Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 02 - 07:19 PM

Speculations in the Daily Mail are worth the paper they are written on. And that isn't much good even for that.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: The Pooka
Date: 22 Feb 02 - 06:31 PM

Thanks very much Teribus.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 02 - 03:10 AM

Here's the information you asked for Pooka:

Omagh Victims Legal Trust, 56 Wendover Court, Chiltern Street, London W1U 7NU

or to

Bank of Ireland, Omagh, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland.

Oh!!!.... and RO1SIN

If any group told me they were "protecting" me by planting bombs indiscriminately in shopping centres and crowded streets - I'd tell them in no uncertain terms to go and "protect" somebody else.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: The Pooka
Date: 22 Feb 02 - 01:26 AM

Dunno why *I* typed "eye" instead of "I" above. Too much of my crappy dialect-imitations in other threads maybe. Certainly don't believe in an Eye for an Eye. (Nor for an "I".)

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: The Pooka
Date: 22 Feb 02 - 01:10 AM

Thank you Redeye. I may not agree with all of your views but So what? We all need to hear and learn. Omagh, yes. My wife & son and eye flew out of JFK on vacation *that* bloody day, and we learned upon landing at Dublin, from our cabdriver, of the massacre committed while we were en route. We'll never forget the pall cast over all of the country. I remember placing, as thousands did, flowers & message in front of the GPO. How & where may one contribute to the Omagh justice fund?

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: tremodt
Date: 21 Feb 02 - 08:40 PM

I have heard that the only protectors of the catholics of Norn Iron was the IRA, not the RUC or the british soldiers

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Ringer
Date: 21 Feb 02 - 04:27 AM

On Jan 19th this year, the (London) Daily Mail published an article under the headline "We DID fire on Bloody Sunday troops, admits IRA gunman". From it I quote ...testimony to be heard by the Saville enquiry will say that an IRA gunman fired more than 30 rounds in a 'joint operation' to target British troops in Londonderry in 1972.

The disclosure effectively destroys repeated claims by [Martin] McGuinness that the IRA did not 'engage' British troops on Bloody Sunday.

Whether that testimony has yet been heard, or, indeed, anything else on the subject, I don't know.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Red Eye
Date: 21 Feb 02 - 01:35 AM

Appreciate your comments Pooka. My intention was to open debate between Mudcatters in relation to the inquiry. The cost is going to be astronomical. Estimates have been put at £200 m All this just to be able to say to the British Goverment "told you so". Something that was known by the families anyway. This blood letting will never bring back the dead from either side of this conflict. I bring your attention to the cost because of the ongoing campaign in Omagh. They are trying to raise £2 million pounds to be able to pursue the killers of their loved ones through the civil courts. You probably know where I would rather see this wasted money spent.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 02 - 03:11 AM

"an attempt to goad them into firing on unarmed civilians."

Could that really work with anyone fit to carry a gun and wear the uniform of a professional soldier?

Oh yes!! Alarmingly easy - If you doubt that for a second just put yourself in the position of someone just out of training being thrown into that sort of situation. You are probably 18-19 years old, you are in a group, probably company strength (approx 100)facing a crowd of about 5000. Your intelligence briefing has told you that there may be para-militaries mixed in with that crowd and they may be armed.

With respect to Bloody Sunday, the CR movement specifically asked both the PIRA and IRA to stay away - they didn't - Why??? Perhaps Mr. McGuinness can explain.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: The Pooka
Date: 19 Feb 02 - 02:17 PM

Wolfgang, THANKyou very much for the info re McGuinness. Sapper 82, very interesting; agree it bears investigating.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 02 - 01:39 PM

"an attempt to goad them into firing on unarmed civilians."

Could that really work with anyone fit to carry a gun and wear the uniform of a professional soldier?

