- Bloody sunday was unjustifiable and unjustified
As a soldier, especially at that time, it must have been a very difficult situation to find yourself in. The local population, or at least the people you saw on a regular basis, hated you with a passion, which they were at pains to make obvious everyday.
Then you're told repeatedly how dangerous these people are, before confronting what amounts to an angry mob. Yes, the demonstration may have been peaceful, but even peaceful demonstrations can be intimidating to those tasked to police them when they're significantly outnumbered.
Unless you've been there, it's very difficult to understand just how intimidating, and frightening, it can be.
Should the soldiers have opened fire if they weren't in imminent danger? No, of course not. Should individual soldiers be prosecuted after all this time? Personally I don't think so.
As others have had to accept the release of convicted terrorists under the Good Friday agreement, would it be wrong to expect the people of Derry to accept the vindication of their account of that day without pressing for prosecution of individual soldiers?
I guess we'll find out soon enough…Posted 7 years agosimonfbarnesMember
Conversely if I were a SOLDIER, warned of potential violence against me and then became aware of someone with a submachine gun, I might just be tempted to kill as many people that I perceive to be a threat as possible.
except that their nominal job is to protect, not slaughter, but I agree it would be better not to have any, or if they'd stayed in the barracks polishing their boots, or never been recruited it would have been better.Posted 7 years agoellipticMember
If either of you had actually bothered to read the summary of the report online you'd know it lays blame with *both* the commanders (in particular the CO of 1 PARA who sent them in despite an order not to) *and* the troops who opened fire.
But don't let that stop you banging on.Posted 7 years ago
No Hitler was in charge, these guys are in fact brainwashed and desensitised through their training to do this stuff. In fact, I think you would find if the Nuremburg trials were held today a lot less people would have been hung, for the same reason.
My view is there are no bad teams, just bad management. No doubt you will disagree, but to blame the squaddies on the ground is a cop out. The fault clearly lies higher up the ladder.Posted 7 years agomattsccmMember
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cavendish-in-tour-de-suisse-crashPosted 7 years ago
Priorities please. This is a cycling forum!MrSalmonMember
Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein, was present at the time of the violence and "probably armed with a submachine gun" but did not engage in "any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"
Interesting quote from the BBC report on the matter.
Seems to me that both positions cannot be correct, i.e. there were no armed indivduals present other than the army and then the above.
I can't find it now but there was a bit on the BBC earlier that said that there were armed IRA members around but that there was no evidence that they'd actually shot at the army.Posted 7 years agoMattie_HMember
Extracts from the report taken from the Guardian website:
This is paragraph 3.102 from the "principal conclusions" report:
As to the further shooting in Rossville Street, which caused the deaths of William Nash, John Young and Michael McDaid, Corporal P claimed that he fired at a man with a pistol; Lance Corporal J claimed that he fired at a nail bomber; and Corporal E claimed that he fired at a man with a pistol in the Rossville Flats. We reject each of these claims as knowingly untrue. We are sure that these soldiers fired either in the belief that no one in the areas towards which they respectively fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat. In their cases we consider that they did not fire in a state of fear or panic.
And this is paragraph 3.113:
We have no doubt that Lance Corporal F shot Patrick Doherty and Bernard McGuigan, and it is highly probable that he also shot Patrick Campbell and Daniel McGowan. In 1972 Lance Corporal F initially said nothing about firing along the pedestrianised area on the southern side of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats, but later admitted that he had done so. No other soldier claimed or admitted to firing into this area. Lance Corporal F's claim that he had fired at a man who had (or, in one account, was firing) a pistol was to his knowledge false. Lance Corporal F did not fire in a state of fear or panic. We are sure that he fired either in the belief that no one in the area into which he fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat.Posted 7 years ago
Go and read the report.
As indeed you have….. not!
If you care to read my posts, I've made no reference to the report, and in fact am posting an opinion, that is to say that to blame the squaddies on the ground is passing the buck, the real error of judgment being in putting shock troops on the ground to deal with a civilian population. It is not what they were trained to do. Simple, it was just a matter of time before something nasty occurred. Nothing to do with the report, merely an observation on my part, mainly based on living and working in an area where the buggers are based.Posted 7 years agomissingfrontallobeMember
woody2000 – Member
My guess – the inquiry was demanded as part of the "peace" process, no doubt those demands also included a scapegoat, and one will be found.
