RobMc59 wrote: » Your reply suggests you see events on the morning of bloody sunday as acts of war-is that the case?
Beltby wrote: » Sure they celebrate king billy and his troops killing catholics with a parade every year. Not only that, they used to ram their parades through catholic areas just to rub it in.
downcow wrote: » Check your history The pope celebrated king Billy’s victory more than most
FrancieBrady wrote: » It took place during our War Of Independence. I think that is fairly obvious.
RobMc59 wrote: » I didn't see these incidents as 'war' which is why I thought all deaths that day were terrible. If on the other hand as you suggest they are acts of war whether conventional or guerrilla surely you have to accept there may be collateral damage which may include civilians. British people have always accepted there will be civilian casualties in war.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, which frequently allows your army to open fire on civilians and spend 40 years or more trying to pretend they fired first. Tell us something we don't know Rob.
RobMc59 wrote: » I was under the impression we where discussing events in November 1920,you said you saw that as war.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They happened during the War Of Independence. One was the assassination of soldiers the other the random killing of innocents. Now off you go, justifying that action by a state. You were still at it (your state) 80 years later.
RobMc59 wrote: » I`m not trying to justify anything and as I said think the deaths on that day were all terrible,not just selectively terrible.
RobMc59 wrote: » surely you have to accept there may be collateral damage which may include civilians.
FrancieBrady wrote: » War is terrible but if you cannot distinguish the difference between the two acts then I despair for you. I often wonder how British and American people justify what their armies do in their name.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Now now Rob, if the IRA had sprayed gunfire into spectators at a sports event in London I'm sure the only word you'd be using to describe it is 'terrorism'.
RobMc59 wrote: » If you go to war,there will always be collateral damage whether any of us like it or not.
Beltby wrote: » The point is you and your community celebrate it while asking the other side to condemn this that and the other.
downcow wrote: » Yes we do celebrate it. But it was a European war and the reason we celebrate it is because it was the beginnings of democracy winning over total authority of the monarch. You should all celebrate it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That you can't even unequivocally call out a barbarous war crime that many of your fellow country men and women found unpalatable at the time speaks volumes.
BonnieSituation wrote: » "Collateral damage" What a disgusting individual
downcow wrote: » That’s rich coming from you Francie
downcow wrote: » I think you will find that it was Francie who implied it was an act of war which inevitably makes it collateral damage. I wouldn’t agree it was an act of war. Decent people were of fighting the Nazis in a real war while miserable little republicans tried to take advantage of the situation.
downcow wrote: » Decent people were of fighting the Nazis in a real war while miserable little republicans tried to take advantage of the situation.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Beginnings of democracy winning over the monarchy'...can't believe you actually committed that to type.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I said it was a 'barbarous war crime' downcow. Seeing what you want to see again?
RobMc59 wrote: » You did say it was war francie,I agree with Downcow that it was`nt war which is why I think all killings that day were terrible.
downcow wrote: » Would you describe the killing of the two corporals at the ira funeral as a ‘barbarous war crime’?
downcow wrote: » I can’t believe you don’t know this Francie. I think you may have been a natural King Billy supporter in 1688 Wikipedia also committed it to print.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689