Damn straight it was.Vilham wrote:
Haha. Sure it was.IG-Calibre wrote:
I think you will find that for 4 decades the full vigour of the law was applied to all terrorists involved in the troubles - unlike the instruments of the state that killed indiscriminately without fear of prosecution..Vilham wrote:
Yup and then an inquiry in which all former members of the IRA go to trial. Like Jerry Adams, Mc Guiness and half of Sien Fien.
A fair point - however this must call into question the 11 murders 6 month's previously ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballymurphy_Massacre ) by the same regiment in Belfast, given that it is clear that Soldiers falsified their accounts in Widgery & others again in Savile. Now while it's one thing to absolve the innocent, the sate must be seen by all to hold itself to account for crimes of murder against its own citizens. even if just to symbolically strip all the protagonists of all honours afforded them, and to retrospectively give all dishonourable discharges at the very least..Bertster7 wrote:
Damn straight it was.
Bloody Sunday was an absolute disgrace. The findings of this inquiry show that unambiguously.
I do think the reaction to the inquiry has been a little over the top though. All the calls for prosecuting those who testified to the inquiry on the basis that they would be immune for prosecution are absurd. If you have immunity from prosecution, that is immunity from prosecution - you can't then turn around and say "it was only immunity from prosecution for murder charges, not perjury charges". You can't retrospectively change the terms of immunity from prosecution - that would set a dangerous precedent.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-16 17:04:03)
Do you really seek a moral equivalence between the IRA & The Forces of the British state? Thats pretty fucking sad really? non? shame on you tbh. What we're debating now is the deliberate cold blooded murder of a states own Citizens by the forces of the State, and, it's response to these findings.Dilbert_X wrote:
Have the IRA ever given an honest account of anything?
Handed over their boys for prosecution?
Please care explain what that has to do with my point? I think you might have completely misunderstood my point and IGs comment before that.Bertster7 wrote:
Damn straight it was.Vilham wrote:
Haha. Sure it was.IG-Calibre wrote:
I think you will find that for 4 decades the full vigour of the law was applied to all terrorists involved in the troubles - unlike the instruments of the state that killed indiscriminately without fear of prosecution..
Bloody Sunday was an absolute disgrace. The findings of this inquiry show that unambiguously.
I do think the reaction to the inquiry has been a little over the top though. All the calls for prosecuting those who testified to the inquiry on the basis that they would be immune for prosecution are absurd. If you have immunity from prosecution, that is immunity from prosecution - you can't then turn around and say "it was only immunity from prosecution for murder charges, not perjury charges". You can't retrospectively change the terms of immunity from prosecution - that would set a dangerous precedent.
No, the Army / RUC falsely claimed the above - it's been proven beyond doubt that falsified accounts were given to both enquires - there has been no independently verifiable evidence to back that up only military claims - the whole thing about McGuinness is little more than a sop to the likes of you, that's a fact and has no baring on the murder of innocent people by the state as your Prime Minister stated in Parliament.Dilbert_X wrote:
The rioters weren't exactly sweetness and light, with sniper teams, submachine guns and nailbombs.
The Savile enquiry found different, and the IRA did make some admissions to that.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, the Army / RUC falsely claimed the above - it's been proven beyond doubt that falsified accounts were given to both enquires - there has been no independently verifiable evidence to back that up only military claims - the whole thing about McGuinness is little more than a sop to the likes of you, that's a fact and has no baring on the murder of innocent people by the state as your Prime Minister stated in Parliament.Dilbert_X wrote:
The rioters weren't exactly sweetness and light, with sniper teams, submachine guns and nailbombs.
