Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bloody Sunday soldier to face murder charges

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Wasn't our first imperialist war taking our country from the Brits?
    Fair point but in that war you weren't the colonial aggressor whereas in Mexico, and later in the Philippines, you were.
    "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


    • #92
      Originally posted by m kenny View Post


      None of the people shot that day (20+) were responsible.
      Some of them were. Some were throwing stones at soldiers. Given the frequent use of blast bombs to attack soldiers, that's an invitation to getting shot.

      At least one was carrying nail bombs (4 of them). At least one (Gerry Donaghey) was a member of the IRA. Someone also threw bottles of acid from a balcony on to soldiers below.

      The people responsible were those that shot them.
      No. The people responsible were those who started a war in an urban area. Civilians get killed in wars. Fight a battle on the streets of a city and people are going to die.

      You are trying to muddy the waters and conflate terrorist/rioters/protesters.
      No, the waters were muddy. The peaceful protesters changed the route of their march, the rioters ran from the army and mixed in with the protesters, and the terrorists were hiding amongst both. The terrorists had history of using riots to carry out gun and bomb attacks on troops.

      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.
      Yes. From the inquiry:

      These soldiers and offjcers gave evidence that they had seen two people, one or both
      with rifmes, crawling away from the rubble barricade. They probably believed that they
      might have identifjed a gunman or gunmen, but none of them could have been satisfjed
      that they had done so. Their targets were crawling away and not posing an immediate
      threat of causing death or serious injury. The soldiers’ evidence was that they fjred, not
      because the crawling men were posing at that moment an immediate threat of causing
      death or serious injury, but because they believed that the crawling men would or might
      use their weapons once they had reached cover, although Private L expressed the view
      that he was entitled to fjre at someone with a weapon, whatever that individual was doing.
      These shots were not fjred in fear or panic. We are of the view that the soldiers
      concerned probably believed that the crawling men might pose a threat of causing death
      or serious injury once they had reached cover
      , though it is possible that Private L did not
      care whether or not they would pose such a threat.


      To a soldier, an enemy carrying a rifle and crawling from one piece of cover to another is a valid target. To a judge in a courtroom, perhaps he isn't. But soldiers (and police) around the world will open fire in such circumstances.

      The enquiry you selectively mine is clear in its conclusions.
      Of course it is. Its conclusions were determined before it first met. But even then, the conclusion about why the soldiers shot is clear:

      Soldiers of Support Company had been told by offjcers and believed that this
      was a particularly dangerous area for the security forces, with any incursion running the risk
      of meeting attacks by paramilitaries using bombs and fjrearms. In the minds of some
      soldiers that belief was reinforced by the shot fjred by a member of the Offjcial IRA (OIRA 1)
      some minutes earlier at soldiers by the Presbyterian church in Great James Street. When
      they disembarked in the Bogside the soldiers were in an open area where they had never
      previously been and which was overlooked by the large and high blocks of the Rossville
      Flats, believed by them to be a place from which republican paramilitaries operated.
      They were in these circumstances highly alert to the risk of coming under lethal attack from
      republican paramilitaries either in or near to those fmats. Most of the soldiers were armed
      with rifmes to guard against any such attacks and in many cases (in breach of the Yellow
      Card) had cocked their weapons in order to fjre without delay should occasion arise.
      3.88 In short, soldiers of Support Company went into what they perceived to be a dangerous
      area in which they ran the risk of coming under lethal attack at any time. Again, if these
      soldiers were not frightened, they must at least have been highly apprehensive.


      None of those shot were armed or terrorists.
      At least 1 was armed and at least 2 terrorists (if you accept that a man carrying 4 nail bombs at a riot is a terrorist).

      They were civilians shot at random.
      If they were shot at random there would have been a much larger mix of old/young and male/female. The reality is the paras thought they were under attack and shot at those they thought looked like they might be the sort of people (young/young-ish men) to attack them.

      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.
      No, few of the them "deserved it". Very few of the people who die in a war "deserve it". But that doesn't mean the people involved behaved in a criminal manner. Northern Ireland had been turned into a war zone by terrorists, the soldiers in question had every reason to fear for their own lives, and acted accordingly. Yes they should have had better training (which later soldiers had), but they were hastily deployed and didn't have the training.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by m kenny View Post

        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.
        The terrorists planned their murders. The soldiers on Bloody Sunday planned to arrest rioters. There is a world of difference between the motivations of the army and the motivations of the terrorists.

