PDA

View Full Version : All you need to know about lawyers- Bloody Sunday


Fox3WheresMyBanana
14th Feb 2013, 22:15
BBC News - Derry Bloody Sunday families offered £50,000 compensation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-21459312)

If the costs of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry had simply been handed to the 26 families, each would have received £7 million.

..or to present it another way, the lawyers and their ilk took 99.3% of the compensation.

Tankertrashnav
14th Feb 2013, 22:24
I would have bet a pound to a pinch of proverbial that someone would call the offer "derisory".

Bloody Sunday families offered £50,000 compensation - justice or a derisory penny offering? (http://www.politics.ie/forum/justice/206155-bloody-sunday-families-offered-50-000-compensation-justice-derisory-penny-offering.html)

As it happened my pound would have been safe!

racedo
14th Feb 2013, 22:34
40 years after I think the family members would rather have their loved ones than the cash.

SASless
15th Feb 2013, 02:13
Governments just cannot admit error can they?

Is that what a life is worth after all these years?

Vercingetorix
15th Feb 2013, 04:23
Fox3
The BBC is not up to scratch.
Republicans refer to the City as Derry.
It's actual title is Londonderry.

:ok:

Standard Noise
15th Feb 2013, 09:13
I remember the days when the families wanted justice, now money has reared it's head it will become the measure of justice. It was a mistake to offer up compensation as it opens the door to the Republican attack dogs.
So far the families have had some justice in that it has been proclaimed that the victims were innocent and therefore were not lawfully killed. They must now live by the decision on the authorities as to whether any legal proceedings will be issued against the paras involved.
If it turns out that no prosecutions are brought against the paras, then so be it, plenty of people haven't had justice in response to atrocities visited on their lives (Teebane, Sean Graham's Turf Accountant shop on the Ormeau Road, Loughinisland etc etc).

If the families of the Bloody Sunday victims really are after justice, then that is what they should pursue, not a hand out from the 'enemy'.

Tankertrashnav
15th Feb 2013, 09:17
Is that what a life is worth after all these years?


Would you care to suggest an appropriate sum? Or shall we leave the concept of "blood money" to barbarous regimes such as Saudi Arabia, etc?

goudie
15th Feb 2013, 09:53
I've never understood how people can accept money as compensation for the criminal loss of a loved one. What do they do with the money? If they spend it on themselves buying cars, holidays etc. how can they possibly enjoy themselves knowing how they came by it? Donating it to a charity would be the appropriate thing to do, in my mind.

parabellum
15th Feb 2013, 10:29
for the criminal loss of a loved one.


Definitely not the case here though, is it? Martin McGuiness did once admit to firing the first shot. Open fire on the legitimate forces of the Crown and be prepared for the worst. Only the families of the totally innocent should get any kind of compensation.

No Standard Noise, they were not all Innocent, if you are innocent you don't climb up behind a chimney on a block of housing with a rifle and shoot at police and soldiers, if you are innocent and have any sense you get right out of the way.

dat581
15th Feb 2013, 10:40
If Martin McGuiness admited to firing the first shot and causing the fire fight should the cost of the case and the compensation be paid by him?

SASless
15th Feb 2013, 13:17
Odd....do we apply the same standard to villagers in Afghanistan or the Tribal Lands of Pakistan......when we launch Hellfires on them or do we take safeguards to ensure we only hit the intended target?

Funny how some of you Brits seem to think less of the Irish than you do Afghani's.

If one guy fires off a shot from a huge crowd.....you gun down dozens of unarmed people in return? Now that makes a lot of sense

SpringHeeledJack
15th Feb 2013, 13:51
The BBC is not up to scratch.
Republicans refer to the City as Derry.
It's actual title is Londonderry.

Due to the ever festering sectarian animosity most references are to the city of Derry/Londonderry so as not to offend someone with a grudge. :rolleyes:


SHJ

SASless
15th Feb 2013, 14:15
Basil,

You contradict yourself in your own post.

Yes...I do expect the Para's to have held their fire unless and until they had a clear shot at someone with a firearm....absolutely! Once they had that clear shot then by all means....eliminate the threat.

Were it your family out there laying in the street, would you say the same thing.

If you really believe that which you say.....you must endorse the My Lai Massacre then and see Lt. Calley, Capt. Medina, and all the US troops that murdered several hundred civilians that day as being Heroes!

You recall despite every effort of the US Army to cover that atrocity up....including Colin Powell....we prosecuted those who committed the killings. It was a young Army Warrant Officer helicopter pilot and his Door Gunner that stopped the killing by offering to kill those who were doing the killing and then reported the atrocity.

Yes....we must hold our Military and Police to such stringent standards otherwise our Society is lost.

Your comment demonstrates the utter blind senseless hatred that causes mass murder and mayhem.

Rather than seeking peaceful ways to deal with conflict....you suggest that killing in kind as a solution?

Seldomfitforpurpose
15th Feb 2013, 14:22
Rather than seeking peaceful ways to deal with conflict....you suggest that killing in kind as a solution?

Slightly differant stance from one taken in another long running thread :=

charliegolf
15th Feb 2013, 14:29
with a rifle and shoot at police and soldiers,

Did that happen? He hit anyone? Why wasn't he shot off the roof?

CG

Shack37
15th Feb 2013, 14:40
Originally posted by vercingtorix
Fox3
The BBC is not up to scratch.
Republicans refer to the City as
Derry. It's actual title is Londonderry.

Yes the title is Londonderry, however the name Derry is not used only by republicans. As a very NON republican Protestant, brought up in 1950s/60s East Belfast, I, my family and schoolfriends et al always used Derry when referring to that city. Even when stationed at RAF BK in 1971 I and most others continued to use Derry including colleagues who were from there.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
15th Feb 2013, 15:11
Shack37 - always best if someone who knows says it.

The discussion I had hoped to generate was not on the merits or morals of the use of an army to handle riots (anywhere), but about the gravy train that is an Inquiry.

Thoughts anyone?

Davaar
15th Feb 2013, 15:15
Republicans refer to the City as Derry.
It's actual title is Londonderry.



