Bloody Sunday Inquiry to rule killings unlawful?

reply to post by Freeborn


Bobby Sands was a convicted IRA terrorist according to whom?

To me and to many others he was a great Irish Republican/elected MP fighting for Freedom

How do you justify the many countless innocent children killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by bombs over the years? War against terror right?

Your being a tad hypocritical.

And no it does not justify what the British soldiers did, they lied about it to the rest of the world, they tried to tarnish those innocent civilians they murdered by calling them terrorists, they tried to pretend to the world that they were here to protect catholic civilians, and they continued to lie for over 30 years about it.

How can you not understand the diference between the IRA and the splinter factions? they decided to take diferent paths, they are diferent groups.

My apologies Lady-Tuatha, you're absolutely right, my information came from Tony Doherty, one of the spokespersons for the families. However, my point was that they have shown great diginity in the face of thier loved ones being murdered and vilified then proved innocent, they are not baying for blood, they have only asked for what should be their right, justice. The question is, should this be the call of the families or those that overlook the state? Justice in all cases should be the responsibilitiy and right of all. The murders of, for instance, Jim Wray and Willie Nash, were crimes against the families, against you and me and against Freeborn and anyone who lives within a 'democratic state'. The State has to deal with that, it is their duty to offer justice where injustice is recognised. That is what we should all be watchful of. In response to Freeborn, in many ways the people of Derry and Ireland have all been touched by the terrorism meted out by the British state in our country, so its fresh and continuing in more subtle ways, also everyone must acknowledge that there are suffering and bereavement on the British side, that is the nature of war, however, no one can justify the killing of innocent people, as Cameron said, that is unjustified and unjustifiable.

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Bobby Sands was a convicted IRA terrorist according to whom?

He was convicted in a court of law.
His sister, to whom he was very close, is closely linked to The Real IRA!

To me and to many others he was a great Irish Republican/elected MP fighting for Freedom

And to many other's he is representative of murdering terrorists!

How do you justify the many countless innocent children killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by bombs over the years? War against terror right?

I don't but we are talking about Northern Ireland not The Middle East.
Classic diversionary tactics I must say.

Your being a tad hypocritical.

How come, you know nothing about my opinions in The Middle East, or are you assuming something or simply making something up in your own mind to fit with your pre-conceived idea's?

And no it does not justify what the British soldiers did, they lied about it to the rest of the world, they tried to tarnish those innocent civilians they murdered by calling them terrorists, they tried to pretend to the world that they were here to protect catholic civilians, and they continued to lie for over 30 years about it.

I've never tried to justify the actions that day, you know that...read every one of my posts.
You are becoming quite self-delusional if you think I have!

And yes, they were there to protect 'The Catholics' and yes the heavy handed approach did not help things.

You are beginning to repeat the same old things now.

To summarise:

Yes, the Bloody Sunday killings were wrong.
Yes, the British Army and / or administration tried to cover it up.

But imprisoning those soldiers will serve no good other than stirring up old divisions and will probably help contribute to a return to the bad times of The Troubles.

How can you not understand the diference between the IRA and the splinter factions?

they decided to take diferent paths, they are diferent groups.

Edit to add:

So, originally there was The IRA.
The Provisional IRA broke away from them when The IRA decided to seek peace through discussion and debate.
The PIRA decided to bomb anyone and everyone regardless of Military standing etc and felt justified in killing 3 year old's etc because 'it was war' but if any Nationalist civilians got killed it was an outrage.
Upon realising that they were getting nowhere The PIRA decided to lay down their arms and start negotiating.
Suprisingly they made progress and disavowed violence because they had achieved so much more in a couple of years of talking than they had done in 30 years of killing.
But there were some elements who still wanted to kill people and they are now called The Real IRA.

Firstly I see little difference between The Real IRA of today and The PIRA of yesterday.
Both want to indiscriminantly kill innocent people.

Secondly, maybe if The PIRA had laid down their arms and went to the negotiating table a lot earlier then a lot of these innocents may not have died and a solution may have been achieved earlier.
Despite several offers to enter talks from The British government and the repeated attempts of third parties to mediate The PIRA chose to maintain the status quo and thus kill more people.



