Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ballymurphy massacre
Options
Comments
-
It doesn’t change the basic point he’s making though. Why can’t you see that there is a huge difference between the so called forces of law and order and illegal organisations like the IRA doing it ? You constantly want to know why the victims of Ballymurphy, Bloody Sunday etc are more important than IRA victims. It’s not about being more important though . Why do you refuse to see that ?. Nobody was stopping the authorities investigating IRA murders, and as pointed out, IRA men went to jail when they were caught. With cases like Ballymurphy though, the State actively covered up wholesale murder, and that’s a best case scenario. Can you not see how this undermines the whole rule of law ?
Believe it or not I completely understand your point of view, and I get. Most nationalists see the killings by the British Army (which were extremely small in number compared to terrorism) as somehow worse than the killing of e.g. border Protestants by the IRA or the killing of Catholics by the Shankill butchers.
Most Unionists I know, see it entirely differently. I have really tried to avoid comparing atrocities, but since a number of posts are now doing it, I feel I need to point out that if you start making comparisons, Unionists will inevitably see it as even worse, when isolated rural Protestants spent every hour of the day worrying that an IRA terrorist was going to lie in wait outside their home and shoot them in the back when they were taking their kids to school.
I was actually horrified by the BM massacre as it was told on the news last night. I was not aware how innocent those people were and I completely absolutely condemn the indiscriminate killing of them. There was no excuse.0 -
Of course he sees it. His act is well worn at this stage.
Never knew anything of the massacre until yesterday he says.
Tiresome.
It is disappointing people descend into lies. I absolutely did not say that I knew nothing of the massacre until yesterday - maybe you will show us the post.
I said that I was not aware of the unprovoked nature of slaughter of innocents until the news last night. I had assumed the BM situation was identical to the BS situation in that there was a riot going on and that the IRA were on the streets with guns. The impression I got from the news last night was that this was not happening in BM and therefore the unacceptable behaviour could not be blamed on provocation or soldiers feeling under threat0 -
..... And I assume you have some evidence for this accusation?
Still waiting for the link from your last post
Here's your evidence downcow
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cqSpEOO_Wfc&list=PL1CF73895A9142DF4&index=26
A British Corparal is being interviewed in the documentary he says he asked the SAS how the loyalists were able to smash down the telephone line and kick the door down shooting Bernadette and her husband ten times each despite dozens of SAS members watching the house where the SAS replied "we must have been looking the other way".
The reason is clear to anyone who wants to know, they wanted their job done and then arrest the loyalists as they left making the state look like peacekeepers (the good guys) little did the average member of the public know at the time that they actually orchestrated the whole thing.0 -
-
It is disappointing people descend into lies. I absolutely did not say that I knew nothing of the massacre until yesterday - maybe you will show us the post.
I said that I was not aware of the unprovoked nature of slaughter of innocents until the news last night. I had assumed the BM situation was identical to the BS situation in that there was a riot going on and that the IRA were on the streets with guns. The impression I got from the news last night was that this was not happening in BM and therefore the unacceptable behaviour could not be blamed on provocation or soldiers feeling under threat
What a joke, how could you not realise, you simply don't believe anything until your British heroes stand up in Westminster and say it's true.
Another brainwashed victim of propaganda fed into the Republic during the troubles.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is disappointing people descend into lies. I absolutely did not say that I knew nothing of the massacre until yesterday - maybe you will show us the post.
I said that I was not aware of the unprovoked nature of slaughter of innocents until the news last night. I had assumed the BM situation was identical to the BS situation in that there was a riot going on and that the IRA were on the streets with guns. The impression I got from the news last night was that this was not happening in BM and therefore the unacceptable behaviour could not be blamed on provocation or soldiers feeling under threat
Not aware!? Really! That's exactly what the victim's families have been saying repeatedly without wavering for decades.
Maybe you just weren't listening.0 -
Fuascailteoir wrote: »So if it was a member of your family involved would you be so flippant?
The soldiers are nearly dead, they are basically just waiting for death they're old men who have lived long and happy lives their actions were approved and encouraged by the state.
