Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bloody Sunday soldier to face murder charges

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
    They were asking for it, is that what you are saying?
    Not most of the people killed, no. The terrorists were certainly asking for it. They took a deliberate decision to start a war, knowing that thousands of people would be killed as a result.

    Most of the people shot on the day were not responsible. They were caught up when the army went to arrest rioters. Were the rioters responsible? If you throw stones, petrol bombs and blast bombs at men with guns, you have to accept the risk they will shoot back.

    Because the IRA was murdering people it made it okay for the British Army to murder civilians?
    No. Because the terrorists were shooting and bombing soldiers on the streets of Londonderry the soldiers were on a battlefield. You can claim they weren't, but 380 shootings, 211 bombings, 180 nail bombings, nearly 2,000 bullets and more than 1,700 lbs of explosives in 5 months makes it a battlefield.

    Soldiers who feel they are at risk will shoot back. Look at the US, where the police suffer about 50 fatal shootings a year but shoot dead 1,000 people a year.

    If that's the case did Bloody Sunday make it okay for the IRA to murder people after the 30th of January 1972?
    No. The IRA instigated the violence deliberately.


    The Para's were operating on their own soil in a quasi-policing role for which they had no training.
    Yes. They shouldn't have been. But with thousands of gun and bomb attacks they had to be.

    They were being deployed by officers who had no training in policing or management of civil unrest.
    Yes. Again, they shouldn't have been, but again there was no choice.

    If policing in Derry was commanded by the London Metropolitan Police there would have been no Bloody Sunday.
    I suspect there would. The Met wasn't used to hundreds of gun and bomb attacks on their officers. They would have had to arm them to cope, and the results would have been the same.

    The problem was that the army was piggy in the middle between an utterly sectarian police force and local government which was an extension of Loyalist paramilitaries and politicians who were seeking to ethnically cleanse areas of Derry and Belfast, which was seeking to use the army to maintain what was effectively an apartheid system. On the other side was a Nationalist/Catholic population who were totally disenfranchised and rightly saw the local government as an instrument of oppression and the national (UK) government as complicit in that oppression as well as civil rights activists and the IRA.
    The situation for catholics in Northern Ireland wasn't as bad as for blacks in the southern US states (which is actually what sparked the civil rights movement in NI). The difference was the US got Martin Luther King, NI got Martin McGuiness. One wanted equality, the other saw the opportunity to start a war.

    The NI civil rights issue was largely solved by the British government before Bloody Sunday. Civil rights weren't the IRA's aim, indeed they wanted the catholic population poor and oppressed, which is why they used the classic terrorist tactics of destroying civil life to improve recruitment.

    Derry was not a war zone, just like England during the Brixton riots wasn't a war zone and England and Wales during the Miners Strikes weren't war zones.
    How many police and soldiers were shot or blown up during the Brixton riots or the miner's strike? Shooting soldiers on the streets of Londonderry made it a war zone. Your protestations to the contrary don't change the fact that in 1972 every one of the paras on the streets of Londonderry knew their lives were at risk and every one of them expected they were going to come under attack.

    That's why they shot the civilians.

    If you start a war in urban areas civilians will get killed. The responsibility lies with those who decided to start the war.

    There was major civil unrest, there were riots and there were terrorists but ultimately the function of the Para's was not to open fire on unarmed civilians and that is exactly what they did. They were a bunch of badly led, badly trained kids with guns. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
    Yes. They shouldn't have been trying to police the streets of a war zone. They were because there was no other choice.

    I'll say again; if the Parachute Regiment has shot 28 people, killing 14 of them, in London there would have been a completely different reaction by the British government, British Press and British people.
    I suspect if it had followed hundreds of shootings and bombings and months of continuous rioting, there wouldn't.

    [quote]It wasn't called the Dirty War for nothing.[/.quote]

    Has there ever been a clean one in an urban area? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's a principle that operated on both sides of the NI border during the troubles.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Hop View Post



      Most of the people shot on the day were not responsible. They were caught up when the army went to arrest rioters. Were the rioters responsible? If you throw stones, petrol bombs and blast bombs at men with guns, you have to accept the risk they will shoot back..