[edit on 16/6/10 by Freeborn]

reply to post by Anam Gra


Nice to see another Derry person on here your the first one ive met.

Yeah the decision on prosecution of any individual soldier rests with the Public Prosecution Service, and they are seeking advice on what to do now or if to do anything at all.

I honestly dont know how it will play out.

Bobby Sands was convicted by the same regime that supported the lies about Bloody Sunday. He was no terrorist, he was an Irish freedom fighter, fighting against an unjust, sectarian and oppressive system. He gave his life in full conscience for the benefit of his people and his community. I, for one, fully support his fight and his actions. Without the likes of Bobby Sands the Catholic people in the North of Ireland would still be an underclass, and given to the same degree of justice given to the people murdered on Bloody Sunday.

Nice to see you too! Well, Im optimistic, with the eyes of the world looking on, there is more chance for justice to be seen to be done. We live in hope.....!

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
It was a war, soldiers do know when they enlist that they may die, right? they may get shot at or blown up, especially if they are in a place that does not want them there, especially if the civilian population hate them because of thier disgusting behaviour towards them.

You make it sound as if the British Army decided to plant itself there, it didn't. It goes wherever its political masters deem fit. The link I provided gave an example of one soldier (1) who sacrificed his life to save the lives of at least two civilians (who may have been Catholic/Nationalist). The disgusting behaviour you mention was down to a rotten few, not the majority who did their job professionally. In the cases where the British Army soldiers acted within the law. They were always against opponents who were culpable to no law and of course this is why counter-insurgency warfare is always very difficult. The enemy has no compunction about collateral damage nor deaths to civilians.

The diference with Bloody sunday is that the soldiers never ever admitted that they murdered innocent civilians whereas every other bomb that happened here or in Dublin and England was claimed by the republicans or loyalists paramilitary groups.

However, incidents such as the Warrington ambush and Birmingham pub bombings. No individuals have come forward and claimed responsibility for those acts. At least with an incident such as Bloody Sunday the soldiers who opened fire on those innocent people are made known to the Saville Inquiry.

I do believe they should be stripped of whatever medals or honours they were granted for their service in Northern Ireland at the very least. That is what some of the family members of those killed want.

To me that would a rather cynical move and only a token gesture towards the bereaved families.

Lastly, to make some hashed comparison with operations in the Middle-East is foolish as the vast majority of civilian deaths are due to their close-proximity to enemy combatants. Their deaths are deeply regrettable and they are certainly not purposely targetted. Any deliberate abuse/killings of civilians is thoroughly investigated and if anyone is found guilty of such offences; they are punished by the law. No use of kangaroo courts with knee-cappings as the plat du jour. Furthermore, the British armed forces serving in the Middle-East are not doing so alone. They are there under a N.A.T.O remit and at the tacit approval of the Afghanistan government. They are also assisting the Afghans with the reconstruction of their country so that the Afghans can fully take over the running of their country and thus allow the exfiltration of British and N.A.T.O forces. Now, I've seriously digressed from the topic at hand.

1. Incidentally from the Parachute Regiment; third battalion

[edit on 16/6/10 by Retro~Burn]

reply to post by Anam Gra


Too true but I noted how the UK newspapers are now using those troops that have died recently in Afghanistan as a tool to galvanize public opinion against any possible prosecution but thats as to be expected of the red-tops and the Daily Mail

Originally posted by Retro~Burn

1. Incidentally from the Parachute Regiment; third battalion

Excuse my ignorance, but are you saying that you were in 3 PARA or that the incident involved 3 PARA?

Ridiculous!! the Paras are a blunt instrument used by the colonial state to initiate fear, this has been proved over and over again. There is no honour in that. If you think that the murders perpetrated by 1 Para on Bloody Sunday were the actions of 'a rotten few' you are seriously deluded. This was state sanctioned murder, no less, Those perjurors more recently stated that the order to deploy was given from above Wilford, yet he is carrying the can! You do the math!!

Originally posted by Extreme Pilgrim
Excuse my ignorance, but are you saying that you were in 3 PARA or that the incident involved 3 PARA?