        From your link: "One of the soldiers said they had also fired on suspected IRA members."

        I'm horrified.

        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..
        Which you no doubt accept as a mistake. But you seem unwilling to accept mistakes could be made in other situations.

        As I said, people get killed in wars. The enemy, civilians and even your own side. Wars are not clean.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Hop View Post
          .

          As I said, people get killed in wars. The enemy, civilians and even your own side. Wars are not clean.
          Are you saying that there was Civil War going on in your country for 30 years?
          If not then it was not a war, martial law was not in place and the so, even under the Special Powers Act 1922, soldiers had no powers of arrest. That Act was amended later in 1972 to give them that power but as of January 30th they did not.

          It is farcical to suggest that low level IRA activity that day justifies the actions of the Para's. They either panicked in fear or they chose to shoot civilians. Nothing justifies the shooting in the back at close range of a man who was already incapacitated and lying prone from a previous shot. The IRA activity was limited to members reacting to the unfolding riot and actions of the Para's. They had no premeditated plan of command structure in place.

          This summary gives a good factual account of the event on the day, including the critical decision by Colonel Wilford to disobey a direct order and force the rioters into the path of the civil rights marchers. Wilford, in my opinion, should be the one facing murder charges.
          From the Wiki link;
          "Following a 12-year inquiry, Saville's report was made public in 2010 and concluded that the killings were both "unjustified" and "unjustifiable". It found that all of those shot were unarmed, that none were posing a serious threat, that no bombs were thrown, and that soldiers "knowingly put forward false accounts" to justify their firing"

          You keep claiming that some of those shot were armed. Saville concluded, without reservation, that none were armed. Have you some insight to support your supposition that they were armed, beyond wanting it to be so?
          "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


          • #95
            Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
            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.
            Of course it didn't.


            None of the people shot in Derry that day were armed or threatening the lives of the soldiers who murdered them.
            At least 1 was armed. Sadly, they were all on a battlefield the terrorists had created, and civilians die on battlefields. You can complain all you like, but soldiers on a battlefield will shoot at those they think are the enemy. The deaths on Bloody Sunday happened because there were soldiers on the streets who thought they were under attack, and the soldiers were on the streets, in fear of their lives, because of the terrorists.

            The Civil Right movement in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with Martin McGuinness. You really need to do some reading on the topic.
            I have read a lot on the topic. The NICRA had little to do with Martin McGuiness. Martin McGuiness saw them as a useful tool for helping start a war.,


            Really? How so?
            From CAIN:

            1 February 1967
            The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was formed. The Civil Rights Movement called for a number of reforms one of which was for 'one man, one vote', that is, a universal franchise for local government elections. At the time only rate-payers were entitled to votes, and there were other anomalies to do with additional votes for companies. The association also campaigned for the end to gerrymandering of electoral boundaries. Other reforms pressed for included: the end to perceived discrimination in the allocation of public sector housing and appointments to, particularly, public sector employment; the repeal of the Special Powers Act; and the disbandment of the 'B-Specials' (Ulster Special Constabulary) which was a paramilitary style reserve police force which was entirely Protestant in its makeup.

            To take those points in the order they were made:

            called for a number of reforms one of which was for 'one man, one vote',

            Thursday 28 November 1968
            The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) became law and abolished university representation and the business vote in Stormont elections. It also created four new constituencies and a permanent Boundary Commission.

            Wednesday 23 April 1969
            The Unionist Parliamentary Party voted by 28 to 22 to introduce universal adult suffrage in local government elections in Northern Ireland. The demand for 'one man, one vote' had been one of the most powerful slogans of the civil rights movement. James Chichester-Clarke, then Minister of Agriculture, resigned in protest at the reform.

            Tuesday 25 November 1969
            The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) became law. The main provision of the act was to make the franchise in local government elections in Northern Ireland the same as that in Britain.

            The association also campaigned for the end to gerrymandering of electoral boundaries.

