Bloody Sunday soldier to be charged with murder

dermo888

dermo888 wrote: »

Don't we all?

The thing is, that Unionism still exists. Is it is militant as before? Is it potentially as violent?
Nationalism - I get the distinct impression that the Nationalist segment have 'calmed' a lot over the past two decades and are'nt as 'bolshie' as before.

I don't know whether Unionism is as militant as it was before.
Certainly, the DUP are apparently quite willing to trample on the clear wishes of the majority of the NI electorate to ensure that NI is "not treated any differently to the rest of the UK" - even where that difference would be economically advantageous to many of their supporters in the short term, while the border issue is resolved.

The question remains, what would hardline loyalists, as opposed to Unionists, (for want of a better description) do, if a border down the Irish sea was forced on them? Would there be a return to violence? Clearly, Theresa May is anxious to appease the DUP. Now, there is no question that she needs their support - but you only have to read random comments, both here and elsewhere, to discover how enraged some people feel at the thought of soldiers being charged with murder - even though it is irrefutable that murder is precisely what the Paras were guilty of, to wonder just how deep the hatred, and the point blank refusal to recognise the truth run.

Neither do I know whether Nationalists are as "bolshie", to use your term, as before.
I do know that I'm a very moderate person, willing to listen to both viewpoints - and I'm FURIOUS that only one soldier will be prosecuted.

The logic is very simple. If it is right to seek justice for victims of violence, be they Catholic or Protestant, then it is right to hold soldiers to that same standard. That clearly has not been done. The families are still being denied justice, even to the extent that MPs have now voted to ensure that any soldiers who may be convicted will serve a maximum of two years.

How blatant can they get, for Gods sake?
And if I'm this angry about it, never having had the misfortune to be treated like a second class citizen, how much more angry must the people who endured the so-called "Troubles" feel?

Those are questions that British politicians, and the legislature need to consider very carefully.

Bloody Sunday occurred because of an incredible lack of sensitivity by politicians and the British army.

Once was bad enough. A second monumental blunder, in ensuring a denial of justice, would be absolutely unforgivable.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So you are saying the British establishment had a crystal ball and knew full well years in advance that relenting to Catholic/Nationalist demands to deploy the army to protect them against Loyalist mobs would have resulted in a 30-year war.....

Can they also predict the lottery numbers for Wednesday's draw?

I showed you the evidence.

Swallow hard and accept that the British knew that interference by their army was not going to end well, they sent them in anyhow and.......... it didn't end well. QED

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They wanted peace as long as it was the result of a victory. They could have conceded the GFA at any time.

The only "victory" to the state that was possible was terrorists giving up their arms / putting them beyond use, and therefore peace. Which is what happened.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They've realised that they are never going to win in Ireland,

What do you think they wanted to win but peace? And prosperity? And freedom from having citizens and others inc their own government attacked?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

and they have more or less withdrawn in the GFA, which they are adamant they will uphold. Leaving it to the people of the island of Ireland to decide their future,

In 1973 they had a border poll / referendum on a United Ireland, and if there was majority or widespread support in N. Ireland then (there was not of course) they would have left then, same as they did in every other place around the world that voted them out.

Plumbthedepths

janfebmar wrote:

In 1973 they had a border poll / referendum on a United Ireland, and if there was majority or widespread support in N. Ireland then (there was not of course) they would have left then, same as they did in every other place around the world that voted them out.

Britain was voted out of India and everywhere else they occupied? The second world war spelled the end of the British Empire decency to the conquered people's disire to govern themselves was not something the British concerned themselves with. Funny how some people try to rewrite history.

markodaly

- Whats different now? Technology. The Provisional IRA was secretive and incredibly well organised, to a point it was almost inpenetrable.

Yea what?

The PIRA had more holes and moles within it working as double agents than swiss cheese.
Have you heard of Stakeknife?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Scappaticci

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The only "victory" to the state that was possible was terrorists giving up their arms / putting them beyond use, and therefore peace. Which is what happened.


What do you think they wanted to win but peace? And prosperity? And freedom from having citizens and others inc their own government attacked?

