SV - I mention these people because they were in a very similar situation to McGuiness and Adams. Once deemed terrorists and now considered to be statesmen.
The only solution to fighting such as this is to talk to both sides.
lets have confessions all round
Probably needs to happen, gotta be a difficult one though. If/when the MLAs tell their part how can we go on with known murderers in gov?
Known murders? Really? Mandela seems to get on fine as a revered elder stateman. Moshe Dayan became an alled war hero despite being responsible for the killing of British soldiers in the 30s ( IIRC)
While agreeing it was (obviously) a highly stressful situation for the Paras the fact remains that the people they shot were *not* the sub machine gunner *or* the snipers, and the guy with a nail bomb in his pocket was hit purely by accident.
Think about that statement!
I have done. And?
TJ -- So in a few years when we have made friends with Osama Bin Laden Et Al i reckon he or one of his mates could make Lord Mayor of London, mind you demographics would indicate that will happen anyway or as Colonel Gadaffi said "Islam does not need a war to take over the World" Brilliant all sorted.
Moshe Dayan became an alled war hero despite being responsible for the killing of British soldiers in the 30s
Look forward to Martin and Gerrys spell in Helmand Province, maybe Ruane could help out too (the latter would help our education system return to educating children).
Moshe Dayan was a soldier not a twunt who hid behind civillians, maybe Martin and Gerry will do well in Helmand after all.
but it is easy to be a victim of circumstances when you started on the right side as many a soldier has found out not just in the NI conflict.
You give away your entrenched position with that one
To a normal person it is fairly obvious what the paramiltaries are
You mean it is easy to see if they agree with you as TJ notes many people have been labelled a terrorist by one side and a hero by the other as indeed are the IRA and the paras. Can you not get this point?
especially when the toe rag sorry suspect who shot his dad is still walking free.
What like your brave para mates who were [b] a victim of circumstances [/b] when they started shooting unarmed people and killed them?
Do you think the children of those they killed then cried at their funeral od do only proud protestants suffer?
You can only see it from the view of the police/state/army. Many people lost loved ones. Many people after seeing their mates shot joined the IRA were they also victims of circumstances? You do need to be able to see both sides in this conflict not just your own and your own victims.
Perhaps you two could get a room and maintain your one sided view of a conflict where by only the others did bad things and your side should be annoited for their bravery.
Having now read through the conclusions and where relevant detail of the report, it is very clear that Saville is saying that there were armed terrorists in the vicinity on Bloody Sunday, the Paras were keyed up as a result of fore knowledge and briefing. Due to on the ground operational issues, the paras split up, and in the resultant confusion opened fire believing they were being fired upon. Whether they were or not is another story,
You make a very, very relevant point here - especially since people like to bandy about words like "murder" so often in the case of NI. It would be entirely reasonable to ask whether Bloody Sunday would ever have happened if the IRA had not already made a point of using the cover of marches for attacks with firearms and bombs. The perception of what was happening to the troops on the ground at the time, given the "fog of war" may well have been that they [b]were[/b] under attack!
The IRA cannot shake responsibility for putting in place a great many of the stepping stones that led to the tragic events of that day. Nor should we overlook the fact that for over 30 years they have lied through their teeth about their involvement and actions on the day, whilst all the time accusing the government of a whitewash.
Fine, Junkyard. Now, tell me this - do you think Gerry makes something of an arse of himself when he claims that [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/16/bloody-sunday-british-army?showallcomments=true#comment-51 ]Bloody Sunday is the defining story of the British army in Ireland[/url]?
And what would be the defining story of the PIRA, in your view?
The perception of what was happening to the troops on the ground at the time, given the "fog of war" may well have been that they were under attack!
As a specific example of that the report mentions the sound of shots fired over the heads of a crowd by a lieutenant early on, which might have been interpreted as incoming fire by soldiers elsewhere in the area.
Still doesn't excuse shooting wounded victims in the back though.
Nor should we overlook the fact that for over 30 years [the IRA] have lied through their teeth about their involvement and actions on the day
Indeed. And so did many of the soldiers, it seems.