      None of the people shot that day (20+) were responsible. The people responsible were those that shot them.
      You are trying to muddy the waters and conflate terrorist/rioters/protesters. We have eye-witness accounts of several of the shootings and people were shot in the back and those on the ground from a first hit were shot again and killed. The enquiry you selectively mine is clear in its conclusions. None of those shot were armed or terrorists. They were civilians shot at random. It is hard to escape the conclusion you really do think 'they deserved it' and with such a mindset there is no hope of a constructive debate.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Hop View Post



        It wasn't called the Dirty War for nothing.

        Has there ever been a clean one in an urban area? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's a principle that operated on both sides of the NI border during the troubles.
        There was indeed many murders by both sides. All sides killed innocent civilians. No one here has defended the IRA or the UDA but you insist on defending 'the Army' come what may.

        We know the Army operated undercover Murder Squads
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24987465


        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force

        and (if I remember correctly) two of them bumped into each other one dark night and one soldier was shot and killed by another soldier..
        Last edited by m kenny; 25 Mar 19, 10:07.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Hop View Post
          They took a deliberate decision to start a war, knowing that thousands of people would be killed as a result.
          If you think that the conflict started around that time or that it started in a vacuum then you really know nothing about the history of England/Britain in Ireland or the history of Northern Ireland post-partition.

          Originally posted by Hop View Post
          Most of the people shot on the day were not responsible. They were caught up when the army went to arrest rioters. Were the rioters responsible? If you throw stones, petrol bombs and blast bombs at men with guns, you have to accept the risk they will shoot back.
          None of the people shot in Derry that day were armed or threatening the lives of the soldiers who murdered them.


          Originally posted by Hop View Post
          The situation for catholics in Northern Ireland wasn't as bad as for blacks in the southern US states (which is actually what sparked the civil rights movement in NI). The difference was the US got Martin Luther King, NI got Martin McGuiness. One wanted equality, the other saw the opportunity to start a war.
          The Civil Right movement in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with Martin McGuinness. You really need to do some reading on the topic.

          Originally posted by Hop View Post
          The NI civil rights issue was largely solved by the British government before Bloody Sunday.
          Really? How so?

          Originally posted by Hop View Post
          Civil rights weren't the IRA's aim, indeed they wanted the catholic population poor and oppressed, which is why they used the classic terrorist tactics of destroying civil life to improve recruitment.
          I agree. They thrived in the vacuum of inaction and oppression nurtured and supported by the British Government.
          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by m kenny View Post


            None of the people shot that day (20+) were responsible. The people responsible were those that shot them.
            You are trying to muddy the waters and conflate terrorist/rioters/protesters. We have eye-witness accounts of several of the shootings and people were shot in the back and those on the ground from a first hit were shot again and killed. The enquiry you selectively mine is clear in its conclusions. None of those shot were armed or terrorists. They were civilians shot at random. It is hard to escape the conclusion you really do think 'they deserved it' and with such a mindset there is no hope of a constructive debate.
            The Irony is that the Nationalists wanted to be out of the UK because they didn't consider themselves British. The British armed forces and government thought it was permissible to kill them because they weren't really British. The irony of that shouldn't be lost on anyone.
            "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
            validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
            "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Hop View Post

              The orders were to arrest rioters.

              Londonderry had become a war zone. From the Saville inquiry:

              Meanwhile, in the period between 4th July
              and 13th December, the security forces had suffered 22 casualties infmicted by gunmen,
              seven of them fatal, from 380 confjrmed shooting incidents. A total of 1,932 rounds had
              been fjred at them, with 364 in reply, and 1,741lb of explosives had been used in 211
              explosions, in addition to a further 180 recorded nail bomb incidents. At the time General
              Ford wrote, there were 29 barricades in existence, 16 of which were impassable to 1 ton
              armoured vehicles.


