Bloody Sunday & the Saville Inquiry.

[Guy Fawkes]

I'm not sure if that sentence even makes any sense, but it certainly doesn't even remotely explain the background of Irish nationalism in any way.

i will try to elaborate on what i meant


The Gunpowder plot was a catholic plot aimed at removing the Protestant king, James the first and to install a catholic king in their sted. After it failed their was a back lash against Catholics.

Protestant - Originally kickstarted by Henry VIII who was originally catholic and wanted to divorce his wife (Catherine of Aragon) but the annullment was not allowed by the pope (who was being held prisoner by Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire at the time). After falling for Anne Boleyn king Henry excommunicated himself from the catholic church and a parliamnet act was passed known as the 'act of succession' which put Henry as the head of the church of england, which is to this day officially protestant (although this has alternated between catholisism and protestantism over the centuries and has sparked many feuds between the two religions. Perhaps most notably the gunpowder plot on the houses of parliament and of course the colonisation and 'thourough' by Sir Thomas Wentworth of Northern Ireland which still has massive political repocusions.)


An example of Irish Catholics being used recruited as soldiers to fight was when the wars of religion swept through Europe, setting Catholic against Protestant, often the Irish were to be found fighting for both sides

- this is highly likely to have caused bad blood between the religious divide in Ireland and the British involvement in Ireland could have been a partial excuse to escalate violence between two groups who have a historical hatred for each other.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

Even worse, Tyrone.

Incorrect.

I live in a nation with a native peoples who have faced a similar battle as those in NI.

You can see how years of living under another cultures laws and force have affected them.

I live in a land where NI exists. Considering the remoteness of the Aboriginal settlesments to the cities in Australia and the size of your country, I don't think it's ridiculous to say that I probably live closer to NI than most Australians to Aboriginal townships. Therefore we, British, are as qualified by your standards (living in a country with oppressed people and seeing things, apparently) to say that I have life experience of what Republican people went through. It appears that we've already passed your criteria for "walking a mile in their shoes".

But taking your experience. You live in a land where there has been near extermination of an indienous race, children removed from their families, they now have their own quasi-autonomous governments and all this without one shot being fired. This is your experience, remember. How can you, from watching the peaceful protests of the Aborigines then understand armed conflict and outright terrorism by Republican British? It never happened where you live. Something altogether different happened. Something altogether more peaceful. Logically, it's impossible to make judgements about an armed conflict based on living in a country that never had one. It's all about life experiences according to you. Remember?

So it appears that I'm far more qualified to give judgements on Republican terror than you are - and I don't understand jack shit of how killing 4 year old kids can be justified for any reason.

Pretty sure i've said their actions were vile in other posts.

I can't be blamed for your inability to read.

Oh, but I can read. I think you mean my inability to understand what's written. It's you that has the misunderstanding. I said quite clearly that you were unable to give an unequivocal condemnation of their actions. Every time you have said the actions were vile, you have qualified it with comments such as "both sides did it".

If the soldiers were under stress then it's the military's fault for sending them in there in that state in the first place.

If they aren't in control of their emotions then they shouldn't be put in such a situation.

That's the military failing its own men.

And have you considered if they'd used police rather than soldiers it would be less threatening?

Because that's what guys with f***ing huge guns are to people, threatening.

So you refuse to see the other side of the argument because that's their job. Not the fact that they are also human and under enormous stress.

Hmm...Can you see why I keep pointing out that your arguments are blinded by your own prejudice? You've been offered several times to take a step back and consider both sides and this is an outright refusal. You won't and can't.

I always go for the underdogs.

f***ing hate big bullys who push others around.

unless they are of Indian descent in Fiji, if I recall. You hate the "body odour types".

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Because the soldiers were carrying guns.


One thing I've always admired about the British police system is that they dont carry guns.
When you're not carrying a gun people arent as threatened by you and less likely to pull a gun out and shoot you.

But some police do carry guns, the Tactical firearms unit each force has carry weapons, there are armed police at airports - so should civilians start carrying guns incase you think that the police might shoot you there?

Also if your unarmed, the police are very unlikely to use them against you are they.

America on the other hand is the opposite. Everyone carrys guns so the general populace and Police all are a bit trigger happy.

If on SBS the Police were the only force visible at the event and no guns were visible then that would create a completely different environment imo.