I have a vague recollection that the prefix "London" was placed there long after the "Derry" by one John Bull or his agents. Do have anything on that?

In 1954 when I was briefly at RAF Ballykelly (not, of course, "Londonballykelly") there was a local "flag day" run by the "DCBF" ("Darry Catlik Buildin' Fond"). That, of course, is not determinative.

goudie
15th Feb 2013, 15:21
Thoughts anyone?

An Inquiry takes the heat and responsibility away from the politicians. The cost never seems to be a problem either..after all it's only tax-payers money!
Meanwhile lawyers burn their hands as they furiously rub them together.

Thems my thoughts!

SASless
15th Feb 2013, 15:46
Basi.....you see that I deleted that immediately upon re-reading my post....and before your reply.

The concept of armed soldiers shooting unarmed civilians is totally repugnant to me. Your endorsement of that provoked my deleted comment.

My ROE in Vietnam very much restricted us to with holding our fire until we could ensure no friendlies or civilians were in danger if we were to return fire.

My Police experience at both the local and Federal level imposed that same duty upon me.

If you cannot understand or accept the necessity for those kinds of restrictions and discipline then you are certainly part of the problem and not part of the solution.

BANDIT12
15th Feb 2013, 16:17
I was going to post a whole speel but decided not to, so just for the record. Derry name is another propaganda campaign by the republician movement, anything British (London)has to be despised, but History shows that the Unionist community called it Derry long before The Sash - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sash)




The beauty of being a terrorist, they don't want to play by the law or rules of engagement, but they want to be protected by the same laws and rules of engagement afforded to the law abiding public.

Krystal n chips
15th Feb 2013, 16:42
SASless,

In view of your perceptions, possibly this event has escaped your ( limited and selective ) memory.

Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)

" If one guy fires off a shot from a huge crowd.....you gun down dozens of unarmed people in return? Now that makes a lot of sense "

You were saying ?

SASless
15th Feb 2013, 16:55
There were criminal prosecutions.....you were saying?

Krystal n chips
15th Feb 2013, 17:10
" There were criminal prosecutions.....you were saying?"

Ah, right..so the prosecutions subsequently negated the opening fire on unarmed civilians .....justice has / was been seen to be done....so that's ok.

For a former "special agent "....you don't seem to be the most astute when it comes to understanding that not everything in this world is purely, and simplisticly, " black and white." .

Let alone the reason for me posting the link.

As they say in Belfast " maybe you were talking when you should have thinking son " .

bluecode
15th Feb 2013, 17:20
Amazing to think after all these years, after all the money spent on the inquiry and after the conclusion of said inquiry completely exonerated the victims of the massacre. We still have people who seek to justify the actions of the paras that day. Sure they were only Paddies weren't they? Irish people out protesting their status as second class citizens in their own country being mown down by the army of the Queen. Followed by a cover up, an attempt to blacken the name of the victims and a long running attempt to place the blame of anywhere but where it belongs.

Not very British that? Or is it?

But there was a previous bloody sunday back in 1920 in Dublin when the infamous armed thugs known as the Black and Tans fired into a crowd at a football match. Killed 14 too and as usual there was the cover up and the justification for the killings.

Again there were inquiries only this time they were suppressed.

Nothing changes.:ugh:

BANDIT12
15th Feb 2013, 17:42
As opposed to the uprightous PIRA who defended Ireland from the invading Brits. Isn't it amazing during the Good Friday talks the republician movement wanted the whole conflict to be recognised as a war, so the prisioners could be released early as POW's.
I have never known a war where there has never been civilian casualties

BBC News - Sean Kelly released unconditionally (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21455242)


Nothing changes is right.

Bronx
15th Feb 2013, 17:49
Amazing to think after all these years, after all the money spent on the inquiry and after the conclusion of said inquiry completely exonerated the victims of the massacre. We still have people who seek to justify the actions of the paras that day.





Clue: This is Jetblast. ;)

Mr Chips
15th Feb 2013, 18:19
Bloody Sunday. We will never know what actually happened that day, or why. Clue - "witnesses" to that Inquiry lied

BUT if the innocents killed that day are due compensation, when will we see compensation for all the innocents killed and maimed by the IRA?

racedo
15th Feb 2013, 18:24
Basil,

You contradict yourself in your own post.

Yes...I do expect the Para's to have held their fire unless and until they had a clear shot at someone with a firearm....absolutely! Once they had that clear shot then by all means....eliminate the threat.

Were it your family out there laying in the street, would you say the same thing.

If you really believe that which you say.....you must endorse the My Lai Massacre then and see Lt. Calley, Capt. Medina, and all the US troops that murdered several hundred civilians that day as being Heroes!

You recall despite every effort of the US Army to cover that atrocity up....including Colin Powell....we prosecuted those who committed the killings. It was a young Army Warrant Officer helicopter pilot and his Door Gunner that stopped the killing by offering to kill those who were doing the killing and then reported the atrocity.

Yes....we must hold our Military and Police to such stringent standards otherwise our Society is lost.

Your comment demonstrates the utter blind senseless hatred that causes mass murder and mayhem.

Rather than seeking peaceful ways to deal with conflict....you suggest that killing in kind as a solution?


:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Tourist
15th Feb 2013, 18:34
SASLess

Your atitude surprises me.

We have been fighting a bloody war against the IRA for a very long time while the US funded them.

Every now and then something like Bloody Sunday happened where a few relative innocents got slotted in the heat of battle/conflict/stress.

Bad things happen in a war.

A couple of twats fly into a couple of big buildings and the US kill hundreds of thousands of people in unrelated countries but still think to lecture us on our conduct in war......?

Quite frankly sod off.

racedo
15th Feb 2013, 18:35
Bloody Sunday. We will never know what actually happened that day, or why. Clue - "witnesses" to that Inquiry lied

BUT if the innocents killed that day are due compensation, when will we see compensation for all the innocents killed and maimed by the IRA?

In the cases of terrorism the Police investigated, arrested and the State charged and jailed if convicted those who they believed responsible. There was also compensation available of various kinds to people.

In the case of Bloody Sunday there was no police investigation, no arrests and nobody charged just a whitewash and a campaign of coverup by the establishment.

