stay and that The Irish nation's territory was complete. Northern nationalists should have been urged to accept UK rule in all it's forms and to abandon forever any hopes of Irish unity. In return The UK State should have insured equality within that part of it's sovereign territory. The issue of the Catholic reproductive rate would have had to have been addressed in some manner, if social equality did not bring it into line with UK norms.

This post has no place in a discussion on history. You need to refer to the forum guidelines and forum charter before posting again. It is quite simple, if you continue to post in this manner then you are creating a situation where your posts will be removed and you may be banned from the forum.

If you wish to query this then you should do it by PM and not in this thread.
Moderator.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

The British Labour Party traded on their socialist principles but didn't apply them to Ireland.

They have never participated in NI politics as far as I know.

How much did they trade on socialist principles? In the 60's noone wanted to be overly linked with socialism I would have thought less they be labelled red- open to clarification on that. Also parties who have preached socialist ideals often do not carry them through, just look at our own labour party now! Off topic I know. I think that there were differences in NI that meant it was'nt as simple as applying principles as elsewhere in the UK for the labour party.

Finally there was'nt direct rule in this time, O'Neill was Prime minister of NI, Wilson was Prime minister of Britain. He sent troops to NI in 1969 and his reasons for doing this could be interesting?

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

They have never participated in NI politics as far as I know.

Well some tried. A group formed within the British Labour party in the 1940s - post WWII - calling themselves "Friends of Ireland' and tried to gain some attention at Westminster for the plight of the disenfranchised Catholics of Northern Ireland. This was the result of some nationalists in NI attempting to get the issue of NI and the treatment Catholics in housing and employment brought to Westminster level. The attempt failed however, as they could not gain enough support.

Until the 1960s all attempts to get Westminster to address Catholic concerns within NI were met with refusal and referred back to Stormont.

CDfm

NI was not economically viable and it sent money so when in power it could have cut grant aid.

NI has MP's in Westminster and had then too.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

NI has MP's in Westminster and had then too.

But back then gerrymandering took care of who got elected though.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

But back then gerrymandering took care of who got elected though.

So it was neither accountable to the people or Parliment.

Very convenient.

British Labour Party bears some responsibility or am I being harsh.

secondopinion

MarchDub wrote: »

But back then gerrymandering took care of who got elected though.

Not to Westminster or Stormont. Gerrymandering only occurred at council level - mainly west of The Bann. Remember, there was a 2:1 Protestant majority at that time and Stormont/Westminster were elected under the 'first past the post' system, as with the rest of The UK, hence no need for gerrymandering.

It's interesting to note that SF actually won several Westminster seats in the fifties (I believe).

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

NI was not economically viable and it sent money so when in power it could have cut grant aid.

NI has MP's in Westminster and had then too.

I'm not sure when NI became what you call 'not economically viable'. In any case, such a term applied to a region of a state can be misleading. Most state's economies rotate around their capitals, reducing the 'viability' of the regions.

Again, I'm not sure about the legality of The UK State cutting what you call 'grant aid' to The UK regions.

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

So it was neither accountable to the people or Parliment.

Very convenient.

British Labour Party bears some responsibility or am I being harsh.

Sorry, what wasn't?

CDfm

secondopinion wrote: »

Sorry, what wasn't?

The system that gave arise to Bloody Sunday. It was allowed to happen.

There was no accountability and there was nobody to take responsibility.

This from the country that organized the D-Day landings.

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

The system that gave arise to Bloody Sunday. It was allowed to happen.

There was no accountability and there was nobody to take responsibility.

This from the country that organized the D-Day landings.

'Bloody Sunday' was an event that was preceded by 250 deaths, most caused by militant Irish Republicans and must be seen in that context. Of course, The UK State was not fighting a war (unlike Irish Republicans who murdered at will before and after BS) and as such The UK State had a clear responsibility. The word murder being the correct one, as only soldiers can legally kill soldiers and The IRA rarely, if ever, wore uniforms or openly displayed their weapons as demanded by The Rules of War.

It is safe to say, that had there been no IRA campaign then 'Bloody Sunday' would not have occurred. So, in a way, those that should take responsibility are those militant Republicans active at that time. I believe some of them are very well known.

CDfm

secondopinion wrote: »

It is safe to say, that had there been no IRA campaign then 'Bloody Sunday' would not have occurred. So, in a way, those that should take responsibility are those militant Republicans active at that time. I believe some of them are very well known.

The Civil Rights gang were not the IRA and their methods were constitutional & peaceful.

They had been around for a few years and the distinction was known in the same way Martin Luther King was not the leader of the Black Panthers. Neither were these people terrorists.

You are doing transference here. A bit like " he made me do it " that a child might use.