No, I meant the man about whom I provided a link served in 3 PARA.

Here's what I said in full, to provide context:

Originally posted by Retro~Burn
The link I provided gave an example of one soldier (1) who sacrificed his life to save the lives of at least two civilians (who may have been Catholic/Nationalist).

1. Incidentally from the Parachute Regiment; third battalion

Here's his Wikipedia page:

Michael Willetts

I don't like to clutter the main body of text with lengthy parentheses as its distracting and unecessary. Hence my use of footnotes!

[edit on 16/6/10 by Retro~Burn]

reply to post by Freeborn


I agree with Anam Gra, Bobby sands was convicted by the same powers who lied about Bloody Sunday. He was no terrorist.

Oh okay we are not allowed to draw comparisons with the middle east? when it may relate to the topic at hand? when you might not like the answer? you asked how could I justify children being killed by IRA bombs, I simply asked how can you justify countless children in Afghanistan and Iraq being killed by British bombs?

What about you and others bringing into the equation IRA bombings when the thread topic is The Bloody Sunday Inquiry and its findings? It was my intentions when I started this thread to discuss the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, but we got into the entire NI war topic.

You have a habit of taking what I say out of context, your now accusing me of saying you said the Bloody Sunday killings were justified, I never ment it in that way, that was in a reply to you saying " You justify it by saying they were at war' First of all that would also justify all the subsequent acts carried out by The British Armed Forces because they too must have been at war"


Do you really think we would have gotten to where we are today without the actions of the IRA? because I dont. We would still be treated as second class citizens here. Sinn Fein started working towards a peace process at the right time, do you think it was just a matter of ' right lads im bored of fighting, down arms!' they could only work towards peace when the british government would agree to treat them as respected representatives of the catholic people and everything that comes with it, there was lot of policies that had to be agreed upon before the IRA could down arms.

reply to post by Retro~Burn


Understood. I know the story and he was a very brave man for his actions and proberly portrays the real actions of a elite soldier than those killers from 1 PARA's Anti Tank Platoon.

Originally posted by Anam Gra
Ridiculous!! the Paras are a blunt instrument used by the colonial state to initiate fear, this has been proved over and over again. There is no honour in that. If you think that the murders perpetrated by 1 Para on Bloody Sunday were the actions of 'a rotten few' you are seriously deluded. This was state sanctioned murder, no less, Those perjurors more recently stated that the order to deploy was given from above Wilford, yet he is carrying the can! You do the math!!

I think you're confusing the Parachute Regiment with the B-Specials. I was speaking in general about Operation Banner which undoubtedly contained a rotten few soldiers and other members of the security forces who acted with total disregard for the rule of law. Where is your evidence that the civilian killings on Bloody Sunday was a result of a direct British government directive to do so? There was no such finding in the Saville Inquiry. From what I recall, the superior officer of Lt. Col. Derek Wilford; Brigadier Patrick MacLellan explicitly forbade his subordinate from ordering a crossing of the barricade and entering the Bogside area. The higher-ranking officer whom you mentioned was probably Major General Robert Ford. At the time he was the second highest ranking officer in Northern Ireland in charge of the land forces.

You should consider this extract from the B.B.C website:

The inquiry also refers to a memorandum written by Major General Ford in which he suggested shooting selected ringleaders of rioters after warnings. Saville expresses surprise that a senior officer would consider such a move but adds that he believes the killings were not as a result of the plans.

B.B.C link

Some of the soldiers from the parachute battalion involved in the Saville Inquiry feel that Lt. Col. Derek Wilford has been made a scapegoat since the inquiry needed to apportion blame to a senior figure.

[edit on 16/6/10 by Retro~Burn]

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


I agree that there a parallels with the 'War on Terror' but if people have no compassion for those of the same ethnic group, theres never going to be any shown to those of other cultures. Their differences make them easier to demonize and only those with an ability to accept people for being part of the human family, where skin colour and religions are not the mark of a man or woman, are able to see the travesty of the worlds ills.

No confusion here Retro, I have experience of both, I know the difference. My evidence lies in the subsequent cover up by all levels of British establishment, the lies that were told by the individal murderers and their apologists further up the ranks and in the political arena, in Westminster, and of course Widgery. How was this all accepted? Why wasnt more done by the state to query the murders???