To indulge in well the IRA did this etc etc begs a real question.

Are people seriously stating that the State and Military can go around killing people and not be subject to any sanction, investigation or action ?

If that is the case then when was a Coup declared.

Standard Noise
15th Feb 2013, 18:38
Parabellum
No Standard Noise, they were not all Innocent, if you are innocent you don't climb up behind a chimney on a block of housing with a rifle and shoot at police and soldiers

Which of the 13 people who died that day, or the other 15 who were injured, was up on a roof behind a chimney with a rifle firing at anyone? If you're talking about that oxygen thieving gobshite Martin McGuinness, then I don't think anyone would disagree there but your assertion doesn't hold water where the victims are concerned.
You might want to do a bit of research before commenting matey.

Mr Chips
15th Feb 2013, 18:40
racedo firstly, thank you for totally ignoring the first line of my post.

Secondly, please show me where the murdering scum that called themselves the IRA ever paid compensation to the families of those that they killed.

SASless
15th Feb 2013, 18:45
the US funded them

Same old tired argument....and a patently false statement.

The United States did not fund them. Irish sympathizers amongst our population did. In past threads and posts I have reminded you Brits that the US Government finally got around to doing something about that and enacted laws that made funding, supporting, or giving aid to ANY Terrorist organization a crime.

Was the government slow....hell yes! But, we were slow to get cranked up about this whole Terrorism thing until 911.

Blanket statements as quoted above are based upon some shallow thinking.

Understand the only pro-Irish leanings I have are limited to Guinness, Jameson and Bushmill whisky, and music.

I lived in the UK long enough to understand that I will never understand why it has taken all ya'll so long to give up on killing one another over a sad tragic mistake made by one of your Kings all those hundreds of years ago.

It is your problem....both sides committed atrocities.

Time you admitted it, accept it, and get on with finding away to live in Peace if not Harmony.

A constant thread in discussions at this forum is about how our actions against the Islamic Terrorists, the Iraqi Insurgents, and other groups only serves to promote more hatred, fighting, and recruitment.

When someone points out that is exactly what went on in Northern Ireland for how may years......you get your nose out of joint.

The one thing that shows clearly is the fact you don't like the truth.

parabellum
15th Feb 2013, 19:58
Standard Noise - You made a good post there 'matey', right up until you wrote this:

You might want to do a bit of research before commenting matey.


...then you blew it.

On another subject, I think we have to accept the fact that SASless is partisan and reacts as partisans do.

charliegolf
15th Feb 2013, 20:14
I think we have to accept the fact that SASless is partisan

Wot, SAS is a Catholic?

CG

BANDIT12
15th Feb 2013, 20:34
To indulge in well the IRA did this etc etc begs a real question.

Are you saying they had no part to play?


Are people seriously stating that the State and Military can go around killing people and not be subject to any sanction, investigation or action ?


Yes, to protect the majority law abiders.

Krystal n chips
15th Feb 2013, 20:38
"
The one thing that shows clearly is the fact you don't like the truth."

As you quantified in your response to my link.

Next ?

SASless
15th Feb 2013, 20:47
"Partisan" is defined as being a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

Now as I am an American, not a Catholic, not of Irish ancestry, have no financial interest or holdings in the UK, Northern Ireland, belong to no political party with a stake in the situation, and have never been in Northern Ireland, have no kin folk that have any connection either, have not donated to either side, and have condemned both sides for committing atrocities....please do tell how that definition applies.

As I drink both Jamesons and Bush Mills....I can hardly be accused of taking sides even in my choice of Whisky.

However, certain posters sure do seem to fit that description.

Shack37
15th Feb 2013, 20:48
Posted by SASless

My ROE in Vietnam very much restricted us to with holding our fire until we
could ensure no friendlies or civilians were in danger if we were to return
fire.


In the two (minor) arguments I was involved in, Aden and NI, our ROE were also quite clear. We carried a card with instructions as to under what circumstances we could open fire and what actions had to be taken before doing so, often putting ourselves at a disadvantage. That some people ignored those criteria at times is regrettable. What happened on Bloody Sunday is more than regrettable.

Vercingetorix
15th Feb 2013, 21:13
Shack37
Try walking down Sandy Row and using the title Derry
or
try walking down The Falls and saying Londonderry.

I wish you luck. :ok:

racedo
15th Feb 2013, 21:40
Yes, to protect the majority law abiders.

So you support the Army being called out to execute those who have been rioting on the flags issue in Belfast ?

Advocating that those who supposedly are there to uphold the law as judge jury and executioner sounds so wonderful until they start shooting people who speed, they breaking the law are they not ?

racedo
15th Feb 2013, 21:50
The United States did not fund them.

When people using that excuse then I have asked people why our Govt has been funding terrorism in Africa.

Mark Thatcher son of one Margaret T, funded, aided and assisted an attempted Coup in Equatorial Guinea which is clearly terrorism and received a 4 yr suspended sentence in South Africa.

Now there is no evidence that UK Govt under one Anthony Blair was involved but by the same token that is used against Americans it was UK doing it.

500N
15th Feb 2013, 21:51
"So you support the Army being called out to execute those who have been rioting on the flags issue in Belfast ?

Advocating that those who supposedly are there to uphold the law as judge jury and executioner sounds so wonderful until they start shooting people who speed, they breaking the law are they not ?"


"So you support the US President being called to sign executive orders to execute those who have been plotting terrorist activities ?

Advocating that those who supposedly are there to uphold the law as judge jury and executioner sounds so wonderful as long as it is done under the auspices of the United States ?"


Very similar.

500N
15th Feb 2013, 21:54
"The United States did not fund them."

It was too busy funding everything else overthrow related
that they didn't like around the globe.

mini
15th Feb 2013, 23:25
To give NI its due, it was a microcosm of all that was wrong in state response to insurgents.

The lessons learned are still being applied today in many theatres.

Shack37
16th Feb 2013, 14:32
It's also worth remembering that the army was brought in to help an overwhelmed police force to protect protesting civil rights campaigners from loyalist crowds. The first army casualties I saw were caused by these same "loyalists" with bricks.
It was the IRA who raised the stakes by later attacking the forces of the Crown and civilians alike with bombs in pubs and restaurants in the name of protecting "republican" areas.