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Ditchdweller
Date: 19 Feb 02 - 01:22 PM

I served in the Royal Engineers from 1968 to 1980. During this time I only did a single tour of Ulster, in '79. The folowing story I heard from two sources, one military, the other civilian. The civilian was an old farmer in Keady. I was there as part of a detail cutting down an Ash tree to make way for a helicopter landing pad. This was shortly after Dessie O'Hare was shot up trying to ambush an Army patrol, something the farmer congratulated me on! He then went on to relate the story that I had already heard. The story is that the IRA decided to hijack a peaceful, though banned, Civil Rights march to gain a propaganda coup over the Army. They did this by towards, but not at, Army personel in an attempt to goad them into firing on unarmed civilians. Though this story is backed up by several recent revelations, I do not claim it as true as I have no proof. But it is a possibility that does need investigating.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Feb 02 - 03:53 AM

McGuinness hasn't testified yet, as far as I know. Only selected parts of a written statement have been leaked to the press.

Second in command to how many? From a summary of the relevant part of his statement: " Mr Martin McGuinness has informed the inquiry the Provisional IRA had less than 50 volunteers and an armoury of only 20 or 25 weapons, some obsolete, in Derry at the time of Bloody Sunday"

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: The Pooka
Date: 18 Feb 02 - 02:17 PM

Guest Roger, I'm also a beginner here who has benefited from great "kindness and enthusiasm". But I feel that those blessings don't have to presuppose singleminded unanimity of opinion. Personally I don't think *anyone*, on either end of the spectrum (nor *even* m'self and any others occupying the muddled middle) is "polluting this site". I'd be surprised if Redeye "really want(s) to air his views among like-minded people". Why should he preach only to the converted? For that matter, why should you? All of God's creatures got a place in the choir. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Truth is a fixed star but bedamn if a one of us has achieved orbit around it yet, far as *I* know. Me, I sez Stay the Course with their Inquiry, and also with ours. I especially wanna hear McGuinness there. And Redeye here. And you. (Maybe we should call in George Mitchell. Is he a Member? If not, he could be GuestConfidenceBuilding :) Pax vobiscum.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,Roger O'Keeffe
Date: 18 Feb 02 - 12:31 PM

I've only recently discovered the Mudcat site and was overwhelmed by the kindness and enthusiasm with which my beginner's questions were answered.

So what's Redeye doing polluting the site with his ranting about Bloody Sunday? I suggest he tries one of the UK tabloids if he really wants to air his views among like-minded people.

Just to drag him back on track with a folksong reference, the folksong which epitomised the Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s was "We shall overcome", not "A nation once again". The IRA at the time was a spent, irrelevant force, exemplified by the graffito "IRA = I ran away" when the Royal Ulster Constabulary brutally suppressed the CR marches. The CR movement on the other hand was a striking new, non-sectarian departure, based on what people had seen ont television of the black civil rights movement in the US.

As another contributor to this string points out, the British Army was welcomed with cups of tea as a saviour (from both Protestant mobs and out-of-control police auxiliaries) in Catholic areas of Belfast and Derry, and the Sinn Fein spokesmen who criticised this welcome at the time were widely derided.

Unfortunately, the subsequent behaviour of the British Army on Bloody Sunday, on the introduction of internment without trial and in its intimidatory practice of spurious "arms searches" of Catholic areas, was the best thing that ever happened to the IRA. It led to a rapid increase in recruitment and funding, and was a significant contributory cause of thirty years of death, grief and destruction.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,Den
Date: 18 Feb 02 - 10:59 AM

Guest without bias? I don't think so. This is about British soldiers murdering innocent people or did you miss something.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: The Pooka
Date: 18 Feb 02 - 10:33 AM

Guests - good points both, the secular and the sacred. I must agree. Thank you.

Guestguest: that would be the unlikely sea-change in the voting patterns. Could happen. The deal (if any) offered by the Republic would be an important factor too. Maybe the 26 Counties won't want 'em after all. There are economics involved here. (Hey! What if the Orangemen get so damn mad at perfidious Albion that they vote for Dublin!)

Guestwithnobias: Amen. With the footnote that the killing *nowadays* seems done not really in the holy *cause* of the true religion, but just under denominational headings for convenience. Shorthand. At the Battle of the Boyne, they believed in the stuff. I guess. Not that there weren't economics involved there, too. But you're right, killing is killing. Down the long ladder and let's cut the rope, *enough* with King Billy and likewise the Pope, sez I.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,Just an outside observer with no bias whatso
Date: 18 Feb 02 - 08:55 AM

"Whatsoever you have done unto one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto Me." The battle lines were drawn along religious lines. Had the technology been available, would the apostles have bombed the temple to avenge the killing that these people all claim to revere? I doubt it. Atrocities done for a "religious" cause are still atrocities. Evil done in the name of God is still evil.