              and

              In Londonderry there were a number of Army casualties from republican paramilitary
              activities between September and November 1971. On 2nd September Major Robin
              Alers-Hankey was shot (and eventually died on Bloody Sunday) while deploying his
              troops to protect fjremen who were being attacked by stone throwers as they tried to deal
              with a blaze at a timber yard at the junction of Abbey Street and Frederick Street in the
              Bogside. 1 On 14th September Sergeant Martin Carroll was shot dead outside Bligh’s
              Lane Army and police post. 2 On 27th September Private Roger Wilkins was mortally
              wounded by machine gun fjre while on duty in the Brandywell area of the city. 3 On
              16th October Rifmeman Joseph Hill was shot and killed as he stood in Columbcille Court
              in the Bogside after following up rioters. 4 On 27th October Gunner Angus Stevens and
              Lance Bombardier David Tilbury were killed by a bomb attack on an Observation Post at
              the back of the police station in the Rosemount area of the city, which lay to the north of
              the Creggan. 5 On 9th November Lance Corporal Ian Curtis was mortally wounded by
              gunfjre near the junction of Foyle Road and Bishop Street while on patrol.

              and

              In addition, rioting by youths in the city had become almost ritualised. 1 There were regular
              riots on Saturday afternoons, the “Saturday matinées”, which usually took place at the
              corner of Rossville Street and William Street, a junction that became known to soldiers
              and others as Aggro Corner.
              2 There were also frequent riots on other days, 3 including on
              Sunday afternoons after the televised football match.
              Although one witness described the rioting as “a kind of play ”, which he told us the
              soldiers enjoyed as much as the rioters, 1 there is little doubt that it was serious and gave
              rise to serious injury. 2 According to Army sources, groups of boys and young men
              gathered to throw stones, bottles and other objects at the soldiers standing behind
              barriers. The soldiers would fjre rubber bullets and sometimes attempt to snatch rioters
              from the crowd, but with little success. 3 On occasion paramilitaries would use these riots
              or their aftermath as an opportunity to snipe at soldiers (as appears to have been the
              case with the shooting of Rifmeman Hill and Major Alers-Hankey mentioned above) or to
              throw nail or petrol bombs. 4 We have little doubt that had the crowd isolated a soldier, it is
              likely that he would have been killed. 5 In short, the rioting often carried with it the risk to
              soldiers of serious injury or even death.


              The soldiers on Bloody Sunday were operating on a battlefield. The responsibility for the casualties lies with the terrorists who had deliberately turned the city into a war zone.
              ohhhh-hop.

              you JUST DON'T get IT...


              https://alphahistory.com/northernire...d-before-1968/

              Reccomended background reading. Protestant Ulster declared war on it's Catholic minority- not the other wary around...

              https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern...-west-45625222

              In1968 the Royal Ulster constabulary did not recruit Catholics, and the force had 12% Catholics rather than the mandated one third...

              Initially, a third of positions within the force were reserved for Roman Catholics, a reflection of the denominational proportions of the population of Northern Ireland at that time. The first two thousand places were filled quickly and those reserved for Catholics were filled mainly by ex-RIC men fleeing north. Due to reluctance by the political establishment to employ too many Catholics (who were seen as potentially disloyal to the Protestant and unionist ethos of the new government), the force abandoned this policy. As a result, representation of Catholics in the RUC never exceeded 20%. In addition, many Roman Catholics who joined the force, particularly during the troubles were targeted for murder or ostracised by their own community. By the 1960s, representation of Catholics in the RUC had fallen to 12%.[12]

              Wikipedia....

              Last edited by marktwain; 25 Mar 19, 13:26.
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #82
                If Republican players are going to be be let go like Tony Blairs get out of jail free cards then this should be let go. All this will do is cause antagonism and pour salt into wounds that have struggled to heal anyway. A peace process was sort and achieved. Yes one can argue the case about crimes and I do sympathise with the point but I just think in this case its not worth the continued poking of the Anglo Irish wound. Further more soldiers are going to think sod this Im off, sh** happens in hotspots and my government won't back me up.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                  If Republican players are going to be be let go like Tony Blairs get out of jail free cards then this should be let go. All this will do is cause antagonism and pour salt into wounds that have struggled to heal anyway. A peace process was sort and achieved. Yes one can argue the case about crimes and I do sympathise with the point but I just think in this case its not worth the continued poking of the Anglo Irish wound. Further more soldiers are going to think sod this Im off, sh** happens in hotspots and my government won't back me up.
                  All terrorists were released, not just the Republican ones.