They have zero chance of getting any conviction so they may as well get on with their lives rather than pointlessly wasting their time trying to convict old men.
There was plenty of justice handed out by the IRA in the following years, the IRA blew and shot up 18 paras and another 6 had their legs and arms blown off on the 27th August 1979, that is the justice for the defenseless innocent victims of the cowardly Paras.0 -
Believe it or not I completely understand your point of view, and I get. Most nationalists see the killings by the British Army (which were extremely small in number compared to terrorism) as somehow worse than the killing of e.g. border Protestants by the IRA or the killing of Catholics by the Shankill butchers.
Most Unionists I know, see it entirely differently. I have really tried to avoid comparing atrocities, but since a number of posts are now doing it, I feel I need to point out that if you start making comparisons, Unionists will inevitably see it as even worse, when isolated rural Protestants spent every hour of the day worrying that an IRA terrorist was going to lie in wait outside their home and shoot them in the back when they were taking their kids to school.
I was actually horrified by the BM massacre as it was told on the news last night. I was not aware how innocent those people were and I completely absolutely condemn the indiscriminate killing of them. There was no excuse.
Well, no. You’re proving that you don’t actually get it. I’m not saying the shootings in and of themselves were worse than anything the IRA did. The comparison is not between the deeds. It’s about the fact that Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday were carried out by those who were supposed to be upholding the rule of law, with the full force of the British State behind them. That’s what makes it worse, and newsworthy. Something which you just won’t acknowledge, for whatever reason. And I do understand the point that your “side” feels that no-one cares about their victims, but as I said before, no one was stopping the justice system pursuing those cases in full.0 -
It is disappointing people descend into lies. I absolutely did not say that I knew nothing of the massacre until yesterday - maybe you will show us the post.
I said that I was not aware of the unprovoked nature of slaughter of innocents until the news last night. I had assumed the BM situation was identical to the BS situation in that there was a riot going on and that the IRA were on the streets with guns. The impression I got from the news last night was that this was not happening in BM and therefore the unacceptable behaviour could not be blamed on provocation or soldiers feeling under threat
What bubble do you live in? This is preposterous.0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »What bubble do you live in? This is preposterous.
He must be trolling us it's the only logical explanation I can think of.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You need to understand that this is not a big story across the UK. This is 50 years old. This is the same as talking about atrocities in in 1995 about World War II. The passage of time is huge.
The story about cases being dropped against people is a story about today, it is no wonder it takes higher profile.
The BM incident is horrific for all those involved, and impact lives today of those who feel connected, but it is as remote for the average UK resident as a discussion on the UK miners strike would be to a Dubliner. That's just the reality
That's funny D. I could have swore that you were complaining that the IRA atrocities didn't get enough attention. Maybe the next time you post one of your many posts like that you can remind yourselfYou need to understand that this is not a big story across the UK. This is 50 years old.0 -
I did not mention ira bombs. You mention it because it’s easier to stomach that thinking about Irish people putting guns to the heads of innocent British people and pulling triggers (not to even mention the hundreds of ira victims who would have much rather died quickly by that method). Here is the type of case I am thinking in this clip made by a friend just a few days ago https://www.facebook.com/100001723264795/posts/4149965475070854/?extid=0&d=n
You found your intent hard to hide in this post didn't you?0 -
Tiocfaidh Ar La0
-
From an article published two days ago in the Guardian. There is no justification anyone could dream up to suggest that the parachute regiment had the moral high ground to a terrorist group.Father Hugh Mullan, a parish priest, phoned the army to say soldiers were shooting at people fleeing their homes. Waving a white handkerchief, he then dashed out to give the last rites to Clarke.
Kevin Moore, a seaman on leave who was sheltering nearby, saw the priest being shot twice: “He screamed and drew his knees up in front of his stomach and seemed to curl up in a ball.”
Terence McIlharvey said in his statement that Mullan prayed in English and Latin, then went quiet. “During this 10 minutes shots were still coming in very fast especially when anybody moved.”