I wouldn't want to be in ANY of their shoes, Catholic or Protestant, in the last judgment.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 02 - 06:50 AM

sure the Catholic % is growing steadily, but that doesn't mean in future they'd vote to leave the UK if they have a good deal within the Union and devolved parliament.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: The Pooka
Date: 18 Feb 02 - 02:16 AM

This is a good thread.

There has to be room for our different opinions. It's a wimpy cliche, but it's true.

I read awhile ago in the Irish Times online that N.I. Education Secretary Martin McGuinness, as indicated above in the thread, has said that he will testify at the Inquiry and that Yes he was 2nd in command of the IRA Derry Brigade on Bloody Sunday.

*Has he testified yet?* I searched quickly on the Irish Times & Sinn Fein sites but found their search mechanisms not too helpful.

In the Times interview I read, as best I recall, McGuinness stated flatly that he was present, flatly that he fired no shots, and that "there is no evidence" that he was armed. That last bit sounded just a wee bit Clintonian; but then, so what? (2nd in command--of how many, I wonder?--he was presumably *supposed* to be armed.) He also said, I *think* in relationship to the IRA's presence and role in Derry back then, that the people of the Bogside and the other nationalist neighborhoods regarded themselves as under hostile foreign occupation. He further stated that "the IRA has done some bad things in the past" but indicated there was no IRA provocation of the Bloody Sunday massacre.

I am very interested to learn about his testimony.

Much more generally, this is a cold-eyed and/or cold-hearted, analysis but here goes nuttin'. As I recall, in the referendum the nationalist community in the Six Counties voted overwhelmingly, almost unanimously I think, for the Good Friday Agreement; the unionists split down the middle. The separate simultaneous vote in the Republic was lopsidedly in favor. I suspect that both sides recognized, consciously or intuitively, that over time the nationalists can only gain from the new processes, structures and arrangements, while the unionists can only lose ground. Continuing hard-line Paisleyite rejectionism and obstructionism, including the effort to topple Trimble and thus get new elections & bring down the Agreement, reflects this perception; as does Sinn Fein's ongoing participation in & support for the process (accompanied by ample militant rhetoric to be sure); and IRA decommissioning when Gerry Adams & McGuinness "requested" it (ha!). The perception, I think, is correct on both sides. Incrementally, Green wins, Orange loses. Sounds like a soccer game; damn shame it isn't. The pro-Agreement unionist moderates are willing to put up with it as the price of peace. The Paisleyites aren't; No Surrender. The nationalists of all stripes anticipate gradual improvement in their lot anyway as institutional Orange power wanes---and they bide their time.

It's my understanding that ultimately the Agreement guarantees that Northern Ireland shall remain British *unless and until the majority there votes otherwise*. Now tell me: am I wrong in gathering that the demographics are such that the Catholic percentage of the total NI population is slowly-but-surely growing? Is even now well above 40%? Of course in a disadvantaged minority community, especially in the urban ghettoes, the *voting-age* population percentage usually lags behind the overall share. But still, in due course the children do come of age...

If my impression of the statistics is wrong, then I'm wrong. But if not, and barring an unlikely sea-change in the solid relationship of voting patterns to religion in the north of Ireland (religion signifying so much more than mere denomination there)---then we, or our children anyway, may very well see a united Ireland. By dint of the birth rate differential and the Good Friday Agreement (assuming it survives the trip along this rocky road to Dublin.) By the ballot, not the bullet, as they say. Odd way for the Eight Hundred Years' War to end. Anticlimactic. Unromantic. Just possibly, unsung.(Though I doubt it, ye can always come up with somethin', let's start now, new thread, Referendum Rebel Songs.) Odd; but good.