They colluded with loyalism so I figure they wanted to keep them in control of a sectarian statelet. Pretty obvious when you collude with one side that you want that side to win.

In 1973 they had a border poll / referendum on a United Ireland, and if there was majority or widespread support in N. Ireland then (there was not of course) they would have left then, same as they did in every other place around the world that voted them out.

Not engaging on this non representative farce of a poll in the middle of a conflict/war. It is beyond facile to use this as an indicator of anything but unionist assent.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They colluded with loyalism

The British government fought Loyalists too, and jailed thousands of them.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not engaging on this non representative farce of a poll .

It was fair and open, everyone was entitled to vote.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The British government fought Loyalists too, and jailed thousands of them.

And colluded with them, and they fought republicans and secretly negotiated with them also.

Perfidious? Trustworthy government? Or a government intent on finding an outcome that suited their selfish interests while people died and life was destroyed?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I showed you the evidence.

An opinion piece in the Guardian.

In reality, again it was the Catholic/Nationalist population who pushed for the British Army to be deployed on the streets of NI.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_4075000/4075437.stm?first=5

The arrival of the British troops was greeted with cheering and singing from behind the barricades in the Roman Catholic area of Londonderry.

They were chanting: "We've won, we've won. We've brought down the government."

If only they and everyone else knew.

The government at the time only wanted for troops to be deployed for a few days, not years or decades.

The British Government has sent troops into Northern Ireland in what it says is a "limited operation" to restore law and order.

It follows three days and two nights of violence in the mainly-Catholic Bogside area of Londonderry. Trouble has also erupted in Belfast and other towns across Northern Ireland.

Again, no one had that crystal ball and its stupid to think that the British knew exactly what was going to unfold, year by year, decade by decade...

Plumbthedepths

janfebmar wrote:

It was fair and open, everyone was entitled to vote.

So why was it boycotted by the Nationalist community?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

An opinion piece in the Guardian.

In reality, again it was the Catholic/Nationalist population who pushed for the British Army to be deployed on the streets of NI.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_4075000/4075437.stm?first=5


If only they and everyone else knew.

The government at the time only wanted for troops to be deployed for a few days, not years or decades.

So you won't take on board a quote (If you hunt down the cabinet papers at the time you will find these conversations and Wilson's fear of radicalising opinions north and south) used in a Guardian article but you go on to use another media source to back your counter argument?

I can see where this conversation is going.

Again, no one had that crystal ball and its stupid to think that the British knew exactly what was going to unfold, year by year, decade by decade...

Which I never said. Here is what I actually said,

Both of them recognised what was happening (read your history) and both of them to varying degrees relinquished their responsibilities and allowed the lid to come of decades of strife and community division.
Everyone has responsibility for what happened after, but those who allowed it to happen, knowingly are ultimately responsible.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You should try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions.

There is no 'truth process' and no facility to deal with the past as promised and committed to in the GFA.

In that context then if they wish to seek retribution from one side then all sides should face justice.

You described the conflict as war which suggests you see the ira as soldiers-you realised you had slipped up then described them as aggressors-justice is fine as long as it fits in with your views?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You described the conflict as war which suggests you see the ira as soldiers-you realised you had slipped up then described them as aggressors-justice is fine as long as it fits in with your views?

If you look at the history of my posting you will see that I invariably use conflict/war because I got fed up with this tedious, 'They were not soldiers' melarkey.

Let me be crystal clear here, it is either justice for all or none. My preference (because I think it would be more constructive at this stage) is for a truth process were all players contribute openly and transparently.
We have some experience here in the south were testimonies were locked away and as we know the civil war still infects politics here.
Face up to it, and get all around a table for a truth commission. This drip drip of inquiry and revelation is destabilising.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you look at the history of my posting you will see that I invariably use conflict/war because I got fed up with this tedious, 'They were not soldiers' melarkey.