The OP is of course correct, the lawyers will always come out winning.

BANDIT12
16th Feb 2013, 15:15
racedo posted


So you support the Army being called out to execute those who have been rioting on the flags issue in Belfast ?



Why would the British army turn guns on British citizens?

racedo
16th Feb 2013, 15:36
Why would the British army turn guns on British citizens?

They did on Bloody Sunday.

BANDIT12
16th Feb 2013, 16:47
So now the Nationalist community view themselves as British? Never have done and never will.

racedo
16th Feb 2013, 20:37
So now the Nationalist community view themselves as British? Never have done and never will.

Ignoring the question.

Do you deem it acceptable for the Army to have fired on civilians in the UK and Northern Ireland ?

500N
16th Feb 2013, 20:41
If you class members of the IRA as civilians then yes.

Shack37
16th Feb 2013, 20:41
Do you deem it acceptable for the Army to have fired on civilians in the UK
and Northern Ireland ?


The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

In the case of returning fire......too right.

parabellum
17th Feb 2013, 07:18
In the case of returning fire......too right.


Well said Shack, a fact many choose to ignore. Hiding behind the skirts and prams of the innocents is nothing new to terrorists.

500N
17th Feb 2013, 09:13
I read this "Left-winger John O’Farrell" and "A second generation IRA sympathiser,"

And thought for a minute he was related to Mairéad Farrell, who was one of
the three shot in Gibraltar.

SASless
17th Feb 2013, 09:34
Hiding behind the skirts and prams of the innocents is nothing new to terrorists.


Yes....that is a well known tactic....and it begs the Security Forces to kill Unarmed Women and Children and create more hate and generate a wonderful PR Media event to be heard all round the World if the Security Forces open fire and shoot into the crowd.

By losing control, allowing a break down in discipline....you play right into the hands of the Terrorists don't you?


As to the loony comments by the Farrell character.....we have the same kind of talk over here. Our loony left are just as obnoxious in their comments about Police Officers being shot, Ronald Reagan being shot, attempts on Gerald Ford's life.....so what is new in this about that.

Hell Fire....look at BH Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers....who was a Terrorist who set off several bombs protesting the Vietnam War. The guy has been a guest in the White House.

parabellum
17th Feb 2013, 09:44
Yes....that is a well known tactic....and it begs the Security Forces to kill
Unarmed Women and Children and create more hate and generate a wonderful
PR Media event to be heard all
round the World if the Security Forces open fire and shoot into the crowd.


So you hold your fire and let them shoot you instead, from their safe vantage point behind their women and kids, right? Thinking South Lebanon and Hezbolla here, as well as Derry/Londonderry.

SASless
17th Feb 2013, 09:52
What would you do.....mow down the crowd and let God sort them out?:ugh:

Yes....you hold your fire until you can get a clear shot on the folks doing the shooting.

I should think you learned that from Bloody Sunday.:=

parabellum
17th Feb 2013, 09:55
I suspect I have a litle more experience of close quarter street fighting and not so much of the :ugh::ugh: either, you fought your war at a different level and in a different environment.

SASless
17th Feb 2013, 10:46
So....you killed them all and let God sort them out did you?

That is what you seem to be advocating.

Killing an infant in a pram or in a Mother's arms....is acceptable to you?

racedo
17th Feb 2013, 13:33
If you class members of the IRA as civilians then yes.

We are talking about Bloody Sunday.

racedo
17th Feb 2013, 13:34
The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

In the case of returning fire......too right.

Returning fire on a civilian march that hasn't fired on you is called a massacre is it not ?

Dan Winterland
17th Feb 2013, 13:49
"the US funded them"

"Same old tired argument....and a patently false statement."


Patently false? The IRA ceased to exist not too long atfer the ninth of September, 2001 when the people who provided much of their income reaslised that making donations "to the cause" meant that they too were funding terror.

hellsbrink
17th Feb 2013, 14:22
Utter bollocks, Dan, IRA Army Council announced the end of the armed campaign in July 2005, almost 4 years after 9/11 and certainly long after "not too long after 9/11".

SASless
17th Feb 2013, 14:44
One estimate given was a million rounds of ammunition and approximately 2500 weapons were sent from the USA by members of the IRA. Later attempts to improve the flow of arms to include Manpads....wound up with the IRA Ring Master being arrested and convicted of crimes. Seems the FBI had infiltrated the Ring....cultivated an informer....video taped and monitored the negotiations for the purchase in an FBI run Sting Op. That was in 1981 or so as I recall.

I would suggest the Libyan connection provided far more support than did support by private US Citizens.

But....ya'll keep on telling your story your way if it makes you happy.

I will pose the question of how much support the British government provided the IRA Cause by Internment of over 2,000 people without trial, allowing Hunger Strikes to result in the death of those protesting, covering up the outrage known as Bloody Sunday, and being culpable in the discrimination and political oppression of those on the other side.

Which do you think was the more serious factor in the troubles?

500N
17th Feb 2013, 14:48
But how much of the money paid to Libya came from the US ?

racedo
17th Feb 2013, 17:55
But how much of the money paid to Libya came from the US ?

I don't think any of it as Gadaffi I believe was willing to provide weapons for free.

SASless
17th Feb 2013, 18:04
Did not the UK offer Libya money to not support the IRA?

wings folded
17th Feb 2013, 18:56
I will pose the question of how much support the British government provided the IRA Cause by Internment of over 2,000 people without trial,


I do not know the answer; it is a genuine question.

How many people are currently being held at Guantanamo without trial?

Can you enlighten me?

SASless
17th Feb 2013, 19:42
Very few....and at the max....about 600-700 or so as I recall.

They were Illegal Combatants captured on the battle field.

How about your fellow citizens taken from within your own country without any legal proceeding, Indictment, Trial, or Conviction.

Two very different things don't you think?

Civil Rights don't mean much to the ya'll over there do they?

I guess you are trying to say two wrongs make a right are you?