No one said they were unprovoked murders, they said they were innocent civilians who did not themselves deserve to be killed.Now that conclusions have been reached, namely - the state unprovoked indiscriminately murdered 14 civilians - there must be consequences, non? that isn't acceptable to you?
are you a fucking idiot as well Dilbert_X? if the Savile report concludes that non of those murdered posed any threat to soldiers, had any weapons or bombs of any description and that the British opened fire first - what exactly was the provocation to their murder? Jesus.. are you a British Lowing? take it you're either a former or currently serving brit, to post the drivel you do, you must be.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Savile enquiry found different, and the IRA did make some admissions to that.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, the Army / RUC falsely claimed the above - it's been proven beyond doubt that falsified accounts were given to both enquires - there has been no independently verifiable evidence to back that up only military claims - the whole thing about McGuinness is little more than a sop to the likes of you, that's a fact and has no baring on the murder of innocent people by the state as your Prime Minister stated in Parliament.Dilbert_X wrote:
The rioters weren't exactly sweetness and light, with sniper teams, submachine guns and nailbombs.No one said they were unprovoked murders, they said they were innocent civilians who did not themselves deserve to be killed.Now that conclusions have been reached, namely - the state unprovoked indiscriminately murdered 14 civilians - there must be consequences, non? that isn't acceptable to you?
given that the crown forces, indiscriminately murders 14 innocent civilians of that state - must there be consequences? or is the admission of guilt all that is necessary?The Prime Minister said:
•No warning had been given to any civilians before the soldiers opened fire
•None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers
•Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying
•None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting
•Many of the soldiers lied about their actions
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-06-17 05:53:58)
The fact McGuinness was there and armed, regardless of whether he opened up or not, shows that anybody, literally anybody could have been carrying a weapon in that crowd. The soldiers would have understandably been on edge, even if they did conduct themselves poorly. Fact is though that if the IRA didn't use the mingling with civvies tactic, there's less chances the soldiers would have seen a threat from them to begin with. You can also bear in mind that the crowds were throwing bricks and bottles prior to the shooting, which hardly calms the nerves.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, the Army / RUC falsely claimed the above - it's been proven beyond doubt that falsified accounts were given to both enquires - there has been no independently verifiable evidence to back that up only military claims - the whole thing about McGuinness is little more than a sop to the likes of you, that's a fact and has no baring on the murder of innocent people by the state as your Prime Minister stated in Parliament.Dilbert_X wrote:
The rioters weren't exactly sweetness and light, with sniper teams, submachine guns and nailbombs.
Now that conclusions have been reached, namely - the state unprovoked indiscriminately murdered 14 civilians - there must be consequences, non? that isn't acceptable to you?
None of that actually justifies anything, it just provides a little bit of perspective but that's about itM.O.A.B wrote:
The fact McGuinness was there and armed, regardless of whether he opened up or not, shows that anybody, literally anybody could have been carrying a weapon in that crowd. The soldiers would have understandably been on edge, even if they did conduct themselves poorly. Fact is though that if the IRA didn't use the mingling with civvies tactic, there's less chances the soldiers would have seen a threat from them to begin with. You can also bear in mind that the crowds were throwing bricks and bottles prior to the shooting, which hardly calms the nerves.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, the Army / RUC falsely claimed the above - it's been proven beyond doubt that falsified accounts were given to both enquires - there has been no independently verifiable evidence to back that up only military claims - the whole thing about McGuinness is little more than a sop to the likes of you, that's a fact and has no baring on the murder of innocent people by the state as your Prime Minister stated in Parliament.Dilbert_X wrote:
The rioters weren't exactly sweetness and light, with sniper teams, submachine guns and nailbombs.
Now that conclusions have been reached, namely - the state unprovoked indiscriminately murdered 14 civilians - there must be consequences, non? that isn't acceptable to you?