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
Oh okay we are not allowed to draw comparisons with the middle east? when it may relate to the topic at hand? when you might not like the answer? you asked how could I justify children being killed by IRA bombs, I simply asked how can you justify countless children in Afghanistan and Iraq being killed by British bombs?

No-one said you were not allowed to say anything. Our point of contention is that your remarks in regards to civilian deaths caused in the Middle-East by British armed forces are due to a deliberate policy of targetting civilians. When this is patently not the case. Which is in contrast to what the I.R.A did (and indeed various Loyalist paramilitaries). No-one has condoned the killings of civilians in the Middle-East. However, unfortunately their deaths were accidental since the type of warefare conducted requires our forces to engage enemy forces within urban areas. Not quite a glowing indication of the enemy's character.

Do you really think we would have gotten to where we are today without the actions of the IRA? because I dont. We would still be treated as second class citizens here. Sinn Fein started working towards a peace process at the right time, do you think it was just a matter of ' right lads im bored of fighting, down arms!' they could only work towards peace when the british government would agree to treat them as respected representatives of the catholic people and everything that comes with it, there was lot of policies that had to be agreed upon before the IRA could down arms.

I cannot believe for one moment that the numerous bombings and shootings perpetrated by the I.R.A somehow moved Northern Ireland towards peace talks. They were the actions of a desperate group who used it as a political tool to try and manipulate British government policy in the province. The fact they did so over a prolonged period and got nowhere with it strongly suggest their use of violence dramatically failed. Fine, the British government at first refused to treat with members of Sinn Fein and find a political solution. However, matters weren't helped when the likes of Reverend Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams refusing to deal with one another and resorted to squabbling pettily. Strange isn't it how things gradually improved when the I.R.A and others decided to dispose of their arms dumps.

Originally posted by Anam Gra
No confusion here Retro, I have experience of both, I know the difference. My evidence lies in the subsequent cover up by all levels of British establishment, the lies that were told by the individal murderers and their apologists further up the ranks and in the political arena, in Westminster, and of course Widgery. How was this all accepted? Why wasnt more done by the state to query the murders???

How do you know this cover-up was orchestrated by ministers occupying senior positions in the government and not by the soldiers and officers involved directly with the incident? The Widgery Tribunal found there were inconsistencies with the statements made by the soldiers and indeed perjury may have been committed. The problem is it was a very sparse and superficial inquiry which barely touched the surface of the events from that tragic day.

There is a fear by some that the Saville Inquiry from its inception had a pre-conceived conclusion it would reach in order to appease the Republican movement. How can an inquiry which took 12 years to complete at the expense of £190,000,000 from the purse of taxpayers reach the same conclusion as the much malinged Widgery Tribunal?

Here is an excellent article by Max Hastings which surprisingly is in the Daily Mail:

The Daily Mail

The British Army's exemplary 'fire discipline' day after day and night after night for 30 years in Ireland, often under extreme provocation, remains much more remarkable than its collapse on Bloody Sunday.

One should read it all.

[edit on 16/6/10 by Retro~Burn]

No-one said you were not allowed to say anything. Our point of contention is that your remarks in regards to civilian deaths caused in the Middle-East by British armed forces are due to a deliberate policy of targetting civilians. When this is patently not the case. Which is in contrast to what the I.R.A did (and indeed various Loyalist paramilitaries). No-one has condoned the killings of civilians in the Middle-East. However, unfortunately their deaths were accidental since the type of warefare conducted requires our forces to engage enemy forces within urban areas. Not quite a glowing indication of the enemy's character.

How is this in contrast to what the IRA did?? Given the type of warfare required by the IRA, they had to engage in urban areas. Definately not a glowing indication of the enemy's character. Your forces brought the murder to Ireland, lets have no confusion, your forces terrorised the people of Ireland for hundreds of years, continuing up to the deployment of the IRA and well beyond. I personally remember being terrorised by your forces. Although I could never personally condone the killing of innocent people.

Maybe this will highlight a few issues for you, Retro.

www.guardian.co.uk...