I can give you a better example to use next time....the Internment of Americans of Japanese Ancestry during WWII....ordered by FDR and declared illegal by the Supreme Court.

Shack37
17th Feb 2013, 21:15
Returning fire on a civilian march that hasn't fired on you is called a
massacre is it not ?


Yes of course it is and if you read my earlier posts I said exactly that. My comment on returning fire in no way conflicts with that statement.

racedo
17th Feb 2013, 22:01
I can give you a better example to use next time....the Internment of Americans of Japanese Ancestry during WWII....ordered by FDR and declared illegal by the Supreme Court.

It went on in UK as well.....

BBC - WW2 People's War - Timeline (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6651858.shtml)

stuckgear
17th Feb 2013, 23:33
Very few....and at the max....about 600-700 or so as I recall.

They were Illegal Combatants captured on the battle field.

How about your fellow citizens taken from within your own country without any legal proceeding, Indictment, Trial, or Conviction.

Two very different things don't you think?

Civil Rights don't mean much to the ya'll over there do they?


indeed and to tack on to that, those enemy combatants have ended up there through a specific process which i wont go into on a public forum.

they havnt just been plucked and interred for shits and giggles.

and in terms of civil liberties in europe/uk.. three letters EAW. :hmm:

West Coast
18th Feb 2013, 00:25
Curious how an internet search finds a number of charities in the UK that are suspected of diverting funds to the likes of Hamas. Kind of makes those whining about alleged IRA fund raising in the US seem a bit two faced when pontificating about it. I do remember a number of years ago that the Israeli government asked the British government to curb terrorist funding coming from UK. I can't recall the diplomatic speak for go pack sand, but that was the response.

SASless
18th Feb 2013, 00:32
Westie......tis not nice to confuse an argument with facts. It does not amuse those sat on very tall horses!

TBirdFrank
18th Feb 2013, 00:44
The biggest obstacle here is writing about Bloody Sunday 41 years on.

Bloody Sunday was a gift to the IRA hotheads who had been fed a diet of discrimination and diminishment by the proddies ever since partition, and in fact long before that too.

Ulster was a tinderbox waiting to go off, the consequence of the better education of the post war generation and their higher aspirations being held in check just because of which church they worshipped in; a time bomb ticking away waiting for something to detonate it.

As a young English kid I didn't know what I was getting involved in when I stepped off the ferry at Donegal Quay on the 12th July 1969. My first sight of a UK policeman - a B Special in bottle green, with a pistol soon brought me up short!

I saw at first hand, for just one day, the bigotry and hatred over there, and as I had friends my parents' age who were Ulster Catholic and Protestant, and who had moved to England for the sake of their lives - I educated myself as to what this was all about.

If there was right on anyone's side it was with the Civil Liberties people who simply wanted what we had in the rest of the UK - but the "Orange" side weren't up for it.

Their marches were obstructed and attacked by the Ulster security forces so is it any surprise that the republicans took a position alongside them.

But until Bloody Sunday there was no common bond, no unity of purpose, and certainly no embodiment of violence by those seeking reform.

Bloody Sunday put a stop to that - created a war between the army and Ulster catholics and did more to create the thirty years of violence that are still not 100% behind us yet.

Of course I would rather have a para on my side than a provo, Laser will tell you about his tours of duty over there and the downs of an Ulster tour, but all that said - I still felt uncomfortable on a vist to Ulster the other year.

The Union and Red Hand Flags fluttering on the lamp posts of certain villages are not just flags of loyalty, The implied threat is still there, smarting at its "loss of supremacy" whne in fact it is no worse off at all and a whole lot better off than anywhere comparable in the UK sixty years ago.

Krystal n chips
18th Feb 2013, 04:53
" tis not nice to confuse an argument with facts. It does not amuse those sat on very tall horses"

How very apt....given the distinct lack of cowboys in the UK.

parabellum
18th Feb 2013, 10:37
that hasn't fired on you


Had that been the case people would agree with you but the IRA have admitted they fired first.





covering up the outrage known as Bloody Sunday
:confused:

SASless
18th Feb 2013, 11:53
OK...so one guy with a pistol claims to have fired the first shot....which remains unproven despite every investigation....how do you go from that singular act to gunning down dozens of unarmed people?

Do tell us how you see that being "right", "proper", and "justifiable" and not being Murder.....nay.....Mass Murder?

Lay out your case and convince us your position is correct, honorable, and within the ROE's of the time?

Shack37
18th Feb 2013, 14:13
TBF
Their marches were obstructed and attacked by the Ulster security forces so is it any surprise that the republicans took a position alongside them.
But until Bloody Sunday there was no common bond, no unity of purpose, and certainly no embodiment of violence by those seeking reform.
Bloody Sunday put a stop to that - created a war between the army and Ulster catholics and did more to create the thirty years of violence that are still not 100% behind us yet.

If you're saying there was no IRA violence before 1972 I disagree. As I posted earlier, my memory is of the army being brought in to assist an exhausted RUC to protect civil rights marches and catholic areas. The first troops to arrive were based at RAF BK and I saw them coming back from this "protection" duty with injuries inflicted by the loyalist mobs.
It was the IRA who escalated the violence to include the murder of 100's of civilians in pubs and restaurants.

McGuinness was a local IRA volunteer/commander in Derry already back then. Whether he fired any shot on that day is irrelevant, the Paras should not have acted as they did.

parabellum
18th Feb 2013, 22:16
which remains unproven despite every investigation....how do you go from that
singular act to gunning down dozens of unarmed people?

Total tosh. The proof is that McGuiness admitted he fired the first shot and he wasn't the only one in position and armed, it was as close to an ambush as you will get, a deliberate act of provocation and it worked.

No I don't agree that deliberately shooting into a crowd of unarmed civilians is correct or good, of course not. Now, please, get yourself out there, in the street and buiiding environment, in a similar situation, being shot at, from where you don't know and you may get a better understanding of that kind of situation.

Nothing more to say, you SASless, have made up your mind, based largely on inaccuracies and then closed it.

