Bloody Sunday & the Saville Inquiry.

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

Who knows.

Poor old Gandhi got slung in jail a few times and he wouldn't hurt a fly.

Seems even if you're peaceful in your protest they'll still walk all over you.

And it seems that you'll be an apologist for a group of people no matter what atrocity they commit ....killing 4 year old boys, blowing up prison officers, kidnapping, drug smuggling.....

It's a funny old world, innit?

 

[mikeyjh]

I thought the British government sent in the army to protect the Catholic population in Northern Ireland from attacks from Loyalists.

Correct. Don't get me wrong, I'm really not trying to defend what happened, I'm clumsily trying to point out the crap sanctimony of some the responses.

 

[Two Professors]

I thought the British government sent in the army to protect the Catholic population in Northern Ireland from attacks from Loyalists.

So they were,& very friendly when the Army first intervened.When they found out we didn't all support a united Ireland,things changed

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Not being funny, but I really don't understand your point? I was pointing out that the Civil Rights Association was not an entirely innocent civilian organisation - If you want to argue the rights and wrongs of the ANC's campaign of violence, that's a whole different issue. The SA govt were correct to fight the ANC as they saw them as terrorists, the politics behind that fight were clearly flawed and horrible, likewise the British Govt were correct to deploy the military to try and keep order against violent organisations.

My point is simple.

To understand why people do what they do we need to walk a mile in their shoes.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

And it seems that you'll be an apologist for a group of people no matter what atrocity they commit ....killing 4 year old boys, blowing up prison officers, kidnapping, drug smuggling.....

It's a funny old world, innit?

I don't make any apologies for anyone killing any children. Both sides have done it so they are both as evil as each other in my books.

And yes It is a funny world.

People accusing some people of being apologists while apologising for heavily armed professionally trained soldiers actions against mere amateurs.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

No your point is even simpler. You have sympathies with them. Yilouve stated previously about your Irish heritage and how the British were mean to your great-granny or something.

Kindly, quit the cute "I'm only trying to see the other side" and acknowledge your own prejudice in this matter.

 

[readingstockport]

To those compaining about the money spent on this consider one thing.

It would have been totally simple and easy to avoid spending anything. All it would have needed was for the soldiers who killed innocent unarmed marchers for no good reason to admit what they did and for the UK government, who have known the truth for decades, to put their hands up and admit what happened.

Hey presto, no money spent on an inquiry at all.

 

[Common as Mook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euhGPrgVZj0

 

[mikeyjh]

My point is simple.

To understand why people do what they do we need to walk a mile in their shoes.

And that's why I'll use my word of the day again - That's about as sanctimonious as it gets. So basically, all terrorism is okay, I just don't understand their issues? But you do mine.... Brillilant

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The dead, who were not PIRA members, were unarmed civillians who were not rioting when they were killed. They were subsequently accused of having nail bombs on them but has been proved to be a lie.

Bloody Sunday in addition to being an appalling incident in itself acted as a major spur to future violence as it convinced many Catholics/Republicans that peaceful protest would not gain them equal rights or a say in Northern Ireland's future. For that alone the military Brass and politicians should be condemned.

Yes there were innocents caught in the crossfire but if there were people in the crowd who opened fire on the soldiers first, what should they have done? and arn't they as much if not more responsible for the deaths? and will the terrorists be holding their own public enquiry?

Do we need to have expensive enquiries after innocents are killed in other military actions and conflicts? Will there be enquiries about the deaths of those killed in Iraq during the war there and its period of rebuilding etc after the war ended, eg. when troops return fire after being attacked by insurgents and civilians are caught in the crossfire ?

Should there be an enquiry about those innocents killed during other conflicts like World War two?

Its tragic that there were innocent lives lost on that fateful day, and maybe the response to being fired upon could have been different, but at the time and given the circumstances it is understandable why the incident happened in the way it did and neither side comes out of this incident well.

But does it justify spending £200 million of tax payers money investigating? Never! - Its a needless waste of money and what exactly does having this enquiry actually achieve?

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

Tyrone's logic is all over the place. Apparently, you need to live under the sameconditions as them before making any meaningful judgements but in the next breath describes some of what they did as evil.

Care to square that little circle, Tyrone?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

No your point is even simpler. You have sympathies with them. Yilouve stated previously about your Irish heritage and how the British were mean to your great-granny or something.

Kindly, quit the cute "I'm only trying to see the other side" and acknowledge your own prejudice in this matter.

I think you'll find that it's prejudice that had created that situation.

Are you saying you don't have sympathies with any peoples who are forced to have to live by others rules and especially under the threat of violence?

Anyone who doesn't is obviously the type of person who supports dictators and their ilk.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

To those compaining about the money spent on this consider one thing.

It would have been totally simple and easy to avoid spending anything. All it would have needed was for the soldiers who killed innocent unarmed marchers for no good reason to admit what they did and for the UK government, who have known the truth for decades, to put their hands up and admit what happened.

Hey presto, no money spent on an inquiry at all.

Or equally those hiding amongst the marchers with weapons who then fired upon British soldiers were to admit that they used the marchers as human shields to attack the authorities.

No need for an enquiry then either.

 

[El Presidente]

Y
what exactly does having this enquiry actually achieve?

1. Gets closer to the truth
2. Holidays in the Maldives for a bunch of lawyers

 

[readingstockport]

Should there be an enquiry about those innocents killed during other conflicts like World War two?

There is a slight difference. Ever so ever so slight.

This was british troops firing on unarmed british civilians who were for the most part fleeing or hiding. And you think no-one should possibly enquire as to what happened and why?

IIRC the only other time in the last century when british troops opened fire on british civilians was when Churchill ordered the troops to fire on striking workers in the north east. Before that it was peterloo wasn't it?

That's why it's important.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

Double post

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Tyrone's logic is all over the place. Apparently, you need to live under the sameconditions as them before making any meaningful judgements but in the next breath describes some of what they did as evil.

Care to square that little circle, Tyrone?

Sure.

I've considered why average nondescript people are driven to commit such vile acts.

And the reason is they have experienced similar acts committed upon themselves, their family or their countrymen.

 

[readingstockport]

Or equally those hiding amongst the marchers with weapons who then fired upon British soldiers were to admit that they used the marchers as human shields to attack the authorities.

No need for an enquiry then either.

But the point is that if the soldiers hadn't opened fire it is entirely possible that no-one 'hiding' amongst the marchers would have returned fire. The enquiry has unequivocally proved that the troops opened fire first. Even an old school tory like cameron has admited as much.

You can carry on lying to yourself about what the sequence of events were but the only person you are fooling is yourself.

The squaddies were young, they panicked, they opened fire for no reason and then carried on to carry out what were essentially extra-judical executions. One man shot was crawling away from the troops when he was shot. One person, already severly wounded possibly mortally, was then shot again.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

People accusing some people of being apologists while apologising for heavily armed professionally trained soldiers actions against mere amateurs.

So because the other side were amateurs and they were facing professional British army does it make their actions justifiable? or that of their bombing campaigns against civilian targets?

If they were unhappy with the events in their country, why didn't they try to change things through a political route rather than by bomb and bullet ?

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

I think you'll find that it's prejudice that had created that situation.

Are you saying you don't have sympathies with any peoples who are forced to have to live by others rules and especially under the threat of violence?

Anyone who doesn't is obviously the type of person who supports dictators and their ilk.

ah...The ad hominem has arrived. You really need to think through your arguments. So many logical fallacies.