But the British, you say? Aaah they're sick to death of it. Yeah yeah I know I know. I know all about 'em. Well--enough, anyway. But they're a party to it. *They* know what they signed; they're not fools, Pearse's oration to the contrary notwithstanding. If it does go that way, this time England *will* keep faith for all that is done and said. Not necessarily beause they've changed, but because they want to be rid of the problem.

Tell me if I'm wrong. Factually, I mean. I'm no scholar. Just another mick. I want to know. Thanks.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Grab
Date: 17 Feb 02 - 07:50 PM

Nothing like prejudging the case is there? No-one out there knows what the hell happened, but the truth is on this thread, obviously...

Graham.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,sulli
Date: 17 Feb 02 - 05:53 PM

Yes, I just read that. They say they were shot at, (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-10242133,00.html ) but they've said that before somewhere haven't they!

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,Ard Mhach
Date: 17 Feb 02 - 01:42 PM

I just heard on the News that the Paras have shot and killed members of an Afghan family taking a pregnant lady to Hospital. Trained to kill and never disappoint. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,tupence
Date: 17 Feb 02 - 08:38 AM

Surely the whole point of an inquiry into Bloody Sunday is that when British soldiers kill they do it our (the British people's) name. Can any British person say that they want the murder of 14 unarmed civillians done in their name?

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 09:44 PM

Interesting thread......I've followed it right through, but not felt I had anything to say until now. Still dont, really, other than to acknowledge it by posting now (& that I've just posted to the Thread on Harvey Andrews song 'The Soldier')

That the whole story hasnt yet come out DOES mean that the Enquiry is necessary, regardless of expense.

That it would have been better to discover that truth sooner, & maybe even at less relative cost, cannot be disputed.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 08:04 PM

One of the thing that appear to have happened on that day and following it was that various people in the army and in the government engaged in a criminal conspiracy to conceal the truth. Acessories to murder before and after the fact.

The people who did this can in no way claim that they were provoked or acting in panic at a time when they believed they were in danger of their lives. And in terms of the deadly impact of their actions on the subsequent events, I think that, in the long run, they probably did even more harm than the soldiers who carried out the massacre.

But I expect that, whatever blame is levied by the inquiry, it will be largely confined to the rank and file paras. Widgery is not the ony judge who loyally does what is required of him.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 06:50 PM

The Enquiry is not to prove or disprove that there was a cover up, the enquiry is to find out what happened.

This requires all matters to be tested. This is not happening.

The Goldstone enquiries in South Africa demonstrate the difference.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 01:13 PM

Here is that link to the Paras blank page on Nokrthern Ireland - there's lots of history on the other pages, including things to be remembered with honour, such as Arnhem.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 01:08 PM

"British Army destroyed several of the weapons AFTER the inquiry was ordered" (Philippa) - more than several. A couple of dozen, as I understood.

"if the required tests and examination of these weapons had been carried out and reports filed, nothing not already known would be gained in re-examining them, so logically there would be no reason not to destroy the weapons."

The reliability of any forensic tests carried out at the time of the Widgery Inquiry and any reports filed at that time probably would be very open to quesion, since what happened then is widely regarded as a cynical whitewashing operation.

Here is a link to the Northern Ireland Page of the official Para website. Interestingly enough, it is completely blank...

(I've now got a RealAudio streaming sound file of that Seamus Heaney song about Bloody Sunday I posted a link to earlier - click on "streaming" next to the words.)

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 08:22 AM

Some interesting points, particularly from Philippa. One facet she mentioned concerned destruction of weapons.

"By the way, the British Army destroyed several of the weapons AFTER the inquiry was ordered. The timing may be coincidental but it certainly looks suspicious that they held on to the weapons all those years and then destroyed them on the verge of the inquiry."

I would suspect that the timing was coincidental for the following reasons:

1. Between the events of "Bloody Sunday" and the ordering of the latest Inquiry, the standard firearm of the British Army changed from the SLR (7.62mm) to the SA80 (5.56mm). The bulk of the British Army "stock" of SLR's would then, I imagine, have been offered for disposal to the armed forces of other countries who had bought the SLR and still use the weapon.