TBirdFrank
19th Feb 2013, 00:44
I did not say that - the IRA in all its guises had dirty hands before, during, and still today shows up in places where those who will never learn that jaw jaw is indeed better then war war ply their unpleasant trade.

The IRA wanted the division of Ulster society - the paras handed it to them on a plate

SASless
19th Feb 2013, 01:45
Parabellum,

Just what are you saying then.....that the Para's were right, that they were shot at, and that the folks that got shot deserved it because you believe there were shots fired at the Para's.

How many Para's were wounded on Bloody Sunday?

How many killed by gunfire from the IRA gunmen you seem to think both instigated the gunfire and were shooting at the Para's?

Are you trying to suggest YOU have been shot at by the IRA?

The Saville Report states the Para's opened fire first and did so without justifiable cause in that non one had threatened them with Petrol Bombs or Nail Bombs.

McGinnis is thought to have had a Thompson SMG but may not have fired the weapon....and if he did it was AFTER the Para's had opened fire. The Para's gave no warning and had rounds in the chambers of their weapons....both violation of the orders they had been given.

parabellum
19th Feb 2013, 10:09
McGinnis is thought to have had a Thompson SMG but may not have fired the
weapon....and if he did it was AFTER the Para's had opened fire.


So there we have it! McGinnis was a liar! The Saville Report has been ridiculed from coast to coast as being a sop to people, (like you perhaps?), that can only see one side of a story.

you seem to think both instigated the gunfire and were shooting at the Para's?

Nope, I don't 'seem to think' I am quoting established facts, their own man, McGinnis has already admitted his complicity and the intentions of his fellow gunman on that day.

You are making up your own story as you go along and choosing to ignore established facts. I really do, this time, have nothing more to say to you, you are a dreamer SASless and I cannot fathom dreams.

Seldomfitforpurpose
19th Feb 2013, 10:39
If anyone is daft enough to actually believe ALL the facts came out in the Saville Report then maybe they should have all sharp objects etc removed from their presence.

Was it really in the best interest of the IRA etc to actually come clean, I think not.

SASless
19th Feb 2013, 11:00
Basil....quoting from the Saville Report is lying/



Parabellum....you still refuse to answer any questions directed at you.....what are you afraid of that prevents you from answering?


You two seem to be defending the indefensible......Soldiers shooting unarmed people in the back as they ran away from the Troops.

Hells Bells.....talk about denial? And....I don't mean the river in Egypt.

West Coast
19th Feb 2013, 15:09
Para

Who should have been held to the higher standard that day, a terrorist or the Para's?

I walked the streets of Mogadishu disadvantaged by the ROE, but that's the way it was.

SASless
19th Feb 2013, 15:30
Westie,

When were you in Moga? Perhaps we might have crossed paths there? I was really disadvantaged....not allowed to carry a gun at all.

racedo
19th Feb 2013, 16:03
The IRA wanted the division of Ulster society - the paras handed it to them on a plate

What a load of rubbish.

NI society was already divided between those who held power and everything for the majority population and the minority population who were discriminated at every turn.

The electoral boundaries were gerrymandered to ensure Unionist majorities even when they in substantial minorities.

That doesn't speak of a united society rather one divided deliberately by politicians based on someones releigion.

NI Civil Rights movement grew based on addressing these inequalities.

TBirdFrank
19th Feb 2013, 16:12
100% with you on all the above - it was a fertile ground for the provos from the outset - the paras supplied the growing medium.

racedo
19th Feb 2013, 16:31
100% with you on all the above - it was a fertile ground for the provos from the outset - the paras supplied the growing medium.

Surprisingly I don't think it was.

By Bloody Sunday it was becoming like that but when it was percived that rather than acting as neutral the army were taking sides it started to change.

Following Bloody Sunday no recruitment was needed.

BANDIT12
19th Feb 2013, 19:02
OK...so one guy with a pistol claims to have fired the first shot....which remains unproven despite every investigation....how do you go from that singular act to gunning down dozens of unarmed people?


Please at least state the facts correctly.

In the last two weeks of January the IRA was particularly active. In 80 separate incidents in Londonderry 319 shots were fired at the security forces and 84 nail bombs were thrown at them; two men of the security forces were killed and two wounded. The Londonderry Development Commission has estimated that between 1 August 1971 and about the middle of February 1972 damage amounting to more than £6 million was inflicted in Londonderry.


This is the background to the events that led up to the day. Hardly a peaceful place.



The Saville Report states the Para's opened fire first and did so without justifiable cause in that non one had threatened them with Petrol Bombs or Nail Bombs.


A few figures will show the serious threat not only to the commercial areas of the City but also to the lives of the security forces. From 1 August 1971 to 9 February 1972 in Londonderry 2,656 shots were fired at the security forces, 456 nail and gelignite bombs were thrown and there were 225 explosions, mostly against business premises.
35. Shortly before 4 o’clock, and before the Paras had moved across William Street, two incidents occurred there involving the firing of high velocity rounds. Although they are not of particular importance in the context of the afternoon as a whole, they are interesting if only because their circumstances can be ascertained with a fair degree of certainty. The officers of 1 Para had previously been engaged in the morning on reconnaissance of various routes that could be used if the Battalion were called upon to move forward and make arrests in the area of Rossville Street and William Street. Obviously the Battalion could move the barriers and go through them; but at one time it was thought that they might wish to enter William Street somewhat to the west of Little James Street in order to outflank the vacant land at "Aggro Corner" (the corner of William Street and Rossville Street). The Company Commander of the Support Company found a route over a wall by the side of the Presbyterian Church which he considered might be useful for this purpose, but which was obstructed by wire. Accordingly he sent a wire-cutting party to make this route usable if required. Whilst some soldiers from the Mortar Platoon were cutting the wire a single high velocity round was fired from somewhere near the Rossville Flats and struck a rainwater pipe on the side of the Presbyterian Church just above their heads. A large number of witnesses gave evidence about this incident, which clearly occurred, and which proves that at that stage there was at least one sniper, equipped with a high velocity weapon, established somewhere in the vicinity of the Rossville Flats and prepared to open fire on the soldiers.

