The glorious 12th

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Help me understand this.
What did the enquiry achieve that was worth over £100m? I keen for a serious answer to this.

You'll probably never understand...and that is as ineffably sad and tragic as the conflict/war itself.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You'll probably never understand...and that is as ineffably sad and tragic as the conflict/war itself.

You still have not answered questions Francie, even about the one incident you have "trawled" through and selected (your term) from the troubles, Bloody Sunday. Can you explain all the rocks and stones on the road thrown by the protestors on Bloody Sunday, as in the Irish Times photo, and the soldiers sheltering beside vehicles, taken before the firing started?
As you brought up extrajudicial killings on a number of occasions, do you ever think it was right for members of the security forces to fire back and defend themselves, such as when the lone off duty part time UDR soldier was lured in to a planned IRA trap by a well armed pira gang and he managed to fire back and hit one of his attackers?
Was that one of your "extrajudicial" killings you are complaining about?

citytillidie

downcow wrote: »

Help me understand this.
What did the enquiry achieve that was worth over £100m? I keen for a serious answer to this.

You have had your serious answer it established that the 1st inquiry was a load of whitewashing and covering up by the British Army and government but you know this.

Same as the Hillsborough inquiry it set the real truth not the police/army “truth”

You don’t like it as it sets your hero’s in a bad light

citytillidie

janfebmar wrote: »

You still have not answered questions Francie, even about the one incident you have "trawled" through and selected (your term) from the troubles, Bloody Sunday. Can you explain all the rocks and stones on the road thrown by the protestors on Bloody Sunday, as in the Irish Times photo, and the soldiers sheltering beside vehicles, taken before the firing started?
As you brought up extrajudicial killings on a number of occasions, do you ever think it was right for members of the security forces to fire back and defend themselves, such as when the lone off duty part time UDR soldier was lured in to a planned IRA trap by a well armed pira gang and he managed to fire back and hit one of his attackers?
Was that one of your "extrajudicial" killings you are complaining about?

Why do you keep ignoring that findings said the army were never in any threat from the rocks and stones?

citytillidie

So goal post moving here on a thread about the 12th and we are talking about Bloody Sunday. Wish people would show some respect

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You still have not answered questions Francie, even about the one incident you have "trawled" through and selected (your term) from the troubles, Bloody Sunday. Can you explain all the rocks and stones on the road thrown by the protestors on Bloody Sunday, as in the Irish Times photo, and the soldiers sheltering beside vehicles, taken before the firing started?
As you brought up extrajudicial killings on a number of occasions, do you ever think it was right for members of the security forces to fire back and defend themselves, such as when the lone off duty part time UDR soldier was lured in to a planned IRA trap by a well armed pira gang and he managed to fire back and hit one of his attackers?
Was that one of your "extrajudicial" killings you are complaining about?

Jan...I am not on trial here.

The subject has moved to the issue of 'extrajudicial killings'.

Should a government ever be involved in them and should they be held to account for them?

You can answer that question without exploiting victims. I didn't introduce Bloody Sunday for re-examination/re-inquiry to this thread.

downcow

citytillidie wrote: »

You have had your serious answer it established that the 1st inquiry was a load of whitewashing and covering up by the British Army and government but you know this.

Same as the Hillsborough inquiry it set the real truth not the police/army “truth”

You don’t like it as it sets your hero’s in a bad light

Did you not know that already. It was certainly common knowledge in the unionist community that the initial enquiry was of its time and inevitably very limited.
So I wouldn’t call that an achievement of the enquiry.
Is there anything new of substance or that mattered that we learnt?

downcow

citytillidie wrote: »

Why do you keep ignoring that findings said the army were never in any threat from the rocks and stones?

The purpose of the army that day was not solely to protect the army.
In army in the world has a responsibility to step on if there is serious rioting happening in front of them. So level of threat to army is a red herring

citytillidie

downcow wrote: »

The purpose of the army that says was not solely to protect the army.
In army in the world has a responsibility to step on if there is serious rioting happening in front of them. So level of threat to army is a red herring

Why are we still talking about Bloody Sunday? This thread is about the 12th I am not going to comment anymore on Bloody Sunday as it’s too close to home for me. I just wish people would not try and point score off of it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jan...I am not on trial here.