2. Unless the disposal was extremely efficient, small numbers of SLR rifles would be found in various armouries. The personnel (and these would be civil servants) assigned the task of withdrawing these weapons from service would order their destruction as the numbers involved would not justify the effort of trying to sell them. So the explanation could simply be that the right hand did not know what the left was doing.

3. Who actually had charge of these weapons would be intersting to know. Also whether or not ballistic and forensic tests had been carried out on the weapons. If the weapons had been held, and quarantined, by Military Police SIB in a special armoury their destruction could possibly be viewed with a degree of scepticism. Having said that, if the required tests and examination of these weapons had been carried out and reports filed, nothing not already known would be gained in re-examining them, so logically there would be no reason not to destroy the weapons.

4. If the weapons were held in a depot/unit armoury, and I believe they were, they would appear in returns and after time they would start to stick out like the proverbial sore thumb to those checking the returns and an instruction to destroy the weapons would be given - no part of that process would ask the question why there were x number of SLR's at such and such an armoury.

As to whether The Parachute Regiment should have been used in an "Aid to the civil power" role. My immediate reaction would be to say no - to be effective in their intended area of operations their training is not best suited to situations that requires delicate handling. Unfortunately they are extremely mobile and very easy to move into trouble spots quickly - hence they do tend to get used and they have, subsequent to "Bloody Sunday", got better at it.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,Philippa
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 03:16 AM

a quick clarification of somehings I wrote above.
Gareth's comment on the IRA was regarding them being called to give evidence at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. It should be made clear that no-one is accusing the IRA of having shot any of the people who were killed that day; the British Army doesn't dispute having shot the civilians. The IRA is relevant because 30 years ago the British said that people were shot in response to (IRA) gunfire. Local people involved in the civil rights march maintain that the IRA agreed to stay away from the march and did honour that promise. The reason that I wrote that the British army fired the first shots is that there have been credible reports about a lone gunman in the Bogside that day.

The "Sunday" film (Jimmy McGovern/Gaslight Productions/channel 4) includes this gunman in their story and also someone who pulls a gun out of his coat in response to the killings but does not shoot; the film uses these dramatically to show how the other people present oppose the use of guns in the situation.

By the way, the British Army destroyed several of the weapons AFTER the inquiry was ordered. The timing may be coincidental but it certainly looks suspicious that they held on to the weapons all those years and then destroyed them on the verge of the inquiry.

another question is why the Paras were brought in at all. Other troops were already in the area who knew the ground better and were more experienced at dealing with this type of situation. The authorities obviously decided it was time to "get tough". Just how much they decided before hand is in dispute.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 10:05 PM

"The question is were 2 Para provoked into a complete loss of fire discipline."

They clearly behaved like an armed rabble, but the main responsibility for that lies with the people who recruited and trained them and unleashed them to do what they had been made ready to do. And the people who lied and covered up and libelled the dead, and fuelled a generation of war.

The important thing is to learn from mistakes, and maybe, just maybe some lessons have been learnt. Though if the lesson is just that there are some things that you can get away with when you are dealing with Third World people that you cannot afford to bring back home to the British Isles - that won't be good enough.

God speed the day when films like this can be made and watched in Israel, for example.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: tremodt
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 09:06 PM

Thank fully and humbly I had the good fortune to visit the Republican Cemetary in Derry City or Doire as I prefer to call it

I have seen many monuments in Ireland and Northern Ireland I have seen Roddy Mc Corleys monument across from the RUC barracksin Toom,

I do not know if i shall go back to Ireland again but I am glad to hevr gone on this last trip and stood in the pouring rain and was able to be in the company of all those people that died for their beliefs A United Ireland

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,marc
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 08:26 PM

"BOBBY Sands would hardly have written a song like that."? Bobby Sands wrote some beautiful poetry.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST,Philippa
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 08:19 PM

Red Eye (opening message): So far the enquiry is reputed to have cost £52 million, not 200.