                  The issue in Northern Ireland was that the government only governed for a little over half the population and oppressed the rest. When authority has no legitimacy people fight against it. In dismantling the sectarian Unionist government of the region the British government made a big step towards addressing that. The main reason there is peace in that part of your country is that the oppression has ended. It really is that simple.

                  I agree that is it unfair to put soldiers on trial for murders they committed when other convicted murderers have been let out. I think the Apology by Cameron for Bloody Sunday was what mattered.
                  I also don't like seeing the guy at the bottom of the ladder being thrown to the wolves so that the political and military top men can slink off into their retirements unfettered by the culpability they should be burdened with.
                  "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                  validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                  "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    British, English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh...they're all the same...
                    Last edited by johns624; 26 Mar 19, 08:57.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Sure, just like Canadians, Americans and Mexicans.

                      You're from Detroit. That's the place where they used to make cars, right?
                      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                        Sure, just like Canadians, Americans and Mexicans.

                        You're from Detroit. That's the place where they used to make cars, right?
                        We still make more than the UK. There are still GM, Ford and Chrysler. MG, Rover, Triumph, not so much.
                        Canadians are just American Lites, but more polite, eh?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by johns624 View Post

                          We still make more than the UK. There are still GM, Ford and Chrysler. MG, Rover, Triumph, not so much.
                          Canadians are just American Lites, but more polite, eh?
                          I'm not from the UK so I don't care what they can make or not, although the Germans, Japanese and Indians do make cars there.

                          Canadians are like Americans with manners and the ability not to shoot each other.
                          Mexicans, well they keep crossing the border but they are just taking their land back, taken in an act of blatant aggression in America's first imperialist war.

                          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Wasn't our first imperialist war taking our country from the Brits?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                              They were a bunch of badly led, badly trained kids with guns. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
                              Not rentirley true . The troops sent into the Bogside on 30.1.1972 were from Support Coy, 1 PARA, which consisted of the older members of the battalion, 'old sweats' with quite a few years service; mortarmen, anti tank gunners with a degree of technical expertise, unlike the sprogs of the rifle companies, men who reckoned they knew how to play the system, ignore their officers when it suited, and apparently with a cache of 'buckshee' rounds allowing them to put down more fire than their official allocation.



                              It's moot whether Col Wilford lost control of his men on the day. Wilford did have orders the troops deployed should not get involved in a runnng battle which, despite his protestations subsequently, is pretty much what happened. Arguably discipline broke down, but training did not. It seems very few of the victims were shot by accident

                              The paras were undoubtedly well trained, but for the wrong role, although some of them may even have served in Aden, where an entirely different attitude to the civilian population during an insurgency had prevailed- and that's what the situation in NI was becoming in Army eyes- an insurgency.

                              Very telling is the newsreel footage in which we hear Col Wilford shouting 'Do not fire unless you see a target.' Coupled with the comment of the Company Sergeant Major of Support Coy who, when speaking in a BBC documentary some years later, admitted that after the shootings when one soldier reported having fired 16 rounds at the same target, 'Knowing the individual, ' he had his doubts. "Were you worried?" asks Peter Taylor. "I was concerned," he replies.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by jf42 View Post

                                Coupled with the comment of the Company Sergeant Major of Support Coy who, when speaking in a BBC documentary some years later, admitted that after the shootings when one soldier reported having fired 16 rounds at the same target, 'Knowing the individual, ' he had his doubts. "Were you worried?" asks Peter Taylor. "I was concerned," he replies.
                                This is ludicrous claim a para fired 16 shots at a 'sniper' in a block of flats and later inspection found no bullet marks in the room or around the window. This allowed him 16 'free' shots at the civilians.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X