No guessing, it was one of the agreed parts of the peace process, but the cost & length of time to reach a conclusion was not expected.
Northern Ireland will always produce quite polar & passionate opinions, it does for me, I have half my family living in Omagh and can't quite believe that there have still been no prosecutions after the 1998 bomb, despite a lot of evidence as to who was involved – that appears to be a very political decision.
My father had left Ireland before the shootings in Derry, but he's always described it as a "where were you when……." event.
Regarding the actions of soldiers, got friends who have served/are serving, and fully recognise that they have an incredibly difficult task, if the "troubles" kicked off today then the military involvement probably wouldn't occur to the same level, but equally the british military is now more prepared generally for such taskings than they were in the early 1970s.Posted 7 years ago
so the consensus on the report is tl;dr, then?
Dont nobody tell me they were not shot at that day. When i joined my Battalion there were still guys in the unit who had been there.
Well, if I can't trust a second-hand report of a second-hand report of the people that are accused of wrongdoing for the truth…Posted 7 years agosaleemMember
Derry it is, London is in England, Glad to hear many folk in the North are having a drink to celebrate that it has been finally recognised as unlawful murder.
Paddy Doherty (31) Gerald Donaghy (17) Jackie Duddy (17) Hugh Gilmour (17) Michael Kelly (17) Michael McDaid (20) Kevin McElhinney (17) Barney McGuigan (41) Gerald McKinney (34) Willie McKinney (27) William Nash (19) Jim Wray (22) John Young (17) and John Johnston (59)
INNOCENT. MURDERED UNLAWFULLY BY BRITISH PARATROOPERS ON THE STREETS OF DERRY 1972.
MAY THEY FINALLY REST IN PEACE.Posted 7 years agosaleemMember
No but I can name 1 para who openly brags about bagging a few paddys as he puts it and he's the only ex-para I know so I'd say if that is the mind set why let these people have guns in the first place. After living in south Derry in a town where the shops would advertise for staff with a sign saying catholics need not apply how do you expect people to respond.Posted 7 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
Toddboy – Member
"Now can you remember all the names of the innocent British civilians murdered by the IRA?"
The day this argument starts making sense might be the day I put myself in a care home. "Oh, it's OK for the british army to kill people because terrorists do it too!" FFS. If there's ever even the slightest trace of moral equivalence between our armed forces and the IRA and their like, we're f**ked.Posted 7 years ago
Well it should be time for people to respond by moving on, and not start throwing accusations around.
You can't a reconciliation process if you don't have a truth-discovering process. They tried the "let's just all try very hard not to mention that unpleasantness and move on as if it never happened" approach in Spain – 35 years after Franco's death, it's still divisive.Posted 7 years ago
And like I said, not everybody will agree.
So what's the alternative? We now find the Paras responsible, and punish them, we also find the people responsible for issuing the orders and punish them. That's a lot more expense, a lot more tax payers money.
And to be totally fair…
Then we should also look at all the unsolved murders by the IRA. Find the people responsible, and punish them. Find the people who ordered the attacks, and punish them. But wait, aren't some of those people now in Sinn Fein and MPs?Posted 7 years ago
Quote from an article that I read earlier.
Major-General Julian Thompson, a Royal Marines commanding officer in south Armagh during the Troubles, said that if Saville found troops guilty then McGuinness should be prosecuted.Posted 7 years ago
"In that case, let's prosecute the IRA as well, men like McGuinness. How about drawing a line under this unless we want to go and prosecute all the IRA guys who murdered as well? It's ironic that these guys [British soldiers] could be prosecuted and the people who've murdered 20 times more than they have are being allowed off ," said Thompson.
Colonel Richard Kemp, a Northern Ireland tour veteran, said it was a "serious error" to prosecute soldiers so long after the event.
"And let's not forget that we have had IRA murderers let off and not prosecuted and brought into government," he said.
"Let's open an investigation into some of Martin McGuinness's activities, shall we?"