Junkyard - Entrenched maybe, experienced at been in situations i find i had to make a snap decision for the right or wrong yes. I am not standing up for what happened far from it but you rightly say you need to see it from both sides and in reference to the RUC son and his funeral my parting line is relevant to both parties. Time and healing etc. For the record i have no sysmpathy for anyone who took up arms, went on the streets and intended to kill that day, apply that to both sides.
Mate i must be mellowing, i used to advocate blanket bombing of Crossmaglen when i served there, we would watch the Yanks travelling through the occupied land on coach trips, oh how i laughed, i also thanked the genuine person who would sneak out and to leave a crate of ale or a cake for you, the person who would wish you luck at a check points. but now i advocate selective strikes on certain targets. 😉 Utrique Paratus
anokdale - MemberMoshe Dayan was a soldier not a twunt who hid behind civillians, maybe Martin and Gerry will do well in Helmand after all.
he was a member of an illegal "terrorist" group in Palestine in the 30s the Hagenah for which he was arrested and imprisoned by the British. By no meaningful definition was he a soldier at that time. He was living in the british mandate of Palestine.
That is the simple point - terrorist or freedom fighter is very dependent on your viewpoint. Mandela was complicit in the murder of children from one point of view.
TJ - You spent all that time researching Dayan !! point is would Gerry and Martin now pick up arms for Britain, doubt it, but they will pick up a better pension than most people on this forum from the Parliment they openly detest. Not that they need the cash as they both have mansions in the South though Martin still has his hovel in Londonderry to remind him of his roots.
The perception of what was happening to the troops on the ground at the time, given the "fog of war" may well have been that they were under attack!
Perhaps they were so ill trained they mistook people running away for running towards them and unarmed as armed due to the fog of war ......is their training really that bad ?
The Adams article seemed reasonable from his view and semed balanced in much the same way as Daves comments seemed fair and balanced. One likes the army one does not...its like they have different views 😯
I am not qualified to say what would be the defining story of the PIRA Brightom bombing ????
Anokdale much more reasoned but you got the motto wrong 😳
Utrinque Paratus Yes I googled to see what it meant.
anokdale - no - I was off out to the shops running errands!
I have looked in Dayan before as he is such a complex character and is a great example of how one persons terrorist is another freedom fighter.
Junkyard - Might have mispelled it but i did not have to google it to know what it means and what it stands for. In your case the democratic right to spout off shit@ is afforded by soldiers who have given everything so you can abuse them because they made a mistake, granted a huge one, but they did not ask to be there that day and like the troops in Helmand today they do it and in doing so allow you the time to ride your bike worry what tyres for wet grass etc etc , post on forums and comment on scenarios you will never have the misfortune to face with some of the most trusted and respected men you could ever wish to meet.
Excellent. We have the military solidarity perspective with regard to (as Goldstone puts it) the opening of fire against civilians.
What this thread really needs right now is chewkw and a big bag of nice, smelly glue.
anokdale - as I said earlier it was a whole series of mistakes - not just the decision to shoot in the heat of the moment but they were the wrong troops to police the march, the politicians had made serious mistakes that led to the conditions for the march and the anger. Other mistakes as well.
The Adams article seemed reasonable from his view
Yes, it's almost as if he was Rosa Parks herself. So righteous!
[i]"someone started to sing We Shall Overcome and I was swept back over 40 years"[/i]
🙄
[i]The perception of what was happening to the troops on the ground at the time, given the "fog of war" may well have been that they were under attack! [/i]
This really is trolling isn't it? Even a cursory reading of the report is enough to realise just how out of control these soldiers were on that day. They shot and killed unarmed civilians, who were both running away, and tending to the wounded and dying, there are no circumstances I can think of where professional soldiers could make those sorts of 'mistakes' due to the fog of war, and to compound their manifest lack of control they lied about it after. Now, whether you can justify this this with "But look what the other side were doing" is for ones own concious I suppose, but by any measure this was not the Army's finest hour in that awful conflict.
if only I could share your one sided view of the conflict 🙄
Anokdale....If my democratic right was really under threat I would take up arms with them. Most of what they are fighting for, by [b]choosing[/b] to serve in the army, is IMHO imperialist bullsh1t. If they want to give their lives for that then that is their choice. I respect it as much as they respect my right not to join, fight or die for something I dont believe in...se we are equal though they are braver. We are not talking about Nazis trying to invade our country and trully end our way of life [by either the IRA or Islam]whatever right wing hawk view you, and your fellow brave troops, wish to swallow.
