|
Subject: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Jun 10 - 01:59 PM The Saville Report, which will be published on Tuesday (15 June) will almost certainly conclude that some, if not all, of the 14 demonstrators killed (I would say murdered) by British soldiers were killed illegally. Even the disgracefully rigged Widgery report accepted that four of the deaths "bordered on the reckless," and during the Saville inquiry some soldiers admitted that their statements to Widgery had been "inaccurate" and concocted under duress. Whether the report will recommend prosecutions remains to be seen. Even if it does, the prosecution service will not instigate criminal trials unless there is a realistic chance of securing convictions. After 38 years, that could be difficult. I'm not too concerned about whether culpable soldiers should be prosecuted at this late stage anyway, but then I am not enthusiastic about prosecuting war crimes either, especially when many years have elapsed. I realise that victims' relatives may have different views. I would certainly be in favour of prosecuting anyone who can be proved to have been involved in the original cover-up, which involved blackening the names of entirely innocent victims, up to and including putting nail bombs into a victim's pockets. And I would welcome anything that tarnishes the memory of the arrogant Col Wilford, who was the Paratroops commander on the fateful day. Whatever the outcome, I would have to say that much as I loathe Tony Blair in almost every respect, it is to his credit that he initiated this public inquiry almost at the first opportunity, and it is not his fault that the report was not published during his time in office.
Several threads on this subject were started or refreshed over the last two or three days. Since we generally allow only one active thread on any given subject, I have combined messages from several threads. Check the message title to see where the message came from. We've had some trouble with impersonation in this thread, so I have deleted a number of Guest messages. From this point (3 July 2010), no other Guest messages will be allowed. You must be logged in if you wish to post. thank you. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:50 AM What is this about? I wasn't paying attention, so I'm not outraged... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:55 AM Some background I found: http://worldbb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:57 AM Sorry, bad link: http://worldbbnews.com/2010/06/lord-savilles-bloody-sunday-report-is-a-failure-of-the-judicial-process/ |
|
Subject: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Lox Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:29 PM After more than 30 years, it has been concluded once and for all that peaceful protesters shot by the occupying army were not terrorists of any description but that this was just a smear to justify their murder. Perhaps this atrocity can now be put behind us and the wounds can start to heal. Sunday Bloody Sunday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Leadfingers Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:43 PM As long as people like you , Lox , continue calling British Soldiers on BRITISH soil an Occupying Army , all you will do is stir up more Crap ! And NO I dont think what happened was in any way correct , but its a shame its taken so long . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Lox Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM Actually I was celebrating the good news. Sorry it's made you so upset. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jun 10 - 07:21 PM As yet there has been no apology for the lying Widgery Report, or for Prime Minister Heath's part in ensuring that Lord Widgery disgraced himself and his country by writing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Emma B Date: 15 Jun 10 - 09:26 PM 'UNJUSTIFIED AND UNJUSTIFIABLE' "1 Para arrived in Londonderry on the morning of Sunday 30th January 1972." And from one simple, opening sentence, the Saville inquiry explains how a tragedy unfolded. It has taken him 12 years, 10 volumes and almost £200m - but Lord Saville and his Bloody Sunday inquiry team have doggedly achieved a near blow-by-blow account of how 13 people were shot dead in a single day by the Parachute Regiment - all of them killed without justification. By January 1972, the predominantly nationalist civil rights movement had had enough and decided to defy the ban on marches. Tensions were high and the 1st battalion of the Parachute Regiment was sent from Belfast to Derry to deal with any trouble. Saville does not explicitly suggest that 1 Para arrived tooled up for a fight. But he makes clear that they were the wrong people to send into a powder keg situation because they had a reputation for excessive force. Many marches were followed with a degree of rioting - but the organisers had sought assurances from the various republican factions that they would keep a lid on things while the peaceful demonstration took place. Lord Saville's report strongly criticised the conduct of solidiers involved in Bloody Sunday. It said there was "a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline" that none of those killed was posing a serious threat. Some people were killed fleeing or going to the aid of others. The report also said that many of the soldiers involved had lied about what happened. From David Cameron's statement in the Commons "I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt. There is nothing equivocal. There are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong. Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while "crawling … away from the soldiers" ... Another was shot, in all probability, "when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground" ... and a father was "hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to…tend his son". Full report |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Arthur_itus Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:22 AM Weren't all sides given an amnesty. If so, why has so much money been spent on this incident? All forms of war are terrible and innocent people are going to get killed. I still remember the Birmingham Pub bombings Quote The Birmingham pub bombings occurred on 21 November 1974 in Birmingham, England. The explosions killed 21 people and injured 182. The devices were placed in two central Birmingham pubs – the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town (now renamed the Yard of Ale).It has been claimed that members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) planted the bombs. Unquote I do not condone what happened and am glad that the truth has come out. Can we now let it RIP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:25 AM "continue calling British Soldiers on BRITISH soil an Occupying Army" I'm old enough to remember somebody saying something similar about India once. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:30 AM The report says that shots were fired by IRA too. It says that "on balance" they "believe" that it was not the first shots. They do not say why they believe that version. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:09 AM If you search your memories, Jim, I believe you will find that Ireland was British soil for hundreds of years before the UK occupied India. A fellow called Cromwell continued previous possession. Assuming that the report is correct that shots were fired by the IRA (first, second, third, or whatever) it is entirely clear that armed IRA terrorists were present. My suspicion is that it is the present version of events that has been creatively written to provide a basis to say "Oh dear we were bad rulers, can we now exist in peace and will all you naughty boys stop bombing and shooting please?". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Lox Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:17 AM As usual, Keith knows better. If only they hadn't wasted all that time and money, they could have got Kieth to do it instead. David Cameron has apologized, the report recognizes that a crime was committed ... ... but Kieth is still trying to justify it. If ever there was any reason to believe your claim of neutrality mate, you've totally blown it now. I suspect you'll be back on this thread explaining why Cameron and the report were wrong and that you'll still be justifying the soldiers actions in years to come. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM I do not recognise myself in your post Lox. I did not attempt to justify the killings did I? For the record, I do not. I do not claim to know better. The report actually says, "As we have stated, the evidence of paramilitary gunfire in Sector 1 is confusing. However, we have no doubt that OIRA 1 fired the shot that hit the drainpipe on the side of the Presbyterian church; and we equally have no doubt that there was other paramilitary gunfire in this sector before soldiers of 1 PARA went into the Bogside. The evidence suggests to us that this was probably firing by members of the Official IRA." Am I not allowed to draw attention to these overlooked sections? What have you got against me Lox? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: GUEST,D.Company Belfast Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:12 AM This report has been a long time coming. It showed that the Murderous British army ran amok in the North of Ireland for 30 years. The campaign of the Provisional Irish Republican army was justified. Today we must not only remember the dead of Derry, but also the volunteers of the P.I.R.A. We honour them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:22 AM You must have seen a different report, D. This one reported only that 3 or four soldiers in an army of tens of thousands "ran amok" one afternoon in 1972. How does that justify a campaign of violence the caused the death of thousands more people, including so many more innocents? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Lox Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:24 AM Don't feed the trolls. |
|
Subject: RE: Lyr Req: Bloody Sunday (Irish Republican song) From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:26 AM Today's Financial Times of London has an excellent report on it and a couple editorials.
http://www.ft.com "Cameron apologises for Bloody Sunday"
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:43 AM There is an excellent article in today's Financial Times of London and some editorials.
http://www.ft.com "Cameron apologises for Bloody Sunday"
The entire report is online with FT. It reads like a well written novel and is broken into 10 volumes. If you read nothing else try Volumn I, chapter 3 "Events of the Day."
Sincerely,
The truly shocking part is...it cost 200 million pounds to create the report. (The Brits surly do love their lawyers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: GUEST,Noreen Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:30 AM Bloody Sunday report published- BBC report The Bloody Sunday killings were unjustified and unjustifiable, the Prime Minster has said. At long, long last! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Mr Happy Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:30 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:36 AM 'The truly shocking part is...it cost 200 million pounds to create the report. (The Brits surly do love their lawyers.' So how much is the truth worth, then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Den Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:26 AM Unjustifiable has got to be the understatement of the century. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Arthur_itus Date: 16 Jun 10 - 11:11 AM >>Unjustifiable has got to be the understatement of the century<< Just like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Bill D Date: 16 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM The history of the world is so full of 'unjustifiable' responses to provocation that it's hard to wrap one's mind around the total context of it all. No...they shouldn't shoot people like that....and people ought to KNOW that when you protest and dare folks with guns, occasionally some idiot is going to fire. (They shouldn't have shot into the crowd at Kent State Univ. in the US, either....but....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Jun 10 - 12:31 PM "Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, the officer directly in charge of the paratroopers, has always maintained that his soldiers were fired on first and were merely doing their duty. But the Saville report, which strongly criticised the Parachute Regiment, said Wilford ignored orders from his brigadier that he should not order troops beyond a barrier deeper into the Bogside area." Six months after Bloody Sunday he was given an OBE... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Jun 10 - 12:35 PM "If you search your memories, Jim, I believe you will find that Ireland was British soil for hundreds of years before the UK occupied India" And if you open your books Richard, you'll find that opposition to British rule goes back beyond Cromwell. As an internationalist, I have no great interest in national boundries one way or another, but I have come to realise that others attach great importance to them and are prepared to die for them. I wonder how long we Brits would have gone on fighting if Nazi Germany had won the war. Britain has felt the need to keep an armed presence in Ireland throughout the time it has ruled there, not from fear of invasion from outside but because of opposition from inside. Both Bloody Sundays (don't forget the first one) were the result. "My suspicion is that it is the present version of events that has been creatively written......" Now how did I know that, whatever the report came up with, there would be flag-wavers popping up everywhere saying similar. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Paul Burke Date: 16 Jun 10 - 01:04 PM The evidence that the army fired first came from eyewitnesses, including newspaper reporters, whose evidence is in the public domain and matches reports published at the time. The evidence that the demonstrators fired at all comes from the army and MI6, whose evidence was given in secret, indeed, we're not allowed to know what it was. And they had every incentive to keep their own role in prolonging the war- because they'd have been out of a job otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: vectis Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM The anger engendered by this incident caused too many deaths on all sides. The worst part of it was the way the soldiers lied about it... Caused even more anger and more deaths. Bout time something near the truth came out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism From: Gurney Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:53 PM Jim, wouldn't you say that this whole thread is a flag waving exercise? I can see both the orange-and-green and the red-white-and-blue represented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM The impressive thing is the way government and army spokesmen can keep a straight face while saying that all this happened long ago, and that casual murder of innocent people by the military could never happen today. Meanwhile the inquiry into the killing of Baha Mousa, the Iraqi hotel worker beaten to death by soldiers in 2003, is taking place round the corner. ..................was I note that General Michael Jackson, who after Bloody Sunday was associated with the labelling of victim as bomb-throwers and snipers, and later became head of the army, has issued a statement in which he referred to David Cameron's "fulsome apology". Look up "fulsome" in a dictionary. It doesn't mean "full"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Penny S. Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:05 AM Seeing it as British troops firing on civilians on British soil makes it worse, not better than an occupying army. It puts it in the same light as Peterloo (as has been done in the media), where the military (local militia in that case) attack those they are supposed to protect. It is that which makes it different from what happened after with the groups on both sides which killed indiscriminately on both sides of the Irish Sea, and picked out and murdered those they objected to. It is that which makes it deserving of the extensive investigation. Pointing at lack of similar response to IRA atrocities ignores the particular wrong done when a nation's army shoots its citizens. (The same, of course, applies to the police.) Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:22 AM Paul Burke, you said "The evidence that the demonstrators fired at all comes from the army and MI6, whose evidence was given in secret, indeed, we're not allowed to know what it was." The report actually says, "As we have stated, the evidence of paramilitary gunfire in Sector 1 is confusing. However, we have no doubt that OIRA 1 fired the shot that hit the drainpipe on the side of the Presbyterian church; and we equally have no doubt that there was other paramilitary gunfire in this sector before soldiers of 1 PARA went into the Bogside. The evidence suggests to us that this was probably firing by members of the Official IRA." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:27 AM Gurney "Jim, wouldn't you say that this whole thread is a flag waving exercise?" Not really. I have made my own position clear - as a British citizen I am angered that the British Army should shoot down protestors in my name. The report confirms what many of us have known for decades. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Arthur_itus Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:28 AM No smoke without fire Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:50 AM Anyway, the report must be true - that nice Mr Cameron said so!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Arthur_itus Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM Well of course it's true Jim. David Cameron is not a liar like Obama! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:38 AM "Well of course it's true Jim. David Cameron is not a liar like Obama!" Politicians, liars? Go wash your mouth out!