Politicians in Belfast and London now fear that the recommendations of the Saville report may cause huge problems for the peace process with soldiers ending up in the dock.anokdaleMember
highclimber and conaid in Londonderry it is quite obvious where you loyalties lie, fair enough. My loyalties lie directly opposite yours and would like to see justice for all the soldiers who died in cold blooded murder,(Warren Point for example if you want a link to Para Reg) i want to see justice for all the RUC officers murdered in their houses in front of their famillies who incidentely protected you as well, i want to see justice for all the civillians from both sides who died going about their business. (What did Lord Mountbatten do to deserve what he got)
This inquiry was political from the start and to see you lot celebrating the outcome with glee when your fellow countrymen of a certain persuassion seem happy to forget the other injustices they perpretated is an offront to decency, mind you when i served there decency was thin on the ground but overshadowed by some fine Irishmen i was proud to serve with and call my friends to this day.Posted 7 years ago
It was the softly softly approach were the Army played by the rules and PIRA murdered at will that caused the problems. Never a better time in the troubles than when the SAS were allowed to dish out some of their medicine but even that was brought to an end. How can we say that the deputy first minister running around with a sub machine gun is ok (and put in office)? Nick Clegg ever tried to murder fellow MPs? Or maybe some Met police perhaps? No no only tolerated in Ulster.Posted 7 years ago
i want to see justice for all the RUC officers murdered in their houses in front of their famillies who incidentely protected you as well
Whether you think the RUC protected you rather depends on who you are, doesn't it?
i want to see justice for all the civillians from both sides who died going about their business. (What did Lord Mountbatten do to deserve what he got)
Jesus Christ, you were casting about for a sob story to underline the suffering of civilians whose murderers were not brought to justice and the "civilian" you chose was Admiral of the Fleet The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma KG GCB OM GCSI GCIE GCVO DSO KJStJ PC FRS RSerafO? And whose assassin was convicted and served twenty years in prison?Posted 7 years ago
Jesus Christ, you were casting about for a sob story to underline the suffering of civilians whose murderers were not brought to justice and the "civilian" you chose was Admiral of the Fleet The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma KG GCB OM GCSI GCIE GCVO DSO KJStJ PC FRS RSerafO? And whose assassin was convicted and served twenty years in prison?
pity those bloody Sunday paras weren't given a chance to 'detain' the murdering b**tard first.Posted 7 years agoBigDummySubscriber
isn't one of the conclusions of the report the fact that so many innocent civilians died precisely because these soldiers didn't follow their training.
Yes indeed it is. "serious and widespread loss of fire discipline". This needs stressing I think. A loss of restraint and discipline may be understandable under pressure, but Saville's conclusion is emphatically not that the soldiers did what they were trained to do or ordered to do.Posted 7 years ago
pity those bloody Sunday paras weren't given a chance to 'detain' the murdering b**tard first.
Well, I know that his ineptitude led to more than 3,000 Canadians being killed at Dieppe, but I'm surprised to hear you describe Mountbatten as a murderer. Or were you referring to his support for dividing India along religious lines? (Hmm…wonder where he got that idea?)Posted 7 years ago
The importance of this inquiry reflects the importance of the events: all above have mentioned the subsequent IRA actions / atrocities. These were legitimised and in many cases prompted (in Noraid & republican minds) by the events of Bloody Sunday. The IRA recruited heavily following it, the Widgery Report was a whitewash and only served to help them.Posted 7 years agoiDaveMember
thanks to those currently posting from behind their norn irn ghetto mentality for reminding why I left and would never go back to that god forsaken steaming pile of shite – lovely countryside, outwardly friendly people but ingrained, inbred, narrow minded phucktarded way of thinkingPosted 7 years ago
isn't one of the conclusions of the report the fact that so many innocent civilians died precisely because these soldiers didn't follow their training.
Well that really depends which bit of their training you choose to focus on doesn't it?
They are dehumanised and desensitised as part of the process of becoming a para. There is no argument about that. They are then trained to follow orders. On the day in question there is little doubt that the initial fire was from the lieutenant in charge :-
This belief was initiated by the first shots fired by Lieutenant N ………."
So I would say that in fact they did in fact entirely follow their training, which is to act with extreme predjudice toward any threat and to follow the leader.
Seems to me much of the report is contradictory, i.e. McGuiness with Gun, Nail bomber, (but thats Ok coz they didn't throw or shoot them), and the above. Either there was no threat or there was. To say otherwise is a bit like saying you are partially pregnant surely?
Ultimately, deploying troops is a serious action, not to be taken lightly and will almost invariably lead to a non-cuddly outcome. They are not social workers, psychologists, policemen, or politicians. they are simply young men who are trained to kill without question when certain circumstances arise. The problem in terrorist situations, is that the enemy do not dress up with Kill me quick hats on, and it does get very confusing as a result.Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘Bloody sunday was unjustifiable and unjustified’ is closed to new replies.