EDIT: Nickc dont be coming here making a reasonable point in a reasonable way this is STW FFS 😆
TandemJeremy, you keep referencing Dayan as your "great example of how one persons terrorist is another freedom fighter." did he do indiscriminate bomb attacks on civilian targets killing many people with no involvement in the battle he was fighting? If not why not select a more relevant terrorist as your comparator, i.e. Bin Larden?
Is comparing terrorist leaders a bit like comparing criminals, is a woman who murdered an abusive husband comparable to a serial killer?
You mean it is easy to see if they agree with you as TJ notes many people have been labelled a terrorist by one side and a hero by the other as indeed are the IRA and the paras. Can you not get this point?
So a hero maims innocent civilians for example the newspaper seller at Oxford St bus station who was blown apart by the PIRA - nice standards you have there.
dobbo - yes he was complicit in the bombing of civilians and soldiers. Perhaps not personally responsible but perhaps he was. he was considered enough of the threat that he was imprisoned by the British for 2 years.
How about Madela then? Jomo kenyatta?
Its a useful exercise to show that the label terrorist depends on where you are looking from and that over time this can change.
I know people who still swear that mandela is a child murderer
SV - mandela was implicated in a bombing in SA that killed children Dunno how much involvement he really had in it but is would appear he has some blood on his hands. Certainly others in the ANC did
sv - Member
You mean it is easy to see if they agree with you as TJ notes many people have been labelled a terrorist by one side and a hero by the other as indeed are the IRA and the paras. [b]Can you not get this point?[/b]
So a hero maims innocent civilians for example the newspaper seller at Oxford St bus station who was blown apart by the PIRA - nice standards you have there.
I will take that as a no you cant get the point then 🙄
I am NOT defending the killing of any civilian by anyone the IRA should not have done it NOR should the troops can you say the same thing? Clearly I have not said the IRA are heroes only that some people see them as such in much the same way as you cannot criticise the army for killing unarmed people they cannot criticise the IRA for killing innocent people hence the “troubles”.
I come from a military background, and can understand that perspective - but it takes a little thought, time and detachment to stand back and consider the wider perspective...
The troops on the ground hav had an element of "blame" attached to them because their individual split second, under pressure decisons resultesd in shots being fired. That behaviour was clearly inappropriate by any standards, but particularly so within a civilian context in the British Isles. True culpability however must lie further up the chain of command. Decision making comes with responsibility, and the decision to deploy the Paras was were the majority of the responsibility should reside.
.
.
As an interesting counter thought to the staunch defence of the military being shown here - how might the view of history (and judicial outcomes) be different if such an event had occured in occupied France, and troops involved wore grey or black uniforms???
well said rkk01. Teh paras were the wrong troops to have policing that march - deployed in the wrong way.
Bin Laden has been mentioned a couple of time in posts above - [i][b]today's[/b][/i] universally accepted image of the craven evil of terrorism (in Western minds)...
.
.
...But [i][b]yesterday's[/b][/i] honourable freedom fighter, as instrument of the CIA in their proxy war against the Soviets.
.
.
.
Clear as mud isn't it?
I don't know if this point has been made yet as I've joined in late and there's too much to read but, I think the real blame lies with whoever made the decision to put a crack assault force like the Paras into a civillian policing role. Totally innapropriate use of resources and one which pretty much reaped the result that could have been expected.
Also, has Tebbits call for an enquiry into the Brighton bombing been discussed on this thread ? I can't believe that a) it's not been timed to coincide with yesterdays findings and b) are we going to be at war in Ireland again now we've got that lot back in Downing St.
[i]scenarios you will never have the misfortune to face[/i]
True of many a STW thread.
[i]if only I could share your one sided view of the conflict[/i]
I don't recall Rosa Parks being involved in indiscriminate bombing campaigns. FFS, Gerry's self-regarding tone in that article is almost parody, so saintly is the man. Grandstanding about "Truth and Justice"? - I genuinely lol'd.