As Mullan lay dying, another man, Frank Quinn, 19, attempted to help Clarke. He was shot in the head and killed.
Soon after, another group of people who were gathered opposite the Henry Taggart memorial hall came under fire.
Joan Connolly, a mother of eight who had vocally protested against the army’s incursion, was shot dead, along with Noel Phillips, 20. Five men were wounded and were brought into the hall by soldiers. Two of them – Joseph Murphy, 41, and Daniel Teggart, 44 – died of their wounds.
One who survived, David Callaghan, said in a statement he had been kicked and clubbed with rifles and that the wounded men in the hall were treated only when an army padre insisted.
One soldier known as “Soldier E” when he gave his statement said he had shot three people, including Connolly. He said she had been armed with what appeared to be a pistol. Swabs of the dead woman’s hands suggested she had not fired a weapon. Soldiers recovered no weapons from any of the 10 dead.
Soldiers fired so many rounds they ran low on ammunition. A soldier who resupplied them, Harry Gow, then an 18-year-old paratrooper, wrote in a book published in 1995 that the soldiers inside the hall “were on a high” when he arrived.
“As soon as I walked in I understood why. Six bodies lay sprawled at the bottom of a raised stage. One of them was a woman, hit at least three times.”0 -
15% of the killings are attributed to security forces when collusion is taken account... not that small of a number.Most nationalists see the killings by the British Army (which were extremely small in number compared to terrorism)
Most Unionists I know, see it entirely differently. I have really tried to avoid comparing atrocities
You have repeaditly pointed out how members of sinn fein sit in government yet but forget of the high levels of collusion in the UK governement, army. All the way to the top, Thatcher ignoring any concerns about it. Reports (after 50 years in this case) tend to exonerate the innocent victims but never really expose the collusions, acknowledge but not allocate blame for cover ups or identify how far collusion goes. While you criticise sinn fein have you any similiar feelings towards the British state?
The unionists didnt have to differentiate between state and terrorist killings, they didnt have to fear the people they paid tax to unlike the nationalists, they didnt have to fear bullets, internment without trial etc by the irish state (not saying it wasnt guilty of collusion too - the cases of which should be investigated).
The other obvious reason the state should be held to higher account is that its responsible for justice, it has all the records it needs to to provide it yet chooses not to. There shouldnt be any need for tribunals yet it took 50 years just for them to say they shot innocents in this case. It is a massive dereliction of duty to your citizens.
Terrorists (loyalists or nationalist) are criminals, not answerable to anyone except themselves, if you believe the same expectancy for truth and delivery of justice can be put on terrosits and the state it says a lot.0 -
Such behaviour would constitute a war crime would it not?
A working towards an end of oppression and toward an equal democracy.
People are pushed into such actions. Content people don't create a resistance to nothing.
Well I would have a problem calling it a 'war crime' as in my view it legitimises the troubles then. It was murder pure and simple. If you call it a war crime it implies those in Ballymurphy were implicated in this so called 'war' and cynically uses the names of the dead as propaganda tools.
In my view all those killed in troubles were murdered. All other terms are semantics trying to justify a 'cause' on one side or the other.
Standing back and looking at the Troubles it was a few ragtag groups who styled themselves as 'armies'. But really they were gangs on both sides of the divide. They were not officially recognised armies of any state. Nor did they have widespread support on the island of Ireland, nor in England, Scotland and Wales.
Then on top of that we had a recognised army and forces of the British going 'rogue' to combat actions of group(s) that had zero accountability for their actions so the gloves were off.
The British army then played by the same 'no accountability' game. Which led to such things as the Ballymurphy massacre.
War Crime = No (What 'war'?)
Murder = Yes
Negotiation through political channels is/was the only way to really move forward, murder and mayhem only increases divides rather than leading to compromise.
It was madness all around. A waste of thousands of lives.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Well I would have a problem calling it a 'war crime' as in my view it legitimises the troubles then. It was murder pure and simple. If you call it a war crime it implies those in Ballymurphy were implicated in this so called 'war' and cynically uses the names of the dead as propaganda tools.