One where people arent on edge as much

I never believe this argument about the states, Canada has a higher figure for guns owned per person but the shootings rate there is almost zero, Canadians arn't on edge or more likely to open fire on people and the police arn't trigger happy so that excuse that its because the police carry weapons just doesn't stand up

And secondly, weren't the army deployed in 1969 due to the civil unrest occuring in Northern Ireland largely due to religious differences, they were there in response to the violence and not the cause of it. They were there to aid the police, and were carrying weapons because they would be in mortal danger there if they didn't and therefore needed to protect themselves.

Do you think troops in Iraq and Afghanistan should have laid their weapons down as soon as the war there was over and that there wouldn't have been any insurgency if they had?

 

[readingstockport]

And secondly, weren't the army deployed in 1969 due to the civil unrest occuring in Northern Ireland largely due to religious differences, they were there in response to the violence and not the cause of it. They were there to aid the police, and were carrying weapons because they would be in mortal danger there if they didn't and therefore needed to protect themselves.

Do you actually know the history of NI that you seem to be opining so much about?

The troops were deployed to NI initially in order to protect the Catholic population from the attacks of the loyalist paramilitaries. It was only after the events of bloody sunday that the republicans became totally dedicated to what they would describe as 'the armed struggle'. There was republican violence from republican sources before bloody sunday but it was VASTLY magnified by the events of that day.

Do you actually know what the march on bloody sunday was about?

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

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.

Young squaddies? Crap. They were a wide ranging group of soldiers of all ranks who had massive experience in lots of situations and conflicts, but when fighting members of the IRA and the Young IRA (check the facts about the ones that are 6 feet under) who were there to antagonise their rigid rules of engagement are flexed. Remember the terrorists have no rules of engagement - they shoot and run, then hide - they are as guilty of the deaths of the innocents more so than the British. This report is an easy one to produce - the soldiers will not push for another enquiry, but notice that none of them have been prosecuted. If it had come down on the side of the troops then the IRA PR machine would have kicked back in and wasted more time and effort justifying a bunch of people who were forensically proven to have handled or fired weapons. The report has not unequivocally proven anything except that an enquiry started by the last apologist Government has to be closed, but I am disappointed that Cameron has chosen to apologise to that bunch of terrorists who should all be six feet under by now.

 

[El Presidente]

they are as guilty of the deaths of the innocents more so than the British.

I know this is an emotive issue for you, but can you honestly say that a bunch of tossers who did NOT shoot anyone are more responsible for the deaths of 13 people than the people who actually shot them?

 

[readingstockport]

Young squaddies? Crap. They were a wide ranging group of soldiers of all ranks who had massive experience in lots of situations and conflicts, but when fighting members of the IRA and the Young IRA (check the facts about the ones that are 6 feet under) who were there to antagonise their rigid rules of engagement are flexed. Remember the terrorists have no rules of engagement - they shoot and run, then hide - they are as guilty of the deaths of the innocents more so than the British. This report is an easy one to produce - the soldiers will not push for another enquiry, but notice that none of them have been prosecuted. If it had come down on the side of the troops then the IRA PR machine would have kicked back in and wasted more time and effort justifying a bunch of people who were forensically proven to have handled or fired weapons. The report has not unequivocally proven anything except that an enquiry started by the last apologist Government has to be closed, but I am disappointed that Cameron has chosen to apologise to that bunch of terrorists who should all be six feet under by now.

Oh, so they were EXPERIENCED squaddies who without provocation and for no reason opened fire on unarmed civilians without having themselves come under fire?

And you expect us to show some sympathy to the murderous bastards who shot those civilians?

Keep going, you're destroying what little sympathy I have for the soldiers and making me more of the view that those involved should face a court.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

i will try to elaborate on what i meant


The Gunpowder plot was a catholic plot aimed at removing the Protestant king, James the first and to install a catholic king in their sted. After it failed their was a back lash against Catholics.

Protestant - Originally kickstarted by Henry VIII who was originally catholic and wanted to divorce his wife (Catherine of Aragon) but the annullment was not allowed by the pope (who was being held prisoner by Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire at the time). After falling for Anne Boleyn king Henry excommunicated himself from the catholic church and a parliamnet act was passed known as the 'act of succession' which put Henry as the head of the church of england, which is to this day officially protestant (although this has alternated between catholisism and protestantism over the centuries and has sparked many feuds between the two religions. Perhaps most notably the gunpowder plot on the houses of parliament and of course the colonisation and 'thourough' by Sir Thomas Wentworth of Northern Ireland which still has massive political repocusions.)