            Thursday 28 November 1968
            The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) became law and abolished university representation and the business vote in Stormont elections. It also created four new constituencies and a permanent Boundary Commission.

            the end to perceived discrimination in the allocation of public sector housing and appointments to, particularly, public sector employment

            Thursday 12 November 1970
            The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) was formed. [The NIHE gradually took over control of the building and allocation of public sector housing in Northern Ireland. The responsibility for public sector housing had previously rested with local government and the Northern Ireland Housing Trust (NIHT). There had been many allegations of discrimination in the provision and allocation of housing by the various local government councils in Northern Ireland and this was the main reason for setting up the Housing Executive.]

            and the disbandment of the 'B-Specials'

            Thursday 26 March 1970
            The Police (Northern Ireland) Act became law. The act provided for the disarmament of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the establishment of an RUC reserve force. The Act established the Police Authority of Northern Ireland (PANI) which was meant to contain representatives from across the community. [To the current day none of the main Nationalist parties have ever taken part in the PANI.]

            Thursday 30 April 1970
            The 'B-Specials' (the Ulster Special Constabulary) were officially disbanded. The USC had been replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) on 1 April 1970.

            The IRA weren't interested in civil rights. They only wanted one thing, a united Ireland, and they were prepared to murder however many people necessary to achieve that.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by marktwain View Post

              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...
              Protestant Northern Ireland was very similar to the southern states in the US. They used local control to disenfranchise the catholics as some US states disenfranchised black people. The difference is that the black people in the US wanted equality and got it when the federal government imposed it on the states. The IRA didn't want equality, they wanted a war to unite Ireland, and they got that war at the same time equality was achieved after the UK government imposed it on Northern Ireland.

              The IRA didn't want civil rights, they wanted a war.

              Comment


              • #97
                The involvement of the then Captain Mike Jackson (Later General Mike Jackson) was always muddied and covered up. He was one of the shooters on the day. His later work in Kosovo when he worked with the Kosovo Liberation Army, helping them to plan Operation Storm which resulted in the Krajina massacre. They were the group who carried out most of the civilian massacres in post war Kosovo.
                He then went on to Basra where he oversaw "Bloody Monday" and the subsequent cover up, including the "suicide" of Captain Ken Masters of The Royal Military Police, the man assigned to investigate the massacre.

                Good old Mike, he's consistent if nothing else.
                "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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Hop View Post
                  At least 1 was armed.
                  No, none of them were armed. That was the conclusion of the Saville Enquiry. Have you evidence to the contrary and if so why didn't you make it known to the enquiry?

                  Good research on the civil rights stuff by the way but you'll notice that much of it happened after Bloody Sunday and the electoral reforms would only have been seen at the next election.

                  Originally posted by Hop View Post
                  Sadly, they were all on a battlefield the terrorists had created, and civilians die on battlefields. You can complain all you like, but soldiers on a battlefield will shoot at those they think are the enemy. The deaths on Bloody Sunday happened because there were soldiers on the streets who thought they were under attack, and the soldiers were on the streets, in fear of their lives, because of the terrorists.
                  You keep framing the events of the day as if the IRA instigated a riot.
                  The peaceful civil rights match started at the Creggan housing estate and marched towards the city center. When it got towards the end of William Street its path was blocked by the police and army.

                  I'll copy and paste from the Wifi link I posted above for what happened next as it is accurate;
                  The organisers redirected the march down Rossville Street, intending to hold the rally at Free Derry Corner instead. However, some broke off from the march and began throwing stones at soldiers manning the barriers. The soldiers fired rubber bullets, CS gas and water cannon to try to disperse the rioters.[34] Such clashes between soldiers and youths were common, and observers reported that the rioting was not intense.[35]

                  Some of the crowd spotted paratroopers occupying a derelict three-story building overlooking William Street, and began throwing stones at the windows. At about 3:55pm, these paratroopers opened fire. Civilians Damien Donaghy and John Johnston were shot and wounded while standing on waste ground opposite the building. These were the first shots fired.[36]The soldiers claimed Donaghy was holding a black cylindrical object,[37] but the Saville Inquiry concluded that all of those shot were unarmed.[38]

                  At 4:07pm, the paratroopers were ordered to go through the barriers and arrest rioters. The paratroopers, on foot and in armoured vehicles, chased people down Rossville Street and into the Bogside. Two people were knocked down by the vehicles. Brigadier MacLellan had ordered that only one company of paratroopers be sent through the barriers, on foot, and that they should not chase people down Rossville Street. Colonel Wilford disobeyed this order, which meant there was no separation between rioters and peaceful marchers.[39]