The subject has moved to the issue of 'extrajudicial killings'.

Should a government ever be involved in them and should they be held to account for them?

You can answer that question without exploiting victims. I didn't introduce Bloody Sunday for re-examination/re-inquiry to this thread.

I don’t think this is a black and white issue. Is it ok to send a missile in to take out Bin Laden. I think it probably is. Is this an extrajudicial killing?
Was the killing of the terrorists attacking Loughgal police station extrajudicial killing?
Did bobby sands take his own life or would you somehow call that extrajudicial killing (nothing would surprise me anymore on this thread)?
Is it only the state can carry out extrajudicial killing?
Was the murder of billy wright an extrajudicial killing if the authorities enabled it?
Is every case of the taking of a life by the state when there is no immediate threat a extrajudicial killing eg rubber bullets?
These things are rarely black and white

FrancieBrady

citytillidie wrote: »

Why are we still talking about Bloody Sunday? This thread is about the 12th I am not going to comment anymore on Bloody Sunday as it’s too close to home for me. I just wish people would not try and point score off of it.

You are correct. The attempt here by janfebmar and downcow is disgusting. I will leave this for them to ponder, because as well as not having taken the time to read the findings they clearly never took the time to consider the monumental shift this was and what it meant to the people of Derry and beyond. We will no doubt hear more of it over the years and that is what is annoying janfebmar,downcow and blanch152 (who is still trying to insinuate the victims were not innocent)

The PM Of The UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND wrote:

"The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry - the tribunal set up by the previous government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as Bloody Sunday.

We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal's findings as soon as possible after the general election.

Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world.

And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve.

But 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.


Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of the support company who went into the Bogside did so as a result of an order which should not have been given by their commander.

He 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.

He finds that there was some firing by Republican paramilitaries but none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties.

And he finds that, in no case, was any warning given by soldiers before opening fire.

He also finds that the support company reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and with a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline.

He finds that despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers, none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers.

And he finds that many of the soldiers - and I quote knowingly - put forward false accounts to seek to justify their firing.


Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying.

The report refers to one person who was shot while crawling away from the soldiers. Another was shot in all probability when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground.

The report refers to the father who was hit and injured by army gunfire after going to attend to his son.

For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says that the immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of support company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries.

Crucially, that, and I quote, none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury or indeed was doing anything else that could, on any view, justified in shooting.

For those people who are looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal or politicians to determine.

Mr Speaker, these are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say. But Mr Speaker, you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible.

We do not honour all those who have served with such distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.

There is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal's authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I don’t think this is a black and white issue. Is it ok to send a missile in to take out Bin Laden. I think it probably is. Is this an extrajudicial killing?
Was the killing of the terrorists attacking Loughgal police station extrajudicial killing?
Did bobby sands take his own life or would you somehow call that extrajudicial killing (nothing would surprise me anymore on this thread)?
Is it only the state can carry out extrajudicial killing?
Was the murder of billy wright an extrajudicial killing if the authorities enabled it?
Is every case of the taking of a life by the state when there is no immediate threat a extrajudicial killing eg rubber bullets?
These things are rarely black and white

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

I suggest you begin to do some reading without the Unionist/Loyalist/British blinkers on.

https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/198

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

So you think killing of the driver of a wanted Republican, shot by the Irish army at a checkpoint in Co Kilkenny during the eighties, is wrong?

Do yo think the off duty part time ambushed UDR soldier, lured in to an IRA trap, who shot back and killed a pira man, was wrong?
Oh I forgot, you bring up Bloody Sunday again and again but will not answer questions on it, and you will not answer questions on other incidents.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So you think killing of the driver of a wanted Republican, shot by the Irish army at a checkpoint in Co Kilkenny during the eighties, is wrong?

Do yo think the off duty part time ambushed UDR soldier, lured in to an IRA trap, who shot back and killed a pira man, was wrong?
Oh I forgot, you bring up Bloody Sunday again and again but will not answer questions on it, and you will not answer questions on other incidents.

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

Discuss. Or get lost trying to discuss this through your selective incidents.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

I suggest you begin to do some reading without the Unionist/Loyalist/British blinkers on.

https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/198

Does this include when terrorists kill people assisted by governments ?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Does this include when terriers kill people assisted by governments ?