An example of Irish Catholics being used recruited as soldiers to fight was when the wars of religion swept through Europe, setting Catholic against Protestant, often the Irish were to be found fighting for both sides

- this is highly likely to have caused bad blood between the religious divide in Ireland and the British involvement in Ireland could have been a partial excuse to escalate violence between two groups who have a historical hatred for each other.

I know my history well enough to be spared a copy and paste job on the English reformation. And quite how the Gunpowder Plot is the most notable of the conflicts between Catholic and Protestant I am unsure. And it certainly has very very little to do with Ireland.

But you are seriously talking down the problems in NI by suggesting it is a product of English religious insecurity.

I won't go OTT with my own mini-history like yours, but religion is a telling characteristic of the ethnic divide in Ireland rather than the main cause of it. Ireland was populated by ethnic Irish, with their own language, laws and customs (although often tied-in/subservient in certain ways to England). It was then throughout the reigns of various English/Scottish monarchs "settled" by Protestant British, mostly Scottish who were Protestant completely independently of anything that Henry VIII did (and were in fact often considered a serious threat to moderately Protestant England). As British rule was consolidated and eventually eliminated by more nationalist Irish (of which Catholicism was often a trait, though there are notable exceptions), the area of Ulster (where a large percentage of British had settled many many years before) became largely debated and polarised, and remained within Britain after 1921.

Anyways, I am not wishing to partake in a debate about Bloody Sunday as I am sure my feelings are obvious, but you are, and with it are spouting nonsense about the Gunpowder Plot and all sorts that is completely irrelevent!

 

[Insel affe]

Keep going, your destroying what little sympathy I have for the soldiers and making me more of the view that those involved should face a court.

Yes thats a damn good left wing point of view, lets throw many more millions of pounds at a new court case. How the hell will NI ever get over its problems if we keep harping back to what has been done. The hearing wont solve owt, just justify causes that should be buried. Bollox to the IRA my uncle was a squaddie out there 18 and got blown up by the coward ***** while off duty. f*** THEM

 

[readingstockport]

Yes thats a damn good left wing point of view, lets throw many more millions of pounds at a new court case. How the hell will NI ever get over its problems if we keep harping back to what has been done. The hearing wont solve owt, just justify causes that should be buried. Bollox to the IRA my uncle was a squaddie out there 18 and got blown up by the coward ***** while off duty. f*** THEM

When did I say I wanted that? But hey, why let facts get in your way? I said that the reaction of hampshire to the report/inquiry was if anything making me lose my sympathy and opposition to that.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

reading, I really don't give a toss about where your sympathies lie. The facts show that shots were exchanged on both sides. It is politically expedient not to make the point that the IRA scum were shooting first, despite statements on both sides that have supported this. The man waving the hanky had his wife phoned by one of the IRA to warn her about making statements about where he got the hanky from - it was covered in gun oil. If you want to believe that the IRA were the equivalent of the Girl Guides, then crack on. If you had ever had experience of what they were like you would not be quite so keen to point to the big nasty soldiers. What were the nail bombs for - firework displays afterwards?

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Oh, so they were EXPERIENCED squaddies who without provocation and for no reason opened fire on unarmed civilians without having themselves come under fire?

And you expect us to show some sympathy to the murderous bastards who shot those civilians?

Keep going, you're destroying what little sympathy I have for the soldiers and making me more of the view that those involved should face a court.

They were armed. Because you can't make that fit into your little fantasy world does not mean you can ignore it. Provocation - if you have ever spent time in that shithole over the water you would understand what provocation was. When they pulling back their arms to throw something you have no idea if it's a rock, a petrol bomb or a nail bomb. Should they wait until they are sure? There is still not concrete evidence about them not firing first - even Martin McGuiness has ummed and erred over this - and remember that he was the QM for the IRA in the district (ie responsible for supplying weapons and ammunition).

You want to talk murderous bastards? Try Omagh. Manchester. Birmingham. London. Mountbatten.

You want to sympathise with them - fair enough, but at least man up and admit that there are two sides the story.