there is no "fact" that McGuinness was there armed, there was a claim by one anonymous RUC source that they had seen him - funny how no one else saw him, or that any of the photographs taken by many different sources of him show him to have been carrying any weapon, and which he denies himself. Your point is meaningless - no one was carrying any weapons - yes they all could of been armed to the teeth, but none were, Wilfred lied about them coming under sustained heavy fire of between 150 - 300 rounds, that's now the accepted version of events.M.O.A.B wrote:
The fact McGuinness was there and armed, regardless of whether he opened up or not, shows that anybody, literally anybody could have been carrying a weapon in that crowd. The soldiers would have understandably been on edge, even if they did conduct themselves poorly. Fact is though that if the IRA didn't use the mingling with civvies tactic, there's less chances the soldiers would have seen a threat from them to begin with. You can also bear in mind that the crowds were throwing bricks and bottles prior to the shooting, which hardly calms the nerves.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, the Army / RUC falsely claimed the above - it's been proven beyond doubt that falsified accounts were given to both enquires - there has been no independently verifiable evidence to back that up only military claims - the whole thing about McGuinness is little more than a sop to the likes of you, that's a fact and has no baring on the murder of innocent people by the state as your Prime Minister stated in Parliament.Dilbert_X wrote:
The rioters weren't exactly sweetness and light, with sniper teams, submachine guns and nailbombs.
Now that conclusions have been reached, namely - the state unprovoked indiscriminately murdered 14 civilians - there must be consequences, non? that isn't acceptable to you?
Well no, its not meaningless.IG-Calibre wrote:
there is no "fact" that McGuinness was there armed, there was a claim by one anonymous RUC source that they had seen him - funny how no one else saw him, or that any of the photographs taken by many different sources of him show him to have been carrying any weapon, and which he denies himself. Your point is meaningless - no one was carrying any weapons - yes they all could of been armed to the teeth, but none were, Wilfred lied about them coming under sustained heavy fire of between 150 - 300 rounds, that's now the accepted version of events.M.O.A.B wrote:
The fact McGuinness was there and armed, regardless of whether he opened up or not, shows that anybody, literally anybody could have been carrying a weapon in that crowd. The soldiers would have understandably been on edge, even if they did conduct themselves poorly. Fact is though that if the IRA didn't use the mingling with civvies tactic, there's less chances the soldiers would have seen a threat from them to begin with. You can also bear in mind that the crowds were throwing bricks and bottles prior to the shooting, which hardly calms the nerves.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, the Army / RUC falsely claimed the above - it's been proven beyond doubt that falsified accounts were given to both enquires - there has been no independently verifiable evidence to back that up only military claims - the whole thing about McGuinness is little more than a sop to the likes of you, that's a fact and has no baring on the murder of innocent people by the state as your Prime Minister stated in Parliament.
Now that conclusions have been reached, namely - the state unprovoked indiscriminately murdered 14 civilians - there must be consequences, non? that isn't acceptable to you?
No, the back story is that that our heroic regiment had murdered 11 Civilians 6 months before in Ballymurphy including a local priest and a mother of eight children (given the result of Savile we can safely assume the same lies about coming under fire in Belfast were told) - they then went to Derry on Bloody sunday and murdered another 13 and shot and wounded 14 more. now the question is "should there be consequences?" or is the admission of guilt enough?M.O.A.B wrote:
Well no, its not meaningless.IG-Calibre wrote:
there is no "fact" that McGuinness was there armed, there was a claim by one anonymous RUC source that they had seen him - funny how no one else saw him, or that any of the photographs taken by many different sources of him show him to have been carrying any weapon, and which he denies himself. Your point is meaningless - no one was carrying any weapons - yes they all could of been armed to the teeth, but none were, Wilfred lied about them coming under sustained heavy fire of between 150 - 300 rounds, that's now the accepted version of events.M.O.A.B wrote:
The fact McGuinness was there and armed, regardless of whether he opened up or not, shows that anybody, literally anybody could have been carrying a weapon in that crowd. The soldiers would have understandably been on edge, even if they did conduct themselves poorly. Fact is though that if the IRA didn't use the mingling with civvies tactic, there's less chances the soldiers would have seen a threat from them to begin with. You can also bear in mind that the crowds were throwing bricks and bottles prior to the shooting, which hardly calms the nerves.
The backstory to why the soldiers fired on them was because in the past the IRA ASU's dressed up as civilians and mingled with crowds to mount attacks, the same as the insurgent forces in Iraq did. If they hadn't done that the soldiers wouldn't have been so edgy about a massive crowd when it started tossing missiles.