And on that note, I am off for a ride. I'll leave the last word to [url=
G[/url]. 😉
What about all the innocent people Murdered by PIRA then? Will they get compo from Sinn Fein?? Errrrrr I think not, and will Sinn fein be brought to justice for the Murders?? Errrrr I think not.........................
"What about all the innocent people Murdered by PIRA then? Will they get compo from Sinn Fein??"
You people are mad. "Let's apply the same standards to our army and our government that we do to terrorists." No, let's not.
A dicko (apt name) no one got compo no one got justice all they got was the truth why cant you and all the other thickos on here (apart from a few like sfb and junkyard) just accept it after all the pm said sorry![list]
History outwith our lifetime has 3 sides. The accepted view written by the winners, the denial view written by the losers with the truth a hybird of the two.
History within our lifetime is the same but add blinkered opinions, bigotry, conspiracy theories, a friend of friend told me, 1st hand experiences, forum windbags etc.
Conaid - so what do you think about the relatives of the people killed on Bloody Sunday, when some of them are now asking for the soldiers to be held accountable? Do you think it reasonable after all this time to seek prosecutions? And if so, do you also think that crimes committed by TJ's so called "freedom fighters" should also be held accountable?
I for one am not at all sure prosecutions would be useful now. I wish tho that the squaddies had been assured of that beforehand and so might have been a bit more truthful. With the prisoner releases that there has been, a prosecution which would be hard to convict on after all this time, would seem fairly pointless.
You also have to consider that this happened 38 years ago. How old would the soldiers be now, and by the time that all the legal arguments took place, how old would the soldiers be if it ever did reach a court?
One persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
How about Madela then? Jomo kenyatta?Its a useful exercise to show that the label terrorist depends on where you are looking from and that over time this can change.
Honestly, Teej, you should get a swift clip behind the earhole for wheeling out this horrible, unhelpful cliched old bollocks.
"Terrorist" is not inherently a subjective pejorative term even if most people (unsurprisingly) regard being a terrorist as something extremely undesirable and it's used to discredit your opponents. It has an objective meaning: is the person using force to achieve a political goal in a way that doesn't use traditional military tactics to occupy and control land but instead goes to demoralising the military or general population? Or something like it - we can bicker about the exact definition but there is an objective standard - we can come to a conclusion about it without considering the merits of the cause advanced.
"Freedom fighter" is a subjective term because it does involve a consideration of the merits of the cause.
If you wheel out this old "terrorism and freedom fighter are just different people's labels for the same thing" line, then you're just reinforcing the line drawn by morons that say "he's a terrorist (because I don't like him)" and "he's not a freedom fighter (because he is a terrorist)". But the two things are not mutually exclusive, and rehabilitating yourself politically does not mean that terrorism isn't terrorism any more...
...a fact recognised explicitly by Mandela in his autobiography when he discusses the period when the ANC-MK adopted terrorism and said (short version) "we adopted a terrorist campaign against the apartheid authorities and their collaborators because we could never win a conventional war, because it would be easy to demoralise the white elite and because there was no legal/peaceful way to achieve change". The fact that those tactics were terrorist then did not change over time as you suggest.
Dayan - terrorist. Mandela - terrorist. Adams/McGuinness - terrorists.
Freedom fighters? - up to you to decide.
An interesting take on it Kona. Not sure I agree with you but it is consistent. I do see little moral difference between Mandela and McGuiness - however mandela is usually accepted as a statesman now and seen as a beacon of truth and right.
I do think it is useful to look at these people and how the way they are perceived changes depending on where you look from and when. Moshe Dayan was considered a hero in Israel in the 50s and 60s. He waws jailed as a terrorist in the 30s by the british.
Looking at history shows the absurdity of objecting to Adams and McGuiness in government now. it is the only way to end conflict like in Northern Ireland is to get all sides talking and working together and there is much precedent for terrorists to be rehabilitated and enter government.
Sorry if I was abrasive - that cliche just makes me see red mist, I am afraid. It's right up there with "Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" and just signals that whatever comes next can safely be ignored!
