Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Yer Ma

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?

pintsofguinness

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:23:08 AM
Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?
what are you on about
Which one of you bitches wants to dance?

stibhan

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:23:08 AM
Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?

Or how about the protection of the public from the dirty truth which leads to people being above the law?

longrunsthefox

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:23:08 AM
Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?

Are you Gregory Campbell? w**ker

Yer Ma

No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

020304 Tir Eoghain

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Yeah, especially if they are the supposed upholders of law & order.
Tír Éoghain '03, '05, '08.

longrunsthefox

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Government murdering its own citizens....   

stibhan

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

If you kill someone and then lie about it (twice) under oath then I think you can be reliably considered worse than someone who at least does some time for their actions. Not that the acts in themselves are divisible, but given that the British continue to divide the killings of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan as collateral there is at once a wider perspective and a lesson unlearned. They are the great equivocators.

Yer Ma

Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 17, 2010, 12:51:59 AM
Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Government murdering its own citizens....   

Ok, but atrocities committed by people who werent government figures, are they any more innocent than them? Surely for those relatives of the dead, they should be incarcerated?

stibhan

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 01:05:36 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 17, 2010, 12:51:59 AM
Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Government murdering its own citizens....   

Ok, but atrocities committed by people who werent government figures, are they any more innocent than them? Surely for those relatives of the dead, they should be incarcerated?

Have you ever heard of the historical enquiries team?

Celt_Man

Quote from: ziggysego on June 16, 2010, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Just seeing this now. The man is living in his own planet if he can't see the truth now. But sure, what do you expect from the Crossmaglen stalker?

Some of the bile he is spouting is vile... funny thing is he doesn;t strike me as having any sort of thought process or rebuttal to the report in that video... he seems quite stupid actually
GAA Board Six Nations Fantasy Champion 2010

Myles Na G.

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 11:51:11 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 09:04:44 PM
Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 08:31:19 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.
So you don't think a hatred for 'the Brits' or the 'huns' or the 'orangies' qualifies as an ethno-religious struggle?

I think a political grievance makes a cause slightly less sectarian, whether that justifies it or not, rather than a general shoot taigs to kill policy. The IRA killed plenty of nationalists and Catholics. A sizeable number, actually.
Agreed. Some they killed accidently, the rest they murdered for being pro British (members of the security forces, contractors for the security forces, informers, etc). The best you could say for the IRA is that they were slightly more discriminating in their ethno religious struggle than the loyalists, but the result was the same.

lynchbhoy

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 17, 2010, 07:24:57 AM
Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 11:51:11 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 09:04:44 PM
Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 08:31:19 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.
So you don't think a hatred for 'the Brits' or the 'huns' or the 'orangies' qualifies as an ethno-religious struggle?

I think a political grievance makes a cause slightly less sectarian, whether that justifies it or not, rather than a general shoot taigs to kill policy. The IRA killed plenty of nationalists and Catholics. A sizeable number, actually.
Agreed. Some they killed accidently, the rest they murdered for being pro British (members of the security forces, contractors for the security forces, informers, etc). The best you could say for the IRA is that they were slightly more discriminating in their ethno religious struggle than the loyalists, but the result was the same.
?
..........

lynchbhoy

'myles stating that IRA 'not sectarian' post shocker'
..........

Alco Pup

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 11:21:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 11:03:35 PM
Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 10:50:43 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM

Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?


Not least and amongst other thingsbecause  former members of that organisation now form part of our government.

Please read my previous posts re Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday
So? the paratroopers are still regarded as heroes.   



I do not think that the paratroopers who caused the deaths on Bloody Sunday are regarded as heroes. You know otherwise?

In answer to your short question I refer to my previous post.

They were honored by the Queen and given medals - they were treated as war heroes.

That in itself speaks volumes - "you shot and murdered innocent people. Congratulations, well done! Here's a medal"

I think the gist of what the lads here are trying to say is that there should be one law for all, and all should treated and punished according to the same law.  Those on either the republican or loyalist sides who actively assist or partake in acts which result in a loss of life do so in the knowledge that if caught they will have the full force of the law come down on them and they will do time.

But in the case of Bloody Sunday, those soliders that fired their weapons that day walked away.  They didn't have the full force of the law come down on them, quite the opposite.  Those meant to uphold and enforce the law backed them to the hilt, defended them, and let them continue with their lives unpunished.
In any other situation, if you help or assist a murdered, you also are punishable as an accessory to murder.

A clear case of one rule for one and a different rule for others.

Justice is blind eh?