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

janfebmar

In refusing to discuss, Francie obviously thinks the lone off duty part time UDR man who was lured in to a planned trap by the pIRA near the border, and ambushed by the pIRA gang but who managed to shoot back and hit one of the pIRA ambushers, should have tried to capture the IRA gang.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

In refusing to discuss, Francie obviously thinks the lone off duty part time UDR man who was lured in to a planned trap by the pIRA near the border, and ambushed by the pIRA gang but who managed to shoot back and hit one of the pIRA ambushers, should have tried to capture the IRA gang.

He doesn't actually, but don't let that get in the way of an indignant lie to avoid dealing with this:

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

My question is that extrajudicial" killing. It’s a serious question. I am not playing games. Just wondering at what point that extrajudicial" killing begins and ends. Eg if ruc or guadia pass info to terrorists on someone they want dead is it extrajudicial" killing. And what if they are rogue individuals and it’s not government policy ?

You asked a fair question. Do I agree with extrajudicial" killing and I am just trying to be clear what you mean so as I can answer your question.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

My question is that extrajudicial" killing. It’s a serious question. I am not playing games. Just wondering at what point that extrajudicial" killing begins and ends. Eg if ruc or guadia pass info to terrorists on someone they want dead is it extrajudicial" killing. And what if they are rogue individuals and it’s not government policy ?

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

And for future reference, it is 'Gardai'.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong,'.

But at what point does the opportunity to arrest and try those who saw themselves engaged in a "war"...a war in which they saw and still see long retired public servants for example as being "legitimate targets"?

Had the lone off duty part time UDR soldier an opportunity to arrest and try the IRA gang who ambushed him ? It would take a brave public servant to stand in the road and flag down unknown van or car loads of heavily armed pira men on an "active service" mission and try to arrest them. I would'nt have fancied his chances.

citytillidie

Love how people have steered this thread totally away from the main subject to try and score points

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

But at what point does the opportunity to arrest and try those who saw themselves engaged in a "war"..

There is no equivocation or ambiguity. You either agree with this or not...do you?

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

The purpose of the army that day was not solely to protect the army.
In army in the world has a responsibility to step on if there is serious rioting happening in front of them. So level of threat to army is a red herring

So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable?

No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant.

Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....

citytillidie

Deleted User wrote: »

So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable?

No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant.

Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....

We all seen in 2011 the Army will do nothing in the street of England when there was days of riots in cities all over England

janfebmar

citytillidie wrote: »

We all seen in 2011 the Army will do nothing in the street of England when there was days of riots in cities all over England

We also saw that the people in England will do nothing like kill 2 police officers, one catholic and one protestant, like they did in Derry 2 days before Bloody Sunday. Lessons have been learnt, policing of marches and riots now is nothing like it was half a century ago.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable?

No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant.

Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....

They have never even fired rubber/plastic bullets in Britain. A sobering thought in and off itself.

Rubber bullets were invented by the British Ministry of Defence for use against people in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and they continued to use them even knowing the dangers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-22848421

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Rubber bullets were invented by the British Ministry of Defence for use against people in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and they continued to use them even knowing the dangers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-22848421

Poor old Francie, you get your facts wrong yet again. Rubber bullets have not been used in Northern Ireland since 1975.

Plastic bullets were used in riot control since then. If you had hundreds of people rioting who wanted you dead, and who had killed your comrades, security forces have to have some form of crowd control.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Poor old Francie, you get your facts wrong yet again. Rubber bullets have not been used in Northern Ireland since 1975.

Plastic bullets were used in riot control since then. If you had hundreds of people rioting who wanted you dead, and who had killed your comrades, security forces have to have some form of crowd control.

*

Soldiers used rubber bullets in Northern Ireland at a time when they knew they were more dangerous than had been disclosed, a human rights group has said.

The details were found in declassified Ministry of Defence (MoD) papers, according to the Pat Finucane Centre.

They contain legal advice for the MoD to seek a settlement over a Londonderry boy blinded by a rubber bullet in 1972.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have never even fired rubber/plastic bullets in Britain. A sobering thought in and off itself.

Wrong yet again, Francie. The police fired rubber bullets in Dorchester in 2002, hitting someone, and last time I looked Dorchester was in Britain.