Author Topic: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful  (Read 26663 times)

Capt Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2010, 06:29:55 PM »
Ken Clarke is right, it has been a disaster in terms of time and expense. What a colossal waste of money. The people who ran the inquiry should be prosecuted for taking so long. It also tells us that this will be another whitewash.

Myles Na G.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2010, 07:08:52 PM »
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?

pintsofguinness

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13227
  • C'mon the 'Bridge!
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2010, 07:16:23 PM »
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?
Are you talking about victims of the IRA? they are already recognised as victims and had their killers pursued unlike victims of state terrorism.
Which one of you bitches wants to dance?

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2010, 07:45:04 PM »

 to remind our children and their children what a third coming of Brit Paratroopers to this Island could bring if they are ever let back in the future.  When the first Black and Tans arrived they took out random vengance attacks, killed and slaughtered innocents and burnt towns when they had a man down following an IRA attack. They shot, plundered and murdered and raped at will because they had no discipline and were out of control of the British Government

Where did you get the idea that the B&T were out of the control of the British Government? What control are you talking about?  There was a reason the B&T were deployed. It was the British strategy to deploy them and use those methods against the IRA and the general population.
Have you ever examined the history of any colony that resisted their colonisers with violence? An essential part of the counter insurgency is to deploy some hard m f**kers.
Do you think the French paratroopers were out of control in Algeria during the Battle of Algiers? Not at all, they were doing what they were ordered to do by the French General Massau.
That's life in a war of Independence.  It's insurgency  and counter insurgency.  You have the right to fight back against the army of the occupiers/invaders and kill them or support those who are prepared to do the shooting for you.  It is naive in the extreme to think the B&T were out of control of the British government.


Quote
What happened in 1972 was exactly the same


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.

« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 07:50:21 PM by Main Street »

pintsofguinness

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13227
  • C'mon the 'Bridge!
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #34 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?
Which one of you bitches wants to dance?

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2010, 08:03:10 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.


Arthur_Friend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2010, 08:14:42 PM »

to remind our children and their children what a third coming of Brit Paratroopers to this Island could bring if they are ever let back in the future.  When the first Black and Tans arrived they took out random vengance attacks, killed and slaughtered innocents and burnt towns when they had a man down following an IRA attack. They shot, plundered and murdered and raped at will because they had no discipline and were out of control of the British Government

Where did you get the idea that the B&T were out of the control of the British Government? What control are you talking about?  There was a reason the B&T were deployed. It was the British strategy to deploy them and use those methods against the IRA and the general population.
Have you ever examined the history of any colony that resisted their colonisers with violence? An essential part of the counter insurgency is to deploy some hard m f**kers.
Do you think the French paratroopers were out of control in Algeria during the Battle of Algiers? Not at all, they were doing what they were ordered to do by the French General Massau.
That's life in a war of Independence.  It's insurgency  and counter insurgency.  You have the right to fight back against the army of the occupiers/invaders and kill them or support those who are prepared to do the shooting for you.  It is naive in the extreme to think the B&T were out of control of the British government.[/b]


Quote
What happened in 1972 was exactly the same


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.

You're a little inconsistent in applying these fine protocols of a war of independence. ;)

pintsofguinness

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13227
  • C'mon the 'Bridge!
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2010, 09:41:24 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.
I've no doubt they were following orders however when you shoot an innocent person that has their arms raised or when they're crawling away you are a murderer, orders or not.
Which one of you bitches wants to dance?

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #38 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.

Myles Na G.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 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?

orangeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19373
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2010, 10:33:00 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.

pintsofguinness

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13227
  • C'mon the 'Bridge!
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2010, 10:34:40 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.
Which one of you bitches wants to dance?

Bud Wiser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2112
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2010, 10:59:56 PM »
Try and keep up Puckoon, answer my last post on this topic??
Same thing again here: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minutes-silence-urged-for-victims-of-famine-2181338.html and unfortunately I was in France on the day but I am fierce proud, no, really, fierce pissed off with what this country tolerated from the brits. 

No doubt, at all there will be some here on this forum that will suggest ' Oh why have a minutes silence for the victims of the famine" and that is their opinion. 

Here is a little link to a song.  In an earlier post I mentioned how all the Black & Tans got away, I mentioned how the 164 murderers (of the small amount asked to be accountable) got off. It is most probable that they are now living under a new identity and may well be "anywhere" !!  (probably sitting beside you) I would safely guess that the celebrations of Dunkirk a few weeks ago, and the wall scribbling of names that were inscribed of those that gave their lives for Britains freedom from the Hitlers of this world did not include any Irish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPZohMD6B0
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 11:04:37 PM by Bud Wiser »
" Laois ? You can't drink pints of Guinness and talk sh*te in a pub, and play football the next day"

orangeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19373
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2010, 11:04:01 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 ?.

Treasurer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
« Reply #44 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.