but before the Paras moved into Rossville Street. Mr Beggin, a BBC cameraman, who went through the William Street barrier with soldiers of C Company and watched the soldiers of Support Company crossing the open ground in front of the Rossville Flats, heard a number of shots fired apparently from the Flats before the soldiers themselves opened fire. Mr Phillips, Mr Seymour, Mr Wilkinson and Mr Hammond, members of an Independent Television News team, who also went through the William Street barrier behind the Paras, all heard machine gun fire as the soldiers went across the open space. They also heard single shots but were not unanimous as to whether or not the automatic fire came first. It has been established that the troops did not use automatic weapons. So though the ITN men were not able to throw much light on the question of who fired first, their evidence did addconsiderable weight to the probability that the soldiers were fired on very soon after getting out of their vehicles. After the initial firing at the Rossville Street barricade, Mr Mailey, a resident of Londonderry and a free-lance photographer, heard three shots of a much lower calibre than that of the Army’s weapons. Mr Winchester of the Guardian heard a single rifle shot from the direction of the Little Diamond some time before the Paras came through the barriers. A few minutes later and still before the Paras appeared, he saw youths clearing people away from an entrance to Columbcille Court in a manner which suggested to him that they were clearing a field of fire for a sniper. After he had reached the south side of the Rossville Flats he heard some low calibre fire in answer to the Army’s fire and also some automatic fire from the general direction of the Flats. Mr Winchester and Mr Wade of the Daily Telegraph were fired at by a gunman armed with a low calibre weapon, possibly a .22 rifle, as they made their way out of the Bogside at the end of the afternoon after the main shooting was over. Mr Bedell, a Londoner who was on holiday in Northern Ireland, was present at the meeting at Free Derry Corner. From there he saw the armoured vehicles arrive in Rossville Street and heard firing. Some minutes later he saw several cars drive down from the Creggan. About two dozen men armed with rifles and automatic weapons got out, dispersed amongst the flats on the north side of Westland Street and fired about 50 rounds at the soldiers. When the gunmen withdrew, Mr Bedell saw a crowd of about 50 civilians surround and give cover to one of the gunmen who had been separated from the main body, so that he was able to rejoin the others in safety. Mr Kunioka, a Japanese student at the London Film School, saw a man armed with a rifle in Westland Street.

Don't let the pira version get in the way of the facts.

gingernut
19th Feb 2013, 21:44
..or to present it another way, the lawyers and their ilk took 99.3% of the compensation.

Ooer....we (the NHS) spend about a tenth of out budget, on litigation costs. (Twice as much as we do on cancer care.)

How can I find out how much of that 10 billion went to the aggrieved?

BenThere
19th Feb 2013, 21:57
I think I can settle the question once and for all as a disinterested observer.

IRA wanted to provoke violence so as to move toward consolidation of Ulster with Ireland. UK and the Ulster majority wanted to preserve the status quo.

As IRA was the primary instigator of violence, including indiscriminate killing of civilians, they forfeited their legitimacy. Police and military efforts to protect against IRA were valid and justified. Justice prevailed.

Any questions?

I have relatives on both sides of the issue.

SASless
19th Feb 2013, 22:11
indiscriminate killing of civilians


Excuse me BT.....but is that not what happened on Bloody Sunday....but by the Military?

Likewise....Peace did not reign as you suggest and even today the Soldiers' names remain unpublished out of fear of possible retaliation.

I see it as more a Cease Fire after significant political concessions and other changes were made that began to answer the grievances of those supporting insurrection.

Old tensions may have lessened....but it does seem they remain very strong yet....which can be confirmed by some of the posts on this thread.

It takes more than a few decades for old hatreds to weaken to the point one could be assured that both sides have been able to forgive past harms done during the Troubles.

There are some very good documentaries that address that topic.

BenThere
19th Feb 2013, 22:28
I hear you, SASless, but the conflict over decades was as I stated - IRA provoking violence and plotting and committing terrorism.

All that was done in fighting IRA was not always pure, but nevertheless wasn't instigated by the Brits, as I see it. The Irish had, and have, a good case to make, but violence against civilians is not the way to make it. On the other side, Ulster loyalists have a valid claim as well.

I tend to think partition as it exists is the fairest way foreward. Admittedly, I don't live with it day to day and I could be wrong.

parabellum
19th Feb 2013, 22:37
Parabellum....you still refuse to answer any questions directed at you.....what
are you afraid of that prevents you from answering?

See my post #85



No I don't agree that deliberately shooting into a crowd of unarmed civilians
is correct or good, of course not.


Selective memory or simply not reading certain posts?

Excuse me BT.....but is that not what happened on Bloody Sunday....but by
the Military?

SASless, you appear to have completely missed BANDIT12's post #97, either that or you are deliberately ignoring any post that disagrees with your viewpoint

SASless
20th Feb 2013, 00:08
The Peanut Gallery is short a full squad.....vacancy sorted!

Lord Spandex Masher
20th Feb 2013, 00:10
Pretty soon he'll only have himself to talk to. :D

West Coast
20th Feb 2013, 01:21
Para

Speaking of oversight, why haven't you answered my question?

Bandit

Is that all your text or did you lift it from somewhere? If the later, it's always a good idea to cite the source.

parabellum
20th Feb 2013, 04:14
West Coast - Sorry meant to include an answer in my post above,

I would expect the troops to be of a higher standard than terrorists anytime, however, have you read Bandit12's post which sets out the sequence of events, as seen by several people? The troops reacted to being shot at.

SASless - if your last post was aimed at me then you have obviously lost it, most childish, most immature. Maybe you should engage Spandex Masher in dialouge, he too has made excellent posts in the past but appears to have lost it too, or were you both on the outside of a good bottle perhaps?

West Coast
20th Feb 2013, 04:22
Para
I'll hold comment till I can verify the veracity of Bandit's account. That could have been written by someone promoting a viewpoint that may not necessarily be the gods honest truth.

BANDIT12
20th Feb 2013, 07:03
The version is lifted from the University of Ulster archives, from a report of eyewitness accounts.

West Coast
20th Feb 2013, 07:37
Bandit
Thanks for the clarification. However it doesn't meet my threshold for acceptance as anything but opinion. There loads of reports that contradict that individuals reccolections.

