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

Bloody Sunday soldier to be charged with murder

Options
1…5681011…22

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    janfebmar wrote: »
    What happened that day escalated matters, there is no doubt about that. I think the "war" as you call it was sparked before that, and was underway for example 3 days before Bloody Sunday when the 2 policemen (one Catholic and one Protestant) were killed in Derry.

    3 days? No it started well before that during the loyalist pogroms. In fact the Catholic community were happy to see the army initially. These guys changed that and we got escalations like Warren point ect


  • Options
    #213
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    3 days? No it started well before that during the loyalist pogroms. In fact the Catholic community were happy to see the army initially. These guys changed that and we got escalations like Warren point ect

    John Hume (imo a statesman, but a darling of those with no solutions) said after Bloody Sunday that a United Ireland was the only solution. We are still facing (if you are a Unionist) or waiting (if you are a republican/nationalist) for that question being asked. The guns are silent, but can Britain luxuriate in games with the EU and expect that to remain the same?


  • Options
    #214
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Really? I'm a Republican who has never committed a single act of violence. Furthermore, I'm a Republican who condemns any and all murders, irrespective of who commits them.
    I agree and respect your point of view. However Francis thinks
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Any republican caught was tried and imprisoned.
    Obviously his definition of a Republican is different to yours, and he also forgets about those caught but not imprisoned.


  • Options
    #215
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So why do you continually try to dilute the crime that day and on other days. The British were the 'responsible government', their crimes were automatically infinite times bigger.

    Why?

    That is odd logic to be fair.

    The IRA plants a bomb and kills a bunch of innocent civilians, scumbags
    Paras go gung-ho into the Bogside and kill 14 innocent civilians, scumbags

    I find this cognitive dissonance relating to the troubles in the North odd, where some were more wrong than others.


  • Options
    #216
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    3 days? No..
    I said "was underway for example 3 days before ..." It was also underway 33 days and 133 days before etc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,541 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Where will the trial take place?


  • Options
    #218
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The guns are silent,but..

    I thought all the guns were decommissioned / surrendered / put beyond use / call it what you want?
    markodaly wrote: »
    Why?

    That is odd logic to be fair.

    The IRA plants a bomb and kills a bunch of innocent civilians, scumbags
    Paras go gung-ho into the Bogside and kill 14 innocent civilians, scumbags

    I find this cognitive dissonance relating to the troubles in the North odd, where some were more wrong than others.

    All killings were wrong.


  • Options
    #219
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Where will the trial take place?

    It will have to take place in the north, so probably Belfast

    That is if it ever happens


  • Options
    #220
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    Why?

    That is odd logic to be fair.

    The IRA plants a bomb and kills a bunch of innocent civilians, scumbags
    Paras go gung-ho into the Bogside and kill 14 innocent civilians, scumbags

    I find this cognitive dissonance relating to the troubles in the North odd, where some were more wrong than others.

    Holding the responsible government to account is 'odd logic'?
    I believe that those who allowed it to go up in flames are 'more' responsible.


  • Options
    #221
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    janfebmar wrote: »
    I thought all the guns were decommissioned / surrendered / put beyond use / call it what you want?



    All killings were wrong.

    crikey, i think we're in danger of agreeing on something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    degsie
    Registered Users Posts: 8,740 ✭✭✭degsie


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Indeed no fewer than seventeen Presidents of America can trace their ancestry back to the 6 counties which became N. Ireland (they were " Scotch- Irish" ) .
    Then of course we have Kennedy and the greatest Irishman of them all, Barack Obama.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_of_Irish_descent#Presidents
    So the Irish have made a big contribution to the States.

    Oh ffs, you mean Scots-Irish :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #223
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    I thought all the guns were decommissioned / surrendered / put beyond use / call it what you want?


    Like not accepting the 'backstop', decommissioning was a ridiculous sop to unionism, which is obsessed with symbolism and abstract notions of belonging to something that couldn't care less.