The films are made independent of the enquiry and of each other. How many films have been made about WWII; does anyone say we should forget about it? In the N Ireland context, we've had two films about the hunger strikes (plus some stage plays) and one about the Birmingham Six; surely Bloody Sunday is as important an issue. (I would not object to the making of films about Warrenpoint, Enniskillen, Omagh -- I might be critical of whatever bias is taken or how the subject matter is covered, but not of it being presented in the first place). I've seen the two tv docu-drama films on Bloody Sunday and I do recommend you watch them if you get the opportunity. Bloody Sunday was on UTV and Irish TV3 Sun night 20 Jan; I don't know about other ITV stations. "Sunday" will be on UK channel 4 Mon 28 Jan.

I live in Derry (but I first came here the year after Bloody Sunday). Although I would have thought everybody knows about what happened, young actors who participated in the films have said that they learned a lot about the event through their involvement - that they did not know much before hand. And although I think most people do now accept that the British Army fired the first shots and that the people who were shot (14 died and 13 others were injured) were unarmed, this is not the official record. The relatives are not satisfied that the Widgery tribunal has not been formally repudiated. As Kevin McGrath pointed out in another Mudcat Bloody Sunday thread a year ago, it is as important to investigate the Widgery cover-up as it is to investigate the actual deeds. The failure of truth and justice in the enquiry 30 years ago led only to increased support for paramilitaries.

Gareth, I don't think you can make such a direct comparison with the IRA. We expect government agents to act within the law. As for the IRA, the organisation has been held responsible for its actions, whether or not individuals have been found guilty for particular deeds. There has been no public exoneration of any paramilitary shootings or bombings, let alone medals awarded. (The early release dates of prisoners conditional on observance of ceasefire is NOT a finding of "not guilty"). In relation to the Bloody Sunday enquiry, there has been pressure put on past members of both the Official and Republican IRA to give evidence. Some have agreed to do so, including Martin McGuinness, who says he was 2nd in command of Provisionals in Derry at the time.

By the way, last Friday the Trade Unions organised large rallies in Belfast, Omagh, Enniskillen, Derry,etc. protesting sectarian intimidation of public sector workers after a Catholic postman was shot and Catholic teachers were threatened in North Belfast. The rallies enjoyed wide support, even from employers and government bodies. The Loyalist threats have been withdrawn - in principle; we shall see what happens in practice. I was surprised that no-one started a Mudcat thread on the issue. I don't often participate in non-music threads, but I noticed there was one about British Prince Harry's underage drinking and I didn't come across any about our peace rallies.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: iRiShBaBe
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 03:02 PM

sorry bout that.. but i knew it was sone sands dood.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 11:04 AM

Yeah, BOBBY Sands would hardly have written a song like that.

A pity that he felt he needed to die in that way, but if there is an afterlife, lets hope its changed his perspective on the situation.

Peace, all

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Amergin
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:44 PM

uh, Irish babe...there were roses was written by tommy sands....

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 07:53 PM

Trouble is with this enquiry is it seems to be a little one sided.

Are the IRA being forced to give evidence, or have thier files opened, or their guns forensically examined ?

I agree that Bloody Sunday was an massacre of the inocents. The question is were 2 Para provoked into a complete loss of fire discipline.

If the truth is wanted, and it should be wanted, lets have both sides of the story.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: iRiShBaBe
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 07:33 PM

guest there was no need for that. every one has their own opinion and clinton has a different one to u and i.

the troubles in the north do need maturity but i for one cant see it happening anytime soon.

what you said clinton reminded me of a song wrote by bobby sands called 'there were roses'. some gripping words which remind us that the catholics and prodestants are as bad as each other. there is no winner or looser in this awful dreadful game but all we can do is not forget the victims.

may their memory live on!

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 01:32 PM

There seemed a contradiction between deploring violence and embracing the most extreme form of it, Clinton. I was reminded of the mother who went up to school to complain about her children's bad language. "It's a fucking disgrace the things the little bastards come out with."

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 01:02 PM

Clinton, Thankfully nuts like you are not involved in England`S dilemma, you just stay put,and keep blowing your top, in whatever looney bin has the misfortune to house you. Steel man

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 04:41 PM

HA! You don't know me very well do ya???

If I could go home tonight and put a bullet in my head and positively guarantee the END of the human race, I wouldn't even hesitate for a second!

Besides, what's the saying about making an omelette??

LOL!!!!

(the above is to be read a satire, and nothing more!!)