                  The paratroopers disembarked and began seizing people. There were many claims of paratroopers beating people, clubbing them with rifle butts, firing rubber bullets at them from close range, making threats to kill, and hurling abuse. The Saville Report agreed that soldiers "used excessive force when arresting people […] as well as seriously assaulting them for no good reason while in their custody".[40]

                  One group of paratroopers took up position at a low wall about 80 yards (73 m) in front of a rubble barricade that stretched across Rossville Street. There were people at the barricade and some were throwing stones at the soldiers, but none were near enough to hit them.[41] The soldiers fired on the people at the barricade, killing six and wounding a seventh.[42]

                  A large group of people fled or were chased into the car park of Rossville Flats. This area was like a courtyard, surrounded on three sides by high-rise flats. The soldiers opened fire, killing one civilian and wounding six others.[43] This fatality, Jackie Duddy, was running alongside a priest, Father Edward Daly, when he was shot in the back.[44]

                  Another group of people fled into the car park of Glenfada Park, which was also a courtyard-like area surrounded by flats. Here, the soldiers shot at people across the car park, about 40–50 yards away. Two civilians were killed and at least four others wounded.[45] The Saville Report says it is "probable" that at least one soldier fired from the hip towards the crowd, without aiming.[46]

                  The soldiers went through the car park and out the other side. Some soldiers went out the southwest corner, where they shot dead two civilians. The other soldiers went out the southeast corner and shot four more civilians, killing two.[47]

                  About ten minutes had elapsed between the time soldiers drove into the Bogside and the time the last of the civilians was shot.[48] More than 100 rounds were fired by the soldiers.[49]

                  Some of those shot were given first aid by civilian volunteers, either on the scene or after being carried into nearby homes. They were then driven to hospital, either in civilian cars or in ambulances. The first ambulances arrived at 4:28pm. The three boys killed at the rubble barricade were driven to hospital by the paratroopers. Witnesses said paratroopers lifted the bodies by the hands and feet and dumped them in the back of their APC, as if they were "pieces of meat". The Saville Report agreed that this is an "accurate description of what happened". It says the paratroopers "might well have felt themselves at risk, but in our view this does not excuse them"




                  Originally posted by Hop View Post
                  The IRA weren't interested in civil rights. They only wanted one thing, a united Ireland, and they were prepared to murder however many people necessary to achieve that.
                  I agree. They were also seeking to overthrow the government in Ireland and murdered police and army personnelle here as well. The fact remain though that the IRA had little or nothing to do with Bloody Sunday and to suggest otherwise is at the very least disingenuous.

                  "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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                    Are you saying that there was Civil War going on in your country for 30 years?
                    I suppose that depends on the definition of civil war.

                    But the IRA were targeting soldiers. That made it a battlefield for soldiers. You cannot judge their actions if you ignore the fact they had a very reasonable fear of attack at any moment, especially in areas like Londonderry.

                    If not then it was not a war, martial law was not in place and the so, even under the Special Powers Act 1922, soldiers had no powers of arrest. That Act was amended later in 1972 to give them that power but as of January 30th they did not.
                    I know. That highlights the position they were placed in. They had no right to shoot an armed member of the IRA unless that IRA member was posing an immediate risk. If an IRA terrorist stepped around a corner, fired an entire magazine from a sub machinegun at a group of soldiers, killing several, then ran away, the soldiers would not be allowed to shoot at him as he ran.

                    How many soldiers, from any army in the world, do you think would let the terrorist run away unharmed in such a situation?

                    You cannot judge their actions based on what the civilian law of self defence says, or what a judge decided 30 years later in a court room. A soldier on the streets knowing there are terrorists in the area trying to kill him will act accordingly.

                    It is farcical to suggest that low level IRA activity that day justifies the actions of the Para's.
                    It's not that day. You are judging it with hindsight. The soldiers didn't know what the IRA had planned for that day. They knew that on the average day there were two shootings, 1 bombing and 1 nail bomb thrown at them.

                    They either panicked in fear or they chose to shoot civilians.
                    I don't know if "panic" fits, because they clearly had some fire discipline, rather than shooting at anything that moved. But yes, I am sure fear played a very large part in what happened.