In my view all those killed in troubles were murdered. All other terms are semantics trying to justify a 'cause' on one side or the other.
Standing back and looking at the Troubles it was a few ragtag groups who styled themselves as 'armies'. But really they were gangs on both sides of the divide. They were not officially recognised armies of any state. Nor did they have widespread support on the island of Ireland, nor in England, Scotland and Wales.
Then on top of that we had a recognised army and forces of the British going 'rogue' to combat actions of group(s) that had zero accountability for their actions so the gloves were off.
The British army then played by the same 'no accountability' game. Which led to such things as the Ballymurphy massacre.
War Crime = No (What 'war'?)
Murder = Yes
Negotiation through political channels is/was the only way to really move forward, murder and mayhem only increases divides rather than leading to compromise.
It was madness all around. A waste of thousands of lives.
Stop0 -
myfreespirit wrote: »Sadly, those responsible will likely never face a reckoning for their crimes. The best course of action may be to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission where the soldiers are given the opportunity to admit to their wrongdoing and to apologise to the grieving families.
However, in my opinion, those soldiers are cowards and liars, so even if given that platform, they won't admit the crimes they committed.
There was an unofficial "truth and reconciliation" commission happening a few years ago. Anthony McIntyre and Ed Moloney, along with Boston College in the US was interviewing people from both sides, with the caveat that nothing would be released until all interviewees were dead. It was an attempt to have an oral history for the future. The British govt went to court in an attempt to gain access to the tapes. They were given back to the interviewees, and are more than likely destroyed now. The British don't want their dirty little secrets coming out.0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »Stop
Just my honest opinion on it all. I am not one for dressing thing thing up in nice lovely fluffy terms.
The people in Ballymurphy who were murdered should not be tossed around for the furtherance of agendas. But they will, unfortunately as is the normal pattern of events of history in NI.
Some people have no shame.
They were innocent people who were murdered like many others in NI. But it always seemed to me that there is a tendency for certain sides to try an 'out atrocity' each other even historically.
Forgetting that each life is a human life, and each life that is lost because of the violence of another is one life too many.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Advertisement
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Just my honest opinion on it all. I am not one for dressing thing thing up in nice lovely fluffy terms.
The people in Ballymurphy who were murdered should not be tossed around for the furtherance of agendas. But they will, unfortunately as is the normal pattern of events of history in NI.
Some people have no shame.
They were innocent people who were murdered like many others in NI. But it always seemed to me that there is a tendency for certain sides to try an 'out atrocity' each other even historically.
Forgetting that each life is a human life, and each life that is lost because of the violence of another is one life too many.
Seriously.0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »Seriously.
I think is another cheaping of life all over again. Yeah the Ballymurphy families find justice after nearly half a century. And will likely bring civil actions in future.
But very quickly by extension it is quickly used by others as justification for their own sides actions and so on, and so on. And the cycle continues. I noticed some people from NI have a habit of mocking each other (on both sides) on the anniversaries of atrocities. It is all very sick stuff.
Apologies (from both sides) always seem odd as well such as the one from WM on the Ballymurphy murders. It always seems to be done because it is the 'political' thing to do. Is there any real meaning to it? It never feels like it. Political football's is what it ends up as. Then we get into the debate of the type of apology and so on etc. Turns into a pantomime.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »I think is another cheaping of life all over again. Yeah the Ballymurphy families find justice after nearly half a century. And will likely bring civil actions in future.
But very quickly by extension it is quickly by others it is used as justification by others for their own sides actions and so on, and so on. And the cycle continues. I noticed some people from NI have a habit of mocking each other (on both sides) on the anniversaries of atrocities. It is all very sick stuff.
Apologies (from both sides) always seem odd as well such as the one from WM on the Ballymurphy murders. It always seems to be done because it is the 'political' thing to do. Is there any real meaning to it? It never feels like it.
Well, the "apology" that was received yesterday was just awful. Barely even one.
