Bloody sunday was unjustifiable and unjustified

Home Forum Chat Forum Bloody sunday was unjustifiable and unjustified

Viewing 17 posts - 161 through 177 (of 177 total)
  • Bloody sunday was unjustifiable and unjustified
  • TandemJeremy
    Member

    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

    Junkyard
    Member

    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. 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.

    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”.

    rkk01
    Member

    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???

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    well said rkk01. Teh paras were the wrong troops to have policing that march – deployed in the wrong way.

    rkk01
    Member

    Bin Laden has been mentioned a couple of time in posts above – today's universally accepted image of the craven evil of terrorism (in Western minds)…
    .
    .
    …But yesterday's honourable freedom fighter, as instrument of the CIA in their proxy war against the Soviets.
    .
    .
    .
    Clear as mud isn't it?

    trailmonkey
    Member

    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.

    noteeth
    Member

    scenarios you will never have the misfortune to face

    True of many a STW thread.

    if only I could share your one sided view of the conflict

    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 Ali G. 😉

    Premier Icon andydicko
    Subscriber

    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…………………….

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    "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.

    Conaid
    Member

    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]

    lobby_dosser
    Member

    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.

    Toddboy
    Member

    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?

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    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.

    Toddboy
    Member

    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?

    konabunny
    Member

    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.

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    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.

    konabunny
    Member

    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!

Viewing 17 posts - 161 through 177 (of 177 total)

The topic ‘Bloody sunday was unjustifiable and unjustified’ is closed to new replies.