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:08 PM Keith, Saville does not need to say why he "believes" the first shots were not fired by the Official IRA. He has arrived at his view "on balance" in light of the evidence presented. Most of that evidence was heard in public and published at the time it was given. I have no doubt that Saville will have subjected it to microscopic analysis in the body of his report. but I have not yet read all 5,000 pages. If you or anyone else would like to have a stab at that, here it is: Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry Jim, the analogy with India does have one or two limitations. For instance Northern Ireland's status accords with the declared wishes of a majority of its population, which was far from the case in pre-partition India. Also, in conforming with the wishes of Ghandi and Jinnah, the Brits left the region in obscene haste, resulting in a bloodbath in which the death toll ran into millions. The slightly more civilised disengagement from Ireland is, in my view, much to be preferred. Richard Bridge's suggestion the Saville report is a piece of creative writing is quite extraordinary. It is a view that has not been advanced by any informed commentator from any side of the arguments. To sustain his suspicion he must have somehow persuaded himself that liars like Soldier F were telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: robomatic Date: 17 Jun 10 - 09:55 PM I'll bet the Israeli/ UN report on the tragedy of the Boats-For-Gaza of last fortnight gets done in less time, with less expenditure, and more initial honesty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 10 - 04:33 AM "Northern Ireland's status accords with the declared wishes of a majority of its population," Only after a border had been carefully drawn to ensure that majority. Originally the intention was to include the whole of the nine counties of Ulster into the Province, but when those involved realised that this would give a Catholic majority, three counties were hastily dispensed with (I think it's called 'gerrymandering'). The First Minister was then in the position to declare that he would govern over a 'Protestant State', in spite of a sizeable Catholic minority (one-third, I think) - a built in disaster waiting to happen, I would have thought. I really can't recall a referendum on the subject, can anyone?. Sorry - I really am not arguing the rights and wrongs of all this - it just doesn't seem to me to be a stable way to govern a country. It's always amused me that we are in the somewhat ludicrous position that the northernmost point of Ireland is in the South. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:16 AM Peter K, fair enough he does not have to say how he balanced the evidence, but why does he say in the vol 1 overview that he "believes" army shot first, but in the detail of those events he says OIRA "no doubt" fired shots before Paras even entered Bogside? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:22 AM I'll bet the Israeli/ UN report on the tragedy of the Boats-For-Gaza of last fortnight gets done in less time, with less expenditure, and more initial honesty. The same sort of honesty as Widgery? I am sure robomatic is right about that. Especially in the light of the fact that Israel has invited David Trimble to oversee it, and he was a fervent backer of Widgery's clumsy whitewashing operation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:16 AM This has all the makings of a 'who fired first' battle, giving the impression that the incident was Brits versus I.R.A. - which it wasn't, of course, but why let facts get in the way of a good argument. It was, once again, a case of the Army firing on unarmed demonstrators and killing thirteen of them, and there can be no justification of that whatever. It has been suggested that one soldier alone was responsible for four deaths. Just as with the earlier Civil Rights demonstrations in Derry, if the British Government had taken seriously the legitimate grievences of the people of Northern Ireland in the first place instead of doing what they always do and attemptng to suppress them with military force, Bloody Sunday would not have happened, nor would the decades of slaughter that followed. When will they ever learn, and when will we ever get round to stopping them from acting as if the Empire is still at its height? These murders were carried out in our name. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:40 AM The incident was not Brits versus IRA, but it is relevant that a Brits versus IRA exchange was going on concurrently. Has anyone even attempted to justify what those three or four soldiers did? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:20 AM "Has anyone even attempted to justify what those three or four soldiers did?" They most certainly have - for thirty odd years, and if you are refering to this thread, Richard Bridge thinks it's all an invention of politicians anyway. The 'who fired argument smacks of 'defence' as it did with the Israeli atrocities one. The shootings had nothing whatever to do with the real/imagined IRA exchange had nothing whatever to do with the cold blooded shooting down of (if we are to accept the description) British citizens. I wonder how many people would have rushed to defend Bloody Sunday if it had happened in Brimingham, or Liverpool! or Manchester - now there'sa thought - maybe Peterloo was the fault of all those nasty radicals and we've been misjudging Joe Nadin ind his lads all these years. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:24 AM Sorry - missed a bit. I find your "what those three or four soldiers did?" an extremely telling phrase as well - no officers, no commands to open fire, no political a judiacial cover up, no media justification, just four lads in khaki going it alone. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:54 AM I acknowledge there was a cover up afterwards, but otherwise yes, just those individuals who went out of control. (Why do you challenge Saville with your use of "/imagined" ?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 10 - 08:41 AM "Why do you challenge Saville with your use of "/imagined" It has taken thirty-odd years to reach the situation where we can claim without contradiction that there has been a massacre of innocent civilians; now we are looking at the detail. I haven't read the report in full (have you/has anybody here) but I understand that the evidence for IRA fire came from those who have been found to have carried out the massacre ("they would say that, wouldn't they" springs to mind instantly, I'm afraid) - we'll see. Why are you attempting to scapegoat soldiers under orders for what is obviously (to me anyway) a political/military decision to violently suppress a demonstration, especially as it had happened not too long before in Derry when the police deliberately routed a protest march to place the demonstators at the mercy of a screaming mob? Jim Carroll |