Apologies matter. See David Cameron's apology to the Bloody Sunday victims' families.
I'm not really sure what hill it is you're seeking to die on here, but tbh, you're best not bothering.
Your victim blaming post yesterday was enough.0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »Well, the "apology" that was received yesterday was just awful. Barely even one.
Apologies matter. See David Cameron's apology to the Bloody Sunday victims' families.
I'm not really sure what hill it is you're seeking to die on here, but tbh, you're best not bothering.
Your victim blaming post yesterday was enough.
You are twisting it as 'victim blaming'.
It was just a reality of the circumstance that the majority population of NI were placed in by being caught in the middle. Involvement by accident rather than design. Caused a minority of people who were determined to cause mayhem (by choice on both sides) and drag others into it.
Although it is nice to see the Ballymurphy families get justice.
In the aftermath. I see it as very transparent use of history to again settle scores, by people with agendas. Using dead victims as posters for a 'cause'. Both sides do it not just one. It always seems a bit 'off' to me. And you can sense that 'vibe' of some of the posts on this thread.
All the talk now will over the apology now. A fella who was about 7 at the time of the murders is being asked give apology on behalf of the British government. Ok but what will it really serve to do, and who will it really serve? It is just playing politics with the dead.
It is the people who commited the murders who need to be punished. But I assume many of those involved, who gave orders, or turned a blind eye are now long gone. Is is really for a catheric healing of the Ballymurphy families or is it just a tactic for political capital?
I think it is the latter for many reasons from various sides.
If I was one of the Ballymurphy families I am not sure an apology would do much good. Because I would question it's sincerity for a start. Also it would be given by a politician with an agenda, and thirdly it would be given by politicians who could not have influenced the events in any way at the time. I would tell them to stuff their apology.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »You are twisting it as 'victim blaming'.
It was just a reality of the circumstance that the majority population of NI were placed in by being caught in the middle. Involvement by accident rather than design. Caused a minority of people who were determined to cause mayhem (by choice on both sides) and drag others into it.
Although it is nice to see the Ballymurphy families get justice.
In the aftermath. I see it as very transparent use of history to again settle scores, by people with agendas. Using dead victims as posters for a 'cause'. Both sides do it not just one. It always seems a bit 'off' to me. And you can sense that 'vibe' of some of the posts on this thread.
All the talk now will over the apology now. A fella who was about 7 at the time of the murders is being asked give apology on behalf of the British government. Ok but what will it really serve to do, and who will it really serve? It is just playing politics with the dead.
It is the people who commited the murders who need to be punished. But I assume many of those involved, who gave orders, or turned a blind eye are now long gone. Is is really for a catheric healing of the Ballymurphy families or is it just a tactic for political capital?
I think it is the latter for many reasons from various sides.
If I was one of the Ballymurphy families I am not sure an apology would do much good. Because I would question it's sincerity for a start. Also it would be given by a politician with an agenda, and thirdly it would be given by politicians who could not have influenced the events in any way at the time. I would tell them to stuff their apology.
The same fella is trying to remove the ability of the perpetrators to be prosecuted so I'm not sure what his age at the time has to do with it. He seems very much involved in events....0 -
listermint wrote: »The same fella is trying to remove the ability of the perpetrators to be prosecuted so I'm not sure what his age at the time has to do with it. He seems very much involved in events....
But Boris also wants to give an amnesty to the IRA as well for crimes perpetrated.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1432499/boris-johnson-latest-northern-ireland-veterans-amnesty-ira-terrorists
Is Johnston seeking perpetrators in the BA to be given an amnesty against prosecution much different to talk of giving amnesty IRA men were given for crimes they were alleged to have committed prior to the GFA in 1998 - in 2005 for example
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/10/northernireland.northernireland1
The quote from the NI Minsiter at the time in 2005 was:
"Sometimes it is necessary to make difficult decisions in the interests of entrenching the benefits of peace."
Age has a lot to with it.
Were there people directly connected to murder that are still alive that committed murders that people were not tried for etc.