@Mek - I'm not trying to justify it. Moreso pointing out that the way the soldier's reacted to the events were a byproduct of the snipings and bombings and shootings.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-06-17 06:16:31)
That and the IRA admitted they were in the crowd, they admitted they had a sniper team in place which did shoot at the soldiers that day, and that the 17yr old who was shot was an IRA member.The backstory to why the soldiers fired on them was because in the past the IRA ASU's dressed up as civilians and mingled with crowds to mount attacks, the same as the insurgent forces in Iraq did. If they hadn't done that the soldiers wouldn't have been so edgy about a massive crowd when it started tossing missiles.
whatever, but how about answering the question? should there be consequences for the state murder of innocent civilians, yes or no? or do you not have a problem with heroes shooting dead civilians in the back? or those waving white flags? or the cold blooded murder of those going to the aid of injured and dieing? what's your stance? or is that just a classy British regiment in your eyes?Dilbert_X wrote:
That and the IRA admitted they were in the crowd, they admitted they had a sniper team in place which did shoot at the soldiers that day, and that the 17yr old who was shot was an IRA member.The backstory to why the soldiers fired on them was because in the past the IRA ASU's dressed up as civilians and mingled with crowds to mount attacks, the same as the insurgent forces in Iraq did. If they hadn't done that the soldiers wouldn't have been so edgy about a massive crowd when it started tossing missiles.
Savile found that McGuinness was carrying a machine-gun, too bad if the IRA don't want to hear it.
what if either of them turn out to actually have been British agents all along? agent codenamed 'J118' ? plenty of people believe this to be the case..Dilbert_X wrote:
There should be consequences, it would need to be proven in a court which is unlikely.
Personally I'd like Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams to face consequences for the people murdered on their orders.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-06-17 06:38:19)
No-one with a brain does.IG-Calibre wrote:
what if either of them turn out to actually have been British agents all along? plenty of people believe this to be the case..Dilbert_X wrote:
There should be consequences, it would need to be proven in a court which is unlikely.
Personally I'd like Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams to face consequences for the people murdered on their orders.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-17 06:42:29)
really?Dilbert_X wrote:
No-one with a brain does.IG-Calibre wrote:
what if either of them turn out to actually have been British agents all along? plenty of people believe this to be the case..Dilbert_X wrote:
There should be consequences, it would need to be proven in a court which is unlikely.
Personally I'd like Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams to face consequences for the people murdered on their orders.
Since he hasn't been knee-capped or shot in the back of the head lets assume you're wrong.IG-Calibre wrote:
really?Dilbert_X wrote:
No-one with a brain does.IG-Calibre wrote:
what if either of them turn out to actually have been British agents all along? plenty of people believe this to be the case..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006 … ernireland
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-17 06:44:45)
That's a fair comment, and I agree there are too many such incidents and you feel rightly agrieved about those atrocities. After each incident however the full forces of the security services & law went after the perpetrators. Where nationalists feel agrieved is where the British state covered up it's attrocities here & lied about the murders it comitted, actually promoting most of the individuals involved. How can that then be equated to the likes of the Enniskillen bomb ?Dilbert_X wrote:
No-one with a brain does.IG-Calibre wrote:
what if either of them turn out to actually have been British agents all along? plenty of people believe this to be the case..Dilbert_X wrote:
There should be consequences, it would need to be proven in a court which is unlikely.
Personally I'd like Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams to face consequences for the people murdered on their orders.
Now lets have an inquiry into all the civilians they've had murdered.
to what end? at the end of the day the British state has painted its self as being the thin wedge in a sectarian conflict, almost like some kind of adjucator between two sides, while in reality it has very much been a keen part of the killing machine, through collusion with the loyalist death gangs and by the actions of its security forces - what is important to Nationalists is that history shows that to be the case.Dilbert_X wrote:
How about the IRA come clean on their atrocities, hand over the individuals concerned to be questioned in public and then we'll see.
Fairs fair.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-06-17 07:12:46)
