Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful

Started by Lady GAA GAA, June 10, 2010, 11:36:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tony Baloney

Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.
What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?


We'll have to start another thread to examine your questions.

But for now, let's stick to the topic at hand - what about the people who were murdered and injured on Bloody Sunday ?.


Willl these f---ers be charged with murder anytime soon ?.
No. Despite what the various inquiries say, the British do not believe the Paras are guilty of murder. All in the line of duty.

orangeman

It does seem likely that Saville will declare that some of the victims were unlawfully killed.

There's bound to be demands for these killings at least to be referred to PPS.

What then ?

Not enough evidence ?.

Tony Baloney

Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 11:17:58 PM
It does seem likely that Saville will declare that some of the victims were unlawfully killed.

There's bound to be demands for these killings at least to be referred to PPS.

What then ?

Not enough evidence ?.
Is there anything in the way of hard evidence? Where do you start in creating an evidentiary case 40 years later? Surely it will come down to the case of the Paras saying they believed they were under attack and those representing the families saying the Paras fired on them indiscriminately.

When looked at in terms of beyond reasonable doubt or on balance of probabilites I couldn't see it going anywhere. The best the families could hope for may be taking a civil case, but then again it's gonna be difficult and expensive to pursue "ghosts".

Bud Wiser

Quote from: Treasurer on June 14, 2010, 11:09:43 PM
I hope the ruling will bring some relief to families who not only had to suffer the loss of loved ones but then endure the attempts to sully their reputations with ridiculous claims of self defence.

Five (that we know about) that were shot on Bloody Sunday were actually shot in the back.
" Laois ? You can't drink pints of Guinness and talk sh*te in a pub, and play football the next day"

orangeman

Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 14, 2010, 11:28:37 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 11:17:58 PM
It does seem likely that Saville will declare that some of the victims were unlawfully killed.

There's bound to be demands for these killings at least to be referred to PPS.

What then ?

Not enough evidence ?.
Is there anything in the way of hard evidence? Where do you start in creating an evidentiary case 40 years later? Surely it will come down to the case of the Paras saying they believed they were under attack and those representing the families saying the Paras fired on them indiscriminately.

When looked at in terms of beyond reasonable doubt or on balance of probabilites I couldn't see it going anywhere. The best the families could hope for may be taking a civil case, but then again it's gonna be difficult and expensive to pursue "ghosts".

Expect the ruling to lead to a raft of cases against the MOD / government etc then.

ardmhachaabu

Let's see what Saville has to say before he or the report is put down or is that too much to ask for?

The usual suspects are at their usual antics of big headlines and little or no substance.  Such people can't be taken seriously
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

pintsofguinness

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on June 14, 2010, 11:44:21 PM
Let's see what Saville has to say before he or the report is put down or is that too much to ask for?

The usual suspects are at their usual antics of big headlines and little or no substance.  Such people can't be taken seriously

who do you mean?
Which one of you bitches wants to dance?

Main Street

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 14, 2010, 10:34:40 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 10:33:00 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.
What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?

Good questions.

It's all a matter of timing.
If yous want to discuss those questions please start another thread, this one is about bloody sunday.
Exactly.

Gaoth Dobhair Abu

Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM
Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.
There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?

Shocking piece of whataboutery, but I suppose Omagh man away in the states.
It was murder by STATE FORCES so why the F U C K shouldn't there be an inquiry and why shouldn't someone be prosecuted for murder if their carrying a legally held GUN and are the supposed upholders of  the peace.
Tbc....

glens abu

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 07:08:52 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM
Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.
There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?
What about the British victims?

11th Nov every year"wear it with pride "

longrunsthefox

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 07:08:52 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM
Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.
There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?
What about the British victims?

Ironically Myles while the victims have no affinity to the Queen et al, Bloody Sunday was in effect the British government murdering its own citizens as were other shoot to kill murders they carried out.

Alco Pup

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 14, 2010, 07:50:50 PM
Quote
Quote
Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.
"I was only following orders" wasn't acceptable in Nuremberg, why would you accept it?
It depends who is saying it.
The deployment of the Paratroopers was a method used by the British government. The Paras were deployed previous to Bloody Sunday and with bloody (but not fatal) results when they battered civilian protesters to a pulp. Imo the Paras were following orders to act in the way they were trained to do.

But the para radio operator has given a witness statement contrary to that.  He called "cease fire" over the radio, and also ran to each solider hitting him on the shoulder and shouting "Cease fire".  One of the questions raised is why 4 of the soliders ignored that direct order and went on to kill another 6 people.

I'd say that totally negates your arguement...

Zapatista

Today above all days in the Dail we have the FG spat and the Confidence motion. Expect little.

Declan

The official BBC view!

Norman Smith,
Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4
When Tony Blair launched the Bloody Sunday Inquiry he told the Commons its aim was "to close this painful chapter once and for all". Now the fear amongst politicians from all parties is that it could have precisely the opposite effect and open up a political can of worms. In Government, the possibility that former British soldiers could end up in the dock is viewed with near consternation. It would, it is argued, have a catastrophic effect on the ethos and morale of the military. But there is also a wider fear that any prosecutions would tear a gaping hole in the delicate fabric of the peace process by creating two scales of justice. One where former paramilitaries are granted immunity. Another where former squaddies, some now almost sixty, are prosecuted. The difficulty for David Cameron is that events are now out of his control and may rest in the hands of lawyers. Privately some at Westminster now point to Tony Blair's fateful decision to grant an inquiry as a fundamental political mistake

longrunsthefox

Such a crock of sh*t from the BBC. Loads of Republicans (and Loyalists) served time, but the British armed forces murdered with impunity.