The glorious 12th

_blaaz wrote: »

Try deny truth all yous want mate...personally dont see any differemce between orangeman and loyalist tbh,your just splittong hairs given crossover in memberships



Unionist is just poah wau of describing loyalista tbh......except this wasnt directed at any community...it was into middle of bogside to taunt relatives and friends of those killed,these people offer nothibg to the world,the fact yous
cant condemn it perfering to shout what about, just confirms what everyone thinks of ye

downcow wrote: »

more fantasy - and this is the problem. These were the arterial shortest route to the centre of town and in some cases they passed the fringes of areas that were predominately nationalist - but Gerry said it - The IRA volunteers done a great job in creating tension around these parades.
and if i'm not mistaken there has not been a parade on the garvaghy Road this century.

You are going to have to move on or the world will move on without you

citytillidie wrote: »

Again if the British Army and Government had not of whitewashed the 1st investigation into Bloody Sunday there would not have been the need for the £100m enquiry and who knows what might have happened after that. You seem to forget the IRA were low in number before that day and the events of that day and aftermath drove a lot of young men away from the peaceful protests into the arms of the IRA. Bloody Sunday killed the Civil Rights movement and grew the IRA.

janfebmar wrote: »

Francie, you have still not answered the questions below. A yes or no answer to each question will suffice.

blanch152 wrote:

Nobody comes out of Bloody Sunday an innocent or a hero,

downcow wrote: »

So francie this is progress. Do I hear you saying that some victims of the conflict were innocent and some were not. This is what most unionists have been wanting in the victims debate but most republicans won’t go there. So fair play to you. I would never have expected such a reasonable attitude from you. I wonder does blaaz agree?

downcow wrote: »

I am just very impressed that you are recognising the BS victims as innocent , as opposed to terrorists who are clearly not. I hope this is a moment of enlightenment for you.

downcow wrote: »

I am just very impressed that you are recognising the BS victims as innocent , as opposed to terrorists who are clearly not. I hope this is a moment of enlightenment for you.

janfebmar wrote: »

You were whinging about Republicans getting shot at, even when they opened fire first and tried to assinate someone? For example, a pira gang once lured a part time UDR soldier who was off duty doing other work, to an isolated house near the border where a pira gang tried to kill him, but he fired back killing one of the attackers and scaring off the others, who ran back across the border and were captured by the Gardai. You are complaining about even active paramilitaries killed "on active service". It did not happen often given the paramilitaries had the element of surprise before shooting someone off duty in the back and melting back in to civilian population.

You say Dev gave a trial before shooting captured prisoners: if you think that was ok then would it have been ok for leaders 30 years later to also give a trial and execute prisoners?

janfebmar wrote: »

That really shows you up for what you are. You and other Republicans have trawled for and selected one incident during the troubles, Bloody Sunday and endlessly brought it up. Others have engaged with you on it. Yet you will not answer certain questions about it, such as if you knew there was serious rioting, petrol bombs and other missiles thrown at the army before the shooting started. The Irish Times photo shows the army sheltering beside land rovers and the road full of rocks and stones thrown by the rioters in the picture.

You talk about selected British army killings but you will not talk about other killings, such as the ambushed lone off duty part time UDR soldier who fought back after he was lured in to an IRA gang ambush near the border, because you are "not going on one of my nasty one sided trawls of selected killings etc".

Pathetic.

citytillidie wrote: »

So you ignored this where the report says civilians were not posing any threat before the army open fire.

The report of the inquiry[93] was published on 15 June 2010. The report concluded, "The firing by soldiers of 1 PARA on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury."[94] Saville stated that British paratroopers "lost control", fatally shooting fleeing civilians and those who tried to aid civilians who had been shot by the British soldiers.[95] The report stated that British soldiers had concocted lies in their attempt to hide their acts.[95] Saville stated that the civilians had not been warned by the British soldiers that they intended to shoot.[96] The report states, contrary to previous assertions, that no stones and no petrol bombs were thrown by civilians before British soldiers shot at them, and that the civilians were not posing any threat.[95]

The report concluded that an Official IRA sniper fired on British soldiers, albeit that on the balance of evidence his shot was fired after the Army shots that wounded Damien Donaghey and John Johnston. The Inquiry rejected the sniper's account that this shot had been made in reprisal, stating the view that he and another Official IRA member had already been in position, and the shot had probably been fired simply because the opportunity had presented itself.[97] Ultimately the Saville Inquiry was inconclusive on Martin McGuinness's role, due to a lack of certainty over his movements, concluding that while he was "engaged in paramilitary activity" during Bloody Sunday, and had probably been armed with a Thompson submachine gun, there was insufficient evidence to make any finding other than they were "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire".[98]

Regarding the soldiers in charge on the day of Bloody Sunday, the Saville Inquiry arrived at the following findings:

Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford: Commander of 1 Para and directly responsible for arresting rioters and returning to base. Found to have 'deliberately disobeyed' his superior Brigadier Patrick MacLellan's orders by sending Support Company into the Bogside (and without informing MacLellan).[73]

Major Ted Loden: Commander in charge of soldiers, following orders issued by Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. Cleared of misconduct; Saville cited in the report that Loden "neither realised nor should have realised that his soldiers were or might be firing at people who were not posing or about to pose a threat".[73] The inquiry found that Loden could not be held responsible for claims (whether malicious or not) by some of the individual soldiers that they had received fire from snipers.

Captain Mike Jackson: Second in command of 1 Para on the day of Bloody Sunday. Cleared of sinister actions following Jackson's compiling of a list of what soldiers told Major Loden on why they had fired. This list became known as the "Loden List of Engagements" which played a role in the Army's initial explanations. While the inquiry found the compiling of the list was 'far from ideal', Jackson's explanations were accepted based on the list not containing the names of soldiers and the number of times they fired.[73]

Major General Robert Ford: Commander of land forces and set the British strategy to oversee the civil march in Derry. Cleared of any fault, but his selection of 1 Para, and in particular his selection of Colonel Wilford to be in control of arresting rioters, was found to be disconcerting, specifically as "1 PARA was a force with a reputation for using excessive physical violence, which thus ran the risk of exacerbating the tensions between the Army and nationalists".[73]

Brigadier Pat MacLellan: Operational commander of the day. Cleared of any wrongdoing as he was under the impression that Wilford would follow orders by arresting rioters and then returning to base, and could not be blamed for Wilford's actions.[73]

Major Michael Steele: With MacLellan in the operations room and in charge of passing on the orders of the day. The inquiry report accepted that Steele could not believe other than that a separation had been achieved between rioters and marchers, because both groups were in different areas.[99]
Other soldiers: Lance Corporal F was found responsible for a number of the deaths and that a number of soldiers have "knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing".[73]

Intelligence officer Colonel Maurice Tugwell and Colin Wallace, (an IPU army press officer): Cleared of wrongdoing. Saville believed the information Tugwell and Wallace released through the media was not down to any deliberate attempt to deceive the public but rather due to much of the inaccurate information Tugwell had received at the time by various other figures.[100]