Let me be crystal clear here, it is either justice for all or none. My preference (because I think it would be more constructive at this stage) is for a truth process were all players contribute openly and transparently.
We have some experience here in the south were testimonies were locked away and as we know the civil war still infects politics here.
Face up to it, and get all around a table for a truth commission. This drip drip of inquiry and revelation is destabilising.

You you believe ira soldiers/aggressors should face justice?

janfebmar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So why was it boycotted by the Nationalist community?

They knew they had not the numbers or support to win, not even close.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You you believe ira soldiers/aggressors should face justice?

In the absence of a process, and the evidence is there, yes. And they have. But the same cannot be said of BA soldiers and officers who broke the law.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the absence of a process, and the evidence is there, yes. And they have.

But they were released and almost 200 OTRs (On The Runs) more or less got secret amnesty letters?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

But they were released and almost 200 OTRs (On The Runs) more or less got secret amnesty letters?

And?

They did a deal with the British government, you need to take that up with them.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And?

They did a deal with the British government, you need to take that up with them.

Interesting you believe they should face justice anyhow.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Interesting you believe they should face justice anyhow.

I have been saying the same thing when asked since I joined the forum. It's justice for all or none.
And we clearly don't have that.

janfebmar

I do not think the ex-prisoners would fancy going back to jail, and the close to 200 OTRs face the prospect of prosecution / jail. I think the spirit of the GFA, while everyone did not like it - including victims families from both sides - was that it was time to try to move on.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I do not think the ex-prisoners would fancy going back to jail, and the close to 200 OTRs face the prospect of prosecution / jail. I think the spirit of the GFA, while everyone did not like it - including victims families from both sides - was that it was time to try to move on.

The GFA contained a commitment by both governments to deal with legacy issues. They haven't done so. Quelle Suprise.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GFA contained a commitment by both governments to deal with legacy issues. They haven't done so. Quelle Suprise.

It is in no one's interests to rake up the past and that should apply to all,not just paramilitaries.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

It is in no one's interests to rake up the past and that should apply to all,not just paramilitaries.

Funny it is wrong to do it, now that the British Army is in the dock and their reputation is on the line.

That's the problem if you spend years only raking some of the past.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GFA contained a commitment by both governments to deal with legacy issues.

They were not allowed to if the British government secretly gave almost 200 OTR's secret amnesty letters? And by letting all the prisoners out, was the spirit of the time not to move on? Nobody else jailed assuming peace was maintained?

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny it is wrong to do it, now that the British Army is in the dock and their reputation is on the line.

That's the problem if you spend years only raking some of the past.

It has been suggested the British know the identities of ira personal who were involved in bombings but are prepared to let it lie-that's annoying but that is what was agreed so fair enough-that should apply to all.

Wanderer2010

Surely some of these Paratroopers are dead by now? This Soldier F guy would be in his 70s if he was in his 30s back then. This sounds like a classic case of "wait them out until they die, then wait out the families too" and bury them with cancelled tribunal dates until the world forgets.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

It has been suggested the British know the identities of ira personal who were involved in bombings but are prepared to let it lie-that's annoying but that is what was agreed so fair enough-that should apply to all.

Sorry. What was agreed?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's the problem if you spend years only raking some of the past.

So you think the murder of hundreds of soldiers and police, which mostly went unsolved, should be investigated fully? £200,000,000 was spent on Bloody Friday, how much do you think should be budgeted for investigating many hundreds of other atrocities in the troubles. And do you think it would do any good?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So you think the murder of hundreds of soldiers and police, which mostly went unsolved, should be investigated fully? £200,000,000 was spent on Bloody Friday, how much do you think should be budgeted for investigating many hundreds of other atrocities in the troubles. And do you think it would do any good?

Had they investigated it properly to begin with then it would have cost a fraction of that.

You should review the history of this campaign very carefully and stop taking the British government at their word. They whitewashed this event with Lord Widgery which involved multiple cases of perjury and corrupt judiciary. Then they fought the campaigners tooth and nail until they could no longer hide and forced Cameron to apologise. They then stalled a further decade in making charges and then sent one man to trial.

They don't have a moral leg to stand on, on this case.