    Watch the backstop being accepted by them. ~

    Weapons are weapons, if you want them, some countries will sell them to you regardless of what you do with them. Not looking at you Britain. :)


  • Options
    #224
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Holding the responsible government to account is 'odd logic'?
    I believe that those who allowed it to go up in flames are 'more' responsible.

    It was in the interest of the government for it not to go up in flames ...having it go up in flames cost them a hell of a lot of money, not to mention thousands of people killed including their own politicians. They tried very hard for it not to go up in flames and according to reports even flew Adams and others to London for talks in the early seventies, but the Sinn Fein attitude was the armed struggle would continue until the British government left. Do not forget the Army came in to try to keep peace between the extremists on both sides.


  • Options
    #225
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    degsie wrote: »
    Oh ffs, you mean Scots-Irish :rolleyes:

    They use the spelling Scotch-Irish more than a few times in the wiki list I linked.
    Call them what you want.


  • Options
    #226
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Holding the responsible government to account is 'odd logic'?
    I believe that those who allowed it to go up in flames are 'more' responsible.

    I was referring to this part of your quote.
    The British were the 'responsible government', their crimes were automatically infinite times bigger.

    As I said, by your words the British soldier who kills a civilian is infinitely more responsible than the PIRA bomber who kills a civilian.

    Both are scum in my mind and I would wager most minds, yet we have this strange parlor trick where in some minds, the IRA guys were just products of their environment and fighting for a 'cause' while the British soldier, who was almost always of working-class stock is the devil incarnate.

    Also, before you answer with some quip, the PIRA killed more Catholics than the Security forces or the Loyalist Para's.


  • Options
    #227
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    It was in the interest of the government for it not to go up in flames ...having it go up in flames cost them a hell of a lot of money, not to mention thousands of people killed including their own politicians. They tried very hard for it not to go up in flames and according to reports even flew Adams and others to London for talks in the early seventies, but the Sinn Fein attitude was the armed struggle would continue until the British government left. Do not forget the Army came in to try to keep peace between the extremists on both sides.

    A government 'trying hard' would not have sent in a regiment like the Para's. They still have to face what they did in Ballymurphy. Any right thinking person knows what they did...the British will hide behind 'evidence' again. Because that is the modus operandi...whitewash, deny and declaim for as long as you can, then say that time is against justice. Pathetic and never justifiable for any government.
    Imagine if a Nazi got off on similar terms. The whinging of the British media would be heard by the world.


  • Options
    #228
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    markodaly wrote: »
    I was referring to this part of your quote.



    As I said, by your words the British soldier who kills a civilian is infinitely more responsible than the PIRA bomber who kills a civilian.

    Both are scum in my mind and I would wager most minds, yet we have this strange parlor trick where in some minds, the IRA guys were just products of their environment and fighting for a 'cause' while the British soldier, who was almost always of working-class stock is the devil incarnate.

    Also, before you answer with some quip, the PIRA killed more Catholics than the Security forces or the Loyalist Para's.

    the main difference is one is a product of the environment, the other choose fighting to kill as a career


  • Options
    #229
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    I was referring to this part of your quote.



    As I said, by your words the British soldier who kills a civilian is infinitely more responsible than the PIRA bomber who kills a civilian.

    Both are scum in my mind and I would wager most minds, yet we have this strange parlor trick where in some minds, the IRA guys were just products of their environment and fighting for a 'cause' while the British soldier, who was almost always of working-class stock is the devil incarnate.

    Also, before you answer with some quip, the PIRA killed more Catholics than the Security forces or the Loyalist Para's.

    It wasn't a competition for starters. And yes, a government is always more responsible than any paramilitary force that attacks it.

    If you can find a post by me that whinges/dilutes/excuses a killing by the IRA then knock yourself out and post a link to it.


  • Options
    #230
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    maccored wrote: »
    the main difference is one is a product of the environment, the other choose fighting to kill as a career

    Do you mean one does it outside the laws of society and of the geneva convention, the other is employed by a democratic government and generally ( well, most of the over 300,000 did) acts within the geneva convention?