BANDIT12
20th Feb 2013, 09:13
The sniper who attacked troops at the Presbyterian church is also referenced in the Saville enquiry. This fact is not disputed.

racedo
20th Feb 2013, 14:18
I hear you, SASless, but the conflict over decades was as I stated - IRA provoking violence and plotting and committing terrorism.

All that was done in fighting IRA was not always pure, but nevertheless wasn't instigated by the Brits, as I see it. The Irish had, and have, a good case to make, but violence against civilians is not the way to make it. On the other side, Ulster loyalists have a valid claim as well.


Ben

You really haven't a clue.

IRA had pretty much ceased to exist in late 1960's.

The Civil Rights Movement grew out of the continuing discrimination in awarding of housing to people based on their religion with what is often defined as the key event being allocation of a house to a single woman secetary to a B Specials officer in preference to a large Catholic family.

There were a husband and wife GP team who had documented every case going back years in their area with incredible numbers refused housing based soley on religion.

Civil rights movement wasn't even Catholic movement as one of its leading lights was Ivan Cooper.

The state feeling it was being attacked by people demanding to be treated equally unleashed the attack dogs and refused to take action against people rioting and burning people from their homes.

IRA stood in Belfast for "I Ran Away" as few were around or present at the start of the attacks on civilians while the RUC looked on.

Army sent in to protect Catholic population under attack.

Its kind of not surprising that after a while people decide to fight back. The state which has discriminated at them in every turn them turns on them when they demand equal rights.

Once you take the genie from the bottle it isn't going back in.

BenThere
20th Feb 2013, 20:07
Ben

You really haven't a clue.


I maintain that I do have much more than a clue; I have
a grip

IRA had pretty much ceased to exist in late 1960's.


Patently false. IRA was active, killing people, into the mid-1990's.

racedo
20th Feb 2013, 20:16
Patently false. IRA was active, killing people, into the mid-1990's.

Brought about by actions of the state against Civil Rights Movement.

Really need to read up on the chronological history of the period as IRA had pretty ceased to exist by 1969, few people, few weapons and no threat to anybody.

Suggesting otherwise goes against every single piece of history from all sides.

TBirdFrank
20th Feb 2013, 23:33
Ben There - listen to Racedo - you see - We Were There

BenThere
21st Feb 2013, 01:46
I'm listening, but Omagh was 1998, wasn't it?

parabellum
21st Feb 2013, 09:54
that individuals recollections.


In Bandit12's post I read five wittinesses.

racedo
21st Feb 2013, 18:04
I'm listening, but Omagh was 1998, wasn't it?

Genealogy of the Irish Republican Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_the_IRA)
I hate using Wiki as a source but its as up to date as any.

Ben I do suggest you do some reading on Northern Ireland because all you are doing in making glib comments is showing how much you really don't know.

BenThere
21st Feb 2013, 18:41
I'll concede using the term 'IRA' as a catchall lumping together all the violent offshoots under one label is problematic.

There is a lot I don't know as the story is thinly covered over here, and the day-to-day dynamics of Ulster don't receive much analysis. But to characterize my comments as 'glib' is disingenuous. I do have an understanding of the conflict and have an empathy for both sides of it.

I have family on both sides of this fence, and attempt to maintain an impartial view. When indiscriminate violence becomes a tool of one side, I'll generally choose the other side. Same thing in Palestine. Civilization demands no less.

BANDIT12
21st Feb 2013, 18:46
Brought about by actions of the state against Civil Rights Movement.


Oh please, this was just the excuse PIRA needed to get at the Brits.

PIRA where hardly the defenders of equality and justice, just ask the families of the "disappeared", How far did their civil rights go.

racedo
21st Feb 2013, 18:58
Oh please, this was just the excuse PIRA needed to get at the Brits.

Bandit

You well know PIRA did not exist at start of Civil Rights Movement and marches and they were marches for Civil Rights nothing more. The fact they weren't even religious is shown by people like Ivan Cooper being one of the main leaders.

You still have not answered about do you feel it is ok for the Army to shoot at Civilians.

SASless
21st Feb 2013, 20:55
Just how neutral is the reporting of events once the violence breaks out.....as violence begets violence and the emotions all that generates puts an end to accurate reporting?

I am sure there are folks on BOTH sides of the situation that see those on the other as being the root cause for the violence.

If you chase this back to the outset....whose nose got bloodied first in all this because after that.....it was all a reaction to the first punch up.

That the IRA and other groups, factions, and kindred spirits did evil things is of course true.....that the other side, factions, and kindred spirits including the British Government, Police, and Military did some equally ugly things is also true.

This was an impossible situation starting how many hundred years ago....and has not gotten all that much less complicated in the past couple of decades. At some point folks will get tired of bloodshed and seek more peaceful means to resolve the issues....or at least lets hope so. After all it is flat stupid to be killing and maiming your neighbor over all this isn't it?

BANDIT12
21st Feb 2013, 21:13
You still have not answered about do you feel it is ok for the Army to shoot at Civilians



Civilians no, unarmed combatants,yes


You decide which is which, although i suspect you already have.

BANDIT12
21st Feb 2013, 21:17
SASLESS,

I suspect you are right, the future holds the key not the past.

racedo
21st Feb 2013, 22:11
Civilians no, unarmed combatants,yes


You decide which is which, although i suspect you already have.

So do you regard the marchers on Bloody Sunday as unarmed combatants ?

con-pilot
21st Feb 2013, 22:29
Civilians no, unarmed combatants,yes

How pray tell, does one tell the difference between a civilian and a unarmed combatant? Do they wear uniforms, then it's okay to shoot someone in uniform, even if they are not armed?

Curious. :hmm:

Solid Rust Twotter
22nd Feb 2013, 04:08
The way the IRA and the ANC cosied up leaves me in no doubt as to exactly what they are.

Irelander
22nd Feb 2013, 06:19
The way the IRA and the ANC cosied up leaves me in no doubt as to exactly what they are.

When the South African apartheid police and 'b specials' cosied up at the height of their mutually vile tyranny everybody knew "exactly what" they were.