                    Why were they afraid? Because the IRA were trying to murder them. No terrorist threat, no fear, no civilians shot. The responsibility lies with the terrorists who created the threat.

                    Nothing justifies the shooting in the back at close range of a man who was already incapacitated and lying prone from a previous shot.
                    Unless you think he has a gun and is still a threat.

                    The IRA activity was limited to members reacting to the unfolding riot and actions of the Para's. They had no premeditated plan of command structure in place.
                    I don't know how much was a reaction and how much was pre planned. The OIRA sniper on a rooftop was certainly there on a preplanned mission. The multiple shooting attacks on the Brandywell army post began before the paras fired their first shot. The Strand Road army post recorded shots fired over the post in the direction of the paras at the time they first moved to arrest rioters. There were two or 3 other incidents of shooting attacks on soldiers around the city at around the same time as the snatch squads were being sent in.

                    It found that all of those shot were unarmed,
                    Apart from the guy with the nail bombs.

                    You keep claiming that some of those shot were armed. Saville concluded, without reservation, that none were armed.
                    Apart from the guy with the nail bombs. Or don't they count as "armed"?

                    Have you some insight to support your supposition that they were armed, beyond wanting it to be so?
                    The only one I have said was armed was the one with the nail bombs.

                    The problem is you are again applying hindsight. You know they weren't armed. The soldiers on the day did not know that. You are judging their actions, from a position of safety, with the knowledge of what actually happened. They were taking decisions from a position on battlefield with far less information.

                    Comment


                    • The fact remain though that the IRA had little or nothing to do with Bloody Sunday and to suggest otherwise is at the very least disingenuous.
                      Bloody Sunday happened because the IRA had turned Londonderry into a battleground and the army had to be sent in to restore order. You cannot say that the terrorists who created the situation had nothing to do with it. No terrorists, no army response, no people shot. It's as simple as that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hop View Post





                        Apart from the guy with the nail bombs. Or don't they count as "armed"?


                        .
                        Ah the body that was examined by an Army medic (and others but some will claim they were all IRA men) )and he saw no 'nail bombs' and then the body was taken away by soldiers and then later photographed with huge nail bombs sticking out of his pockets? That 'armed' man?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post


                          Good research on the civil rights stuff by the way..................


                          I sent him that link.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hop View Post
                            Apart from the guy with the nail bombs.



                            Apart from the guy with the nail bombs. Or don't they count as "armed"?



                            The only one I have said was armed was the one with the nail bombs.
                            Are you talking about the victim who had nail bombs placed on him after he was shot (as concluded by Saville)?


                            Originally posted by Hop View Post

                            The problem is you are again applying hindsight. You know they weren't armed. The soldiers on the day did not know that. You are judging their actions, from a position of safety, with the knowledge of what actually happened. They were taking decisions from a position on battlefield with far less information.
                            No, it happened because Colonel Wilford disobeyed a direct order from Brigadier MacLellan not to chase people down Rossville Street. In doing so he mixed the rioters with the peaceful protestors.

                            "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


                            • All the thread confirms is that there are those who simply cannot accept 'their' side ever did any wrong. To move on you admit your errors or at the very least stop claiming you never did anything wrong. I am afraid the entrenched Army supporters fail completely to understand the powerful effect of the killings and how it was the single most destructive act by the British Army in Northern Ireland. The apologists who try very hard to brush it of and blame the victims have not got the slightest understanding of how bad it was for their cause.
                              That said they can cry and whine till the cows come home. Fact is evidence has been reviewed and a case for murder exists and is good enough to go to a Jury. The trial is going to happen and even if the verdict is not guilty and the details that emerge will be devastating and very hard for the apologists to accept.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

                                Lord Saville disagrees with you. He concluded that none of the victims was armed or posing a threat. A number were shot in the back, one was shot while waving a white handkerchief as he went to help another victim and one was shot dead while lying incapacitated on the ground as a result of a previous shot. Lord Saville was scathing of the soldiers, calling many out as liars. He also concluded that the IRA started firing after the Para’s had hit most or all of their victims.

                                as you probably know I loath the IRA but that doesn’t justify what the forces of the British Crown did that day or worse, how they covered it up afterwards and sullied the names of their victims.
                                Justice for all, as they say.

                                I wonder if Gerry Adams will also be held to account?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X