  • Options
    #231
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Do you mean one does it outside the laws of society and of the geneva convention, the other is employed by a democratic government and generally ( well, most of the over 300,000 did) acts within the geneva convention?

    Countries who sign up to international agreements should observe them in their entirety don't you think?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Have the British ever NOT murdered civilians in any of the territories they stole. Even if soldier 'F' is a token it shows the world that the 'butcher's apron' is an appropriate name for the 'union jack'. It's amazing that the majority of the British public know little to nothing of the murderous past of their country.


  • Options
    #233
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    A government 'trying hard' would not have sent in a regiment like the Para's.

    They sent the army in to N.I. to keep the peace. They not not send them in to attack civilians. Because a small % of the over 300,000 went rogue and acted outside the law does not automatically mean it was government policy. Any sensible government policy would not kill innocent people like than because it only escalated the conflict.


  • Options
    #234
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It wasn't a competition for starters. And yes, a government is always more responsible than any paramilitary force that attacks it.

    I asked you why?
    Can you formulate your reasoning more than just stating it as some biblical truth?
    If you can find a post by me that whinges/dilutes/excuses a killing by the IRA then knock yourself out and post a link to it.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108604773&postcount=872

    The IRA guys who carried out the Kingsmill massacre were only a 'few bad apples'....eh?

    You had nearly 1000 posts in the last Kingsmill thread trying to excuse the SF MLA member from taking the piss out of the massacre, and refused to condemn the atrocity as well.

    So, yes you have a big posting history of diluting and excusing killings by the IRA.
    That is the thing with the internet, your words will always come back to haunt you.


  • Options
    #235
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »

    If you can find a post by me that whinges/dilutes/excuses a killing by the IRA then knock yourself out and post a link to it.

    So do you condemn all killings by the PIRA ? A yes or no will suffice.


  • Options
    #236
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    maccored wrote: »
    the main difference is one is a product of the environment, the other choose fighting to kill as a career

    Yes, because working class 18 years old from the likes of Hull and Sheffield had loads of opportunities in the 1970s, if only they became a banker and went of Oxford instead of being a soldier!

    Come off it. The guys in the British army were also a product of their environment. This is a far more interesting point and debate in my mind.


  • Options
    #237
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    janfebmar wrote:
    They sent the army in to N.I. to keep the peace. They not not send them in to attack civilians. Because a small % of the over 300,000 went rogue and acted outside the law does not automatically mean it was government policy. Any sensible government policy would not kill innocent people like than because it only escalated the conflict.

    Went rogue? So why have the authorities not held those that went rogue to account?


  • Options
    #238
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭political analyst


    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/saville-report-found-that-soldier-f-was-at-heart-of-the-shooting-37915790.html

    Given that Soldier F lives outside the UK, it might be more difficult to bring him to court, i.e. extradition, lapse of time. Considering the state of his health, will he even live long enough to stand trial?


  • Options
    #239
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    They sent the army in to N.I. to keep the peace. They not not send them in to attack civilians. Because a small % of the over 300,000 went rogue and acted outside the law does not automatically mean it was government policy. Any sensible government policy would not kill innocent people like than because it only escalated the conflict.

    They thought the Para's would sort it out. They thought the world would ignore, like they ignored all the other atrocities of empire, what they had done. They did for a while, they nearly got away with it.
    What they didn't learn from 1916, is that the Irish don't give up. They are still resisting justice but the people of Derry, Ballymurphy and elsewhere will not give up. This will go on for years and eventually you will have a PM apologising for resisting justice....again.


  • Options
    #240
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    markodaly wrote: »
    the PIRA killed more Catholics than the Security forces or the Loyalist Para's.

    Stop lying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,007 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    Yes, because working class 18 years old from the likes of Hull and Sheffield had loads of opportunities in the 1970s, if only they became a banker and went of Oxford instead of being a soldier!

    Come off it. The guys in the British army were also a product of their environment. This is a far more interesting point and debate in my mind.

    Why are you trying to excuse slaughter? Seriously, I know you hate anybody who stood for Irish freedom (As long as they are a generation away) but this was a killing of innocent people.


Advertisement