Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful

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

Previous topic - Next topic

delboy

Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

ziggysego

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

Can't really argue with anything you've said there delboy.
Testing Accessibility

haranguerer

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 07:06:32 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 04:25:31 PM
Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

I was not equating the two (Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday) in any respect. See my first post on the thread. It is clear in any event that the deaths arose from different circumstances on the days in question. One awful day began with a group of  people going to church on a Sunday (Remembrance Day) and the other awful day  began with a banned street protest.

I do not feel that you will find open hostility from the majority of the  Unionist community to the fact that a Tribunal was held given that the deaths were as a result of the actions of the agents of the  State and most will be glad that a thorough report painstakingly prepared seems to have established the truth. i would say that I have  not read the Report . It is sad though that other bereaved relatives (on both sides) cannot find the same comfort (on the assumption that the families have gained some comfort from this).

But the point is that they were proclaimed by those in governance to deserve their fate. It was a battle to clear their name and establish that lies had been told by the army and government.
What other case compares? Certainly not any on the unionist side. Noone in power has ever questioned the innocence of any of the victims of the IRA, even though on occasions their victims were not innocent.

What cases would you have enquiries into? In most unionist deaths, the official line was that which suited unionists anyway - enquiries into at least some of these may reveal a truth which the families and wider unionist community may wish had never been uncovered (collusion etc)

stibhan

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.
They killed people for being pro-British. This amounts to a political, not ethno-religious, stance. Incidentally, there has never been a bomb constructed which either asks all Catholics to get out of the way before it goes off or whose effects only harm Protestants.

The result was the same? I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, but if my central point was that they are both the same, and British soldiers have killed thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the North, then you're surely agreeing with me?

Thanks for stopping by.

Franko

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

Good post Delboy.  I would pretty much be in agreement with all you have said there.

lynchbhoy

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.
...I am prob in the minority as I dont really blame the soldiers as much
I would still think that their commanding officers (if still alive) should be taken to task and if not a custodial sentence , then stripping of rank, awards, honours and army pension would be correct and proper.
Maybe some would think this should be the case for the individual soldiers also.
..........

ziggysego

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 17, 2010, 12:14:41 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.
...I am prob in the minority as I dont really blame the soldiers as much
I would still think that their commanding officers (if still alive) should be taken to task and if not a custodial sentence , then stripping of rank, awards, honours and army pension would be correct and proper.
Maybe some would think this should be the case for the individual soldiers also.

Whilst ultimately the blame lies with their commanding officer yes, the soldiers on the ground fired indiscriminantly and with cool heads. Killing mortally wounded and shots in the back. It's murder, so blame also lies with them.
Testing Accessibility

Olaf

Quote from: haranguerer on June 17, 2010, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 07:06:32 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 04:25:31 PM
Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

I was not equating the two (Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday) in any respect. See my first post on the thread. It is clear in any event that the deaths arose from different circumstances on the days in question. One awful day began with a group of  people going to church on a Sunday (Remembrance Day) and the other awful day  began with a banned street protest.

I do not feel that you will find open hostility from the majority of the  Unionist community to the fact that a Tribunal was held given that the deaths were as a result of the actions of the agents of the  State and most will be glad that a thorough report painstakingly prepared seems to have established the truth. i would say that I have  not read the Report . It is sad though that other bereaved relatives (on both sides) cannot find the same comfort (on the assumption that the families have gained some comfort from this).

But the point is that they were proclaimed by those in governance to deserve their fate. It was a battle to clear their name and establish that lies had been told by the army and government.
What other case compares? Certainly not any on the unionist side. Noone in power has ever questioned the innocence of any of the victims of the IRA, even though on occasions their victims were not innocent.

What cases would you have enquiries into? In most unionist deaths, the official line was that which suited unionists anyway - enquiries into at least some of these may reveal a truth which the families and wider unionist community may wish had never been uncovered (collusion etc)

I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.









delboy

#248
Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles, a nice idea but impossible in real terms, for a start it would bankrupt the country.
But as others have been pointing out bloody sunday was an exceptional set of circumstances and it needed to be addressed, not only did the truth need to come out to clear the names of the victims but the truth also needed to come out to clear the name of the judicial/legal system/government call it what you will, a coverup like that eats away at the foundations of the rule of law, it needed to be exposed to restore faith. £200 million in that context is worth every penny, im not sure you could make the same case for the other incidents and the numerous billions of pounds it would ultimately cost to investigate them,

Time to stop the whataboutery, put all this behind us and move on.

haranguerer

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM


I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Not if everyone starts shouting 'What about them?' whenever there is such an enquiry, rather than welcoming the findings.

blewuporstuffed

Quote from: Celt_Man on June 17, 2010, 02:37:48 AM
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
just watched that as well, unreal stuff.
i know what you mean celtman, he doesnt come across as the smartest of cookies  :-X
I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either

Tony Baloney

Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 17, 2010, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: Celt_Man on June 17, 2010, 02:37:48 AM
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
just watched that as well, unreal stuff.
i know what you mean celtman, he doesnt come across as the smartest of cookies  :-X
In other news, it has been reported that the Pope was seen wearing a funny hat.

Wullie is certifiable.

Olaf

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..


delboy

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 03:32:19 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

You could have used that same cop-out answer to the bloody sunday report, if only there was a willlingness for the soliders and powers to be to say what happened, unfortuanately we live in the real world there will be conflicting reports etc and painstaking meticulous (expensive) investiagtions would need to be carried out to get to the truth.

Personally i think its crass to compare the bloody sunday thing with terrorist atrocities, but if there was any case to be made for investigating IRA murders etc the only justification for it would be to look into the states role in them, as in the dirty war british operatives running IRA spies (and UVF etc also) will have allowed them on occasion to have carried out murders so as to maintain their cover.
You could argue that the state was complitcit in those matters and should be held accountable, my own view though is that people will get no closure only hurt from knowing the state could have intervened to safe their loved one but didn't. 

Franko

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 03:32:19 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

Hold on a second.  There was no willingness from the British Army to divulge information.  Even when questioned on this they still told lies.
It took 12 years, and £200 million to put together the events of Bloody Sunday and to give the relatives their peace of mind. 
Now when the law makers/upholders don't willingly divulge such information do you seriously expect IRA members and the likes to come forward and spill their guts.  Catch a grip.