Which is your issue with a BA amnesty the soldiers getting away with prosection.
But for a fella like Boris Johnson how is there blood on his hands? For example, if people were children u10 at the time of Hitler in 1945 were they later guilty by association? It seems daft.
However, providing Amnesty's does have the benefit of stopping political footballs being used and dredging up the past - on both sides of the divide. And a line is drawn under it once and for all so that old wounds are not constantly re-opened pouring fuel on a fire.
In NI they love using atrocities for agendas/causes on all sides it would stop all that straight away.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Well I would have a problem calling it a 'war crime' as in my view it legitimises the troubles then. It was murder pure and simple. If you call it a war crime it implies those in Ballymurphy were implicated in this so called 'war' and cynically uses the names of the dead as propaganda tools.
In my view all those killed in troubles were murdered. All other terms are semantics trying to justify a 'cause' on one side or the other.
Standing back and looking at the Troubles it was a few ragtag groups who styled themselves as 'armies'. But really they were gangs on both sides of the divide. They were not officially recognised armies of any state. Nor did they have widespread support on the island of Ireland, nor in England, Scotland and Wales.
Then on top of that we had a recognised army and forces of the British going 'rogue' to combat actions of group(s) that had zero accountability for their actions so the gloves were off.
The British army then played by the same 'no accountability' game. Which led to such things as the Ballymurphy massacre.
War Crime = No (What 'war'?)
Murder = Yes
Negotiation through political channels is/was the only way to really move forward, murder and mayhem only increases divides rather than leading to compromise.
It was madness all around. A waste of thousands of lives.
British soldiers had the power to detain anyone they suspected of being IRA suspects without a trial.
They, while representing the British government, shot at least 9 out of 10 innocent people dead. People who weren't armed, people who were literally no threat to them.
It's a war crime. This goes beyond murder through terrorism because it was literally the state's armed forces who carried out these atrocities while working on behalf of the state.
If you want to downplay it then go ahead, but it's a weird hill to die on and I personally don't understand why you're so determined to die on it.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Well I would have a problem calling it a 'war crime' as in my view it legitimises the troubles then. It was murder pure and simple. If you call it a war crime it implies those in Ballymurphy were implicated in this so called 'war' and cynically uses the names of the dead as propaganda tools.
In my view all those killed in troubles were murdered. All other terms are semantics trying to justify a 'cause' on one side or the other.
Standing back and looking at the Troubles it was a few ragtag groups who styled themselves as 'armies'. But really they were gangs on both sides of the divide. They were not officially recognised armies of any state. Nor did they have widespread support on the island of Ireland, nor in England, Scotland and Wales.
Then on top of that we had a recognised army and forces of the British going 'rogue' to combat actions of group(s) that had zero accountability for their actions so the gloves were off.
The British army then played by the same 'no accountability' game. Which led to such things as the Ballymurphy massacre.
War Crime = No (What 'war'?)
Murder = Yes
Negotiation through political channels is/was the only way to really move forward, murder and mayhem only increases divides rather than leading to compromise.
It was madness all around. A waste of thousands of lives.
You don't based on your interpretation.
If people are maltreated, not given a democratic voice and their protests ignored, they react.
This is about a 'legitimate' armed force murdering complete innocents and it taking 50 years to acknowledge that. That's not going 'rogue'. You yourself suggested it was approved behaviour.
This only concerns the actions of the Crown forces and their alleged standards that put them above supposed terrorists and non-agenda killers.0 -
It's also the case that these acts were both murderous and war crimes.
I don't understand the attempt to pitch a distinction or separation between the two determinations.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's also the case that these acts were both murderous and war crimes.
I don't understand the attempt to pitch a distinction or separation between the two determinations.
It tarnished the U.K. because it was a 'legitimate' force carried out the killings, if it was condoned by officers, even more so.
The soldiers would need to be called 'rogue' to save face but it's unlikely the soldiers involved would stay silent on that so best to ignore for 50 years and then say too much time had passed or they were all at it etc..0
Advertisement