2+2 make 4 . Your argument doesn't.

jonniebgood1

secondopinion wrote: »

'Bloody Sunday' was an event that was preceded by 250 deaths, most caused by militant Irish Republicans and must be seen in that context. Of course, The UK State was not fighting a war (unlike Irish Republicans who murdered at will before and after BS) and as such The UK State had a clear responsibility. The word murder being the correct one, as only soldiers can legally kill soldiers and The IRA rarely, if ever, wore uniforms or openly displayed their weapons as demanded by The Rules of War.

It is safe to say, that had there been no IRA campaign then 'Bloody Sunday' would not have occurred. So, in a way, those that should take responsibility are those militant Republicans active at that time. I believe some of them are very well known.

So one side was fighting a war and one wasnt. Do you not see that that suggestion sounds ridiculous.
You are starting a conversation that will only end in an argument going around in a circle, i.e. you say the reason for bloody Sunday was the IRA. Well what was the reason for the IRA (of that era) then?

indioblack

CDfm wrote: »

The system that gave arise to Bloody Sunday. It was allowed to happen.

There was no accountability and there was nobody to take responsibility.

This from the country that organized the D-Day landings.

If it was allowed to happen, then there must have been knowledge that it could happen. Was Bloody Sunday predictable?
Don't get the bit about D-Day, though.

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

'Bloody Sunday' was an event that was preceded by 250 deaths, most caused by militant Irish Republicans and must be seen in that context.

Source?

This the first year of the CAIN statistics.

14 July 1969 Francis McCloskey (67) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died one day after being hit on head with batons during street disturbances, Dungiven, County Derry.

17 July 1969 Samuel Devenny (42) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died three months after being badly beaten in his home, William Street, Bogside, Derry. He was injured on 19 April 1969.

14 August 1969 John Gallagher (30) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Ulster Special Constabulary (USC)
Shot during street disturbances, Cathedral Road, Armagh.

14 August 1969 Patrick Rooney (9) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home, during nearby street disturbances, St Brendan's Path, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Herbert Roy (26) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot while part of Loyalist crowd, during street disturbances, corner of Divis Street and Dover Street, Lower Falls, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Hugh McCabe (20) Catholic
Status: British Army (BA), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
On leave. Shot during street disturbances while on the roof of Whitehall Block, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Samuel McLarnon (27) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home during nearby street disturbances, Herbert Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Michael Lynch (28) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot during street disturbances, Butler Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Gerald McAuley (15) Catholic
Status: Irish Republican Army Youth Section (IRAF), Killed by: non-specific Loyalist group (LOY)
Shot during street disturbances, Bombay Street, Falls, Belfast.

15 August 1969 David Linton (48) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot during street disturbances at the junction of Palmer Street and Crumlin Road, Belfast.

08 September 1969 John Todd (29) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot during street disturbances, Alloa Street, Lower Oldpark, Belfast.

11 October 1969 Herbert Hawe (32) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA)
Shot during street disturbances, Hopeton Street, Shankill, Belfast.

01 December 1969 Patrick Corry (61) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died four months after being hit on the head with batons, during altercation between local people and Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) patrol, Unity Flats, off Upper Library Street, Belfast. Injured on 2nd August 1969.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

I'd imagine many of the people killed pre 1972 were killed in gun battles when Catholics were trying to defend their homes from loyalist gangs intent on burning them out of their homes.

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

The Civil Rights gang were not the IRA and their methods were constitutional & peaceful.

They had been around for a few years and the distinction was known in the same way Martin Luther King was not the leader of the Black Panthers. Neither were these people terrorists.

You are doing transference here. A bit like " he made me do it " that a child might use.

2+2 make 4 . Your argument doesn't.

Republicans were involved in The NICRA. But that's not my point. The IRA created an environment in which The Parachute Regiment was deployed.

At least one of The BS dead was in The IRA from what I recall. This was only accepted by PIRA relatively recently. We've actually no idea what the others were involved in, if anything.

secondopinion

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So one side was fighting a war and one wasnt. Do you not see that that suggestion sounds ridiculous.
You are starting a conversation that will only end in an argument going around in a circle, i.e. you say the reason for bloody Sunday was the IRA. Well what was the reason for the IRA (of that era) then?

I'm sorry you're confused jonnie. Let me explain. UK State Forces all operated under UK civil law in NI. The Army was there to act in support of The Civil Power - The RUC. The Army had no more powers than The RUC and could only use force, including lethal force within the terms of civil law as applicable. Remember the 'yellow card' system so mocked by soldiers and many others? That laid down the terms applicable. Acting outside these terms was illegal under UK law. Clear?

The IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries both saw themselves as at war. Unfortunately neither group gave a damn about the Rules of War, let alone the laws of the land. They did not wear uniforms or openly display their weapons as demanded by The Rules of War and as such the killings they carried out were illegal under both civil and in most cases military law. They also both broke many other of the rules of war. Clear?

Which bit of the above do you now see as ridiculous?

As for your final comment, I was responding to someone else trying to assign culpability for BS by providing context. Of course, both his comment and mine could indeed start a circular historical debate - but what was I to do? Not respond?

secondopinion

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Source?

This the first year of the CAIN statistics.



I'd imagine many of the people killed pre 1972 were killed in gun battles when Catholics were trying to defend their homes from loyalist gangs intent on burning them out of their homes.

You'd imagine would you?

Check all deaths up to BS for my figures - use CAIN.

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

Check all deaths up to BS for my figures - use CAIN.

You made the claim you back it up.

I'm not doing your work for you.

CDfm

indioblack wrote: »

If it was allowed to happen, then there must have been knowledge that it could happen. Was Bloody Sunday predictable?
Don't get the bit about D-Day, though.

I do not think we should speculate beyond the Saville Enquiry and British PM's David Camerons apology.

Saville: Bloody Sunday killings unjustifiable

Updated: 15:16, Tuesday, 24 January 2012







The Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings found the actions of British soldiers was 'both unjustified and unjustifiable'.


1 of 3 Bloody Sunday bereaved
38 years waiting for the truth

2 of 3 David Cameron
House of Commons speech

3 of 3



British Prime Minister David Cameron has apologised for what he said were the 'unjustified and unjustifiable' events of Bloody Sunday.
The Saville Report | Overall Assessment | Report ReactionA Timeline of Events | Watch David Cameron's Speech
He was speaking following the publication of Lord Saville's inquiry into the killing of 14 civilians in Derry in 1972.
In a statement, he said the 5,000-page report found that 'on balance' British troops fired the first shots during the 'tragic events' of 30 January 1972 without issuing a warning.
He told MPs: 'The conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities.


'What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.'
Mr Cameron told a hushed House of Commons: 'Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of our armed forces and for that, on behalf of the Government - and indeed our country - I am deeply sorry.'
The lengthy and massively costly inquiry also concluded that Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness was present at the time of the violence and 'probably armed with a submachine gun' but did not engage in 'any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire'.
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.


While shots were fired by republican paramilitaries 'none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties'.
Lord Saville found that 'in no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire'.
There was a 'serious and widespread loss of fire discipline' among the troops and that none of the soldiers 'fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombs'.
Many of the soldiers 'knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing'.
Lord Saville's findings disclosed that many of those shot were fleeing the troops or assisting the wounded.
While the report concluded that 'immediate responsibility' lay with those members of Support Company who engaged in 'unjustifiable firing', Mr Cameron said that the use of terms such as 'murder and unlawful killing' was not a judgment the Saville tribunal - or politicians - could make.
But he acknowledged: 'These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say.
'We do not honour all those who served with such distinction by keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.'

Families of the Bloody Sunday victims gave a triumphant thumbs-up as the report into the deaths was published.
They waved a copy of Lord Saville's report at the Guildhall in Derry as they prepared to listen to Mr Cameron's assessment.
Crowds watched on a big outdoor screen as the British leader said he could not defend the British army by defending the indefensible.



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

The D-Day is well, the British took on the Nazi's on the Normandy beaches NI was not that. People had the smarts to know the difference.

secondopinion wrote: »

Republicans were involved in The NICRA. But that's not my point. The IRA created an environment in which The Parachute Regiment was deployed.

Saville says

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.

You say

At least one of The BS dead was in The IRA from what I recall. This was only accepted by PIRA relatively recently. We've actually no idea what the others were involved in, if anything.

NICRA was modeled on the American Civil Rights Association and the organisation used constitutional means.It was not a paramilitary organization. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Mr Cameron said.

Mr Cameron said Lord Saville 'finds that on balance the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army.


While shots were fired by republican paramilitaries 'none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties'.

'He finds that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm.'

So if you accept Saville is entirely up to you.

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

I do not think we should speculate beyond the Saville Enquiry and British PM's David Camerons apology.




The D-Day is well, the British took on the Nazi's on the Normandy beaches NI was not that. People had the smarts to know the difference.





Saville says



You say



NICRA was modeled on the American Civil Rights Association and the organisation used constitutional means.It was not a paramilitary organization. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Mr Cameron said.


So if you accept Saville is entirely up to you.

I've not read it.

Personally I care no more about The BS dead than all the others killed, including every single British soldier or policemen - soldiers of The British Army brought to Northern Ireland at the request of The NI Catholic community, who practically begged on their knees for the protection of The British Army one day and then fed them samwiches full of razor blades the next.