 

[readingstockport]

reading, I really don't give a toss about where your sympathies lie. The facts show that shots were exchanged on both sides. It is politically expedient not to make the point that the IRA scum were shooting first, despite statements on both sides that have supported this. The man waving the hanky had his wife phoned by one of the IRA to warn her about making statements about where he got the hanky from - it was covered in gun oil. If you want to believe that the IRA were the equivalent of the Girl Guides, then crack on. If you had ever had experience of what they were like you would not be quite so keen to point to the big nasty soldiers. What were the nail bombs for - firework displays afterwards?

Yeah yeah, so Lord Justice Saville, a pillar of the british establishment for about 40 years and appointed a justice during thatchers premiership, was a republican stooge? Cameron is a republican stooge? Max f***ing Hastings is a republican stooge?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, your strongly held belief and prejudices, held no doubt passionately for many years, are based on lies told to you by your (ex) collegues?

I have a lot of time for some of the things you say Hampshire but how about applying Occams razor? The simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

The army f'd up that day. They shot people for no reason and then spent 38 years trying to cover it up. f ups happen. Regularly. They happen in Afghanistan now. And do you know what, by and large I don't blame those involved for it.

It's the lies that they tried to keep going for 38 years that is wrong.

 

[El Presidente]

You want to talk murderous bastards? Try Omagh. Manchester. Birmingham. London. Mountbatten.

OI! What about BRIGHTON

As for Manchester, it was one of the best things that has happened to the place.

 

[readingstockport]

They were armed. Because you can't make that fit into your little fantasy world does not mean you can ignore it. Provocation - if you have ever spent time in that shithole over the water you would understand what provocation was. When they pulling back their arms to throw something you have no idea if it's a rock, a petrol bomb or a nail bomb. Should they wait until they are sure? There is still not concrete evidence about them not firing first - even Martin McGuiness has ummed and erred over this - and remember that he was the QM for the IRA in the district (ie responsible for supplying weapons and ammunition).

You want to talk murderous bastards? Try Omagh. Manchester. Birmingham. London. Mountbatten.

You want to sympathise with them - fair enough, but at least man up and admit that there are two sides the story.

I don't think I'm the one who is denying there are two sides to the story quite frankly.

 

[Dandyman]

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?

The evidence shows the Paras fired directly at innocent unarmed people and had bee geed up by their commanding officers before hand. For what its worth I don't think assault troops like the Paras were the right sort of soldiers to be involved in peace keeping in the first place but that does not change what happened.

 

[Two Professors]

Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The facts are that the british troops opened fire first, on unarmed civilians. Whether there were people in the area or on the march carrying weapons is immaterial. Those people did not use their weapons until after the paras had already begun killing people.

Are you Alistair Campbell in drag?Don't really mean to be offensive but you seem to only see one side of an argument,& your side is always correct.If you were in NI in '72 where were you freezing your backside off?Don't think it could have been Derry,Newry,or Belfast,because you havn't got a clue

 

[Two Professors]

The evidence shows the Paras fired directly at innocent unarmed people and had bee geed up by their commanding officers before hand. For what its worth I don't think assault troops like the Paras were the right sort of soldiers to be involved in peace keeping in the first place but that does not change what happened.

Someone else who is clueless!Newry had a big march the following weekend,the Paras were there too,and the only shot fired was a PIRA man shooting himself in the foot!Yes,I was there that weekend,in the Army,and didn't shoot anybody,even innocent Catholics!

 

[readingstockport]

Bloody sunday - 1972
London - 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, and other following that.
Birmingham - 1974
Mountbatten - 1979
Manchester - 1992
Omagh - 1998


Notice anything about the time lines? Between 1940 and 1973 there were no reported IRA actions on mainland UK that I am aware of.

 

[Dandyman]

Nice and convenient ignoring of the statements even from that wanker McGuiness and the forensics that said that weapons were fired - ergo terrorists. Blame them for taking over a Civil Rights march and trying to kill British Soldiers then running and hiding under the cassocks of the priesthood like they always used to. No sympathy for the scum I am afraid, except for the innocents who died. At least 5 who got slotted had it coming.

Hants, I normally respect your views even when I disagree with them but that post does you no favours.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry in Northern Ireland: World of Forensic Science



None of the dead tested positive for explosives, five definitely had not touched firearms. One body was claimed to have had nail bombs but still tested negative for explosive residue which suggests to many that the bombs were planted after his death.