But you miss my point, so I'll say it again...

"I'm hopeful that the level of stupidity where these things are concerned is dropping so that such drastic measures will never be needed..."

Both sides are equally guilty... both sides have just as much blood on their hands... both sides have stumbled up and stalled the peace process...

Quite frankly, I could not care any less about a United Ireland... I'd rather see a United Planet!

Countries, provinces, religions, divisions... all the stuff of small petty immature thought...

I'm hopeful that one day the human race will grow up and put such little toys away in favour of tools like maturity, peace, advancement, and understanding...

What I do fear, however is that my comments are dragging this thread off topic, so I'll drop out and let the original thread take its course...

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 04:23 PM

Hello Clinton - or should I say Conrad?

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: iRiShBaBe
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 04:12 PM

clinton hammond, how can a human being be so destructive as to 'push the button' on a provence of people?

do you not realise that outside the political parties, the terrorists and the down right evil in the provence, that ulster is made of PEOPLE, normal innocent people. such people died on Bloody Sunday.

and end to the troubles would be the two sides sitting down to talk which as each one of us knows has failed many a time before. i have no doubt that Ireland will become a united land eventually but at what cost.....

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Hillheader
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 04:07 PM

The point is Redeye that this was done by Government forces supposedly there to keep the peace.

Up until then the soldiers were still seen as protecting the minority. Remember the scenes on the Falls when the women brought tea to the soldiers? Remember that the first shots fired at soldiers was from a rooftop on the Shankhill?

Bloody Sunday changed all that irrevocably. No one seeks to justify the Warrington, Manchester or any other bombing or killing carried out in the alledged name of nationalism but it does not alter the fact that these were British soldiers there in a so-called peace-keeping role.

This was state murder and then the cover-up began. The difference between Bloody Sunday and Watergate is that the US were quick enough to smell and eliminate the rat. The UK has taken 30 years.

Peace

Davebhoy

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 04:01 PM

I'm half with you in your latest post Red Eye, but those innocent civil rights marchers were not just killed, they were adjudged by an official inquiry (undertaken by the UK's Lord Chief Justice) to have been armed terrorists who, broadly speaking, deserved what they got.

If the full panoply of a once-revered judicial system is going to return judgments as perverse as that, then we are entitled to see such judgments revisited in a process that is wide open to public scrutiny. That is what we are getting, day by day, in the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Which is more than would happen in many other countries.

The Blair government (for which I usually have little time) deserves credit for getting the drains up on such a shaming episode (both the deaths and the subsequent Widgery report). You can be sure that when they agreed to do it, the cost (by which I mean the financial cost) would have been their least concern.

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 03:29 PM

McGrath of Harlow

What's yer point?

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Red Eye
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 03:23 PM

Jimmy C, my parents were Irish catholics and staunch believers in a United Ireland. They were active trade union members and believed in the 'rights of man'. I remember the day in question and attended with my parents many marches and mass meetings in England in protest at the slaughter of these poor people. When the British Embassy in Dublin was attacked and burnt out this was seen as enough justice had been served upon the Brits. The real people who matters outcome was that these Civil Right marchers were shot dead by British soldiers on the streets of Derry. Anybody who is bothered about the causes of conflict in N Ireland knows it. It is no use trying to ram this down the throats of the English in England. For everyone of those innocent CR marchers shot dead the English can bring out fifty innocents killed here by the IRA/INLA. This enquiry is doing nothing but opening up wounds that should have been left well alone.

Will there be a film relating to the 11 soldiers blown up at Warren Point?

Subject: RE: Bloody Sunday - Bloody Disgrace?
From: Airto
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 12:45 PM

To take the question in the thread title first, yes it is a disgrace that any enquiry should cost such an amount of money. The gist of what happened is already well known. An official admission would have cut short the exercise.

The second question asked is whether the matter should have been left in the cupboard. No, I don't think so. The British tended to see the Northern Ireland troubles as a matter of 'defeating terrorism'. Bloody Sunday was their first disastrous step in a disastrous strategy.

If the enquiry would hurry up and draw the relevant conclusions it might have some influence on the new guff being spoken about defeating terrorism since September 11.