Bloody Sunday inquiry

[The Fly]

I don't wish to be premature but..........according the 'Guardian'...

Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful
Soldiers face prosecution over fatal civilian shootings after 12-year inquiry publishes findings

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/10/bloody-sunday-inquiry-northern-ireland


The long-awaited report into the Bloody Sunday massacre will conclude that a number of the fatal shootings of civilians by British soldiers were unlawful killings, the Guardian has learned.

Lord Saville's 12-year inquiry into the deaths, the longest public inquiry in British legal history, will conclude with a report published next Tuesday, putting severe pressure on the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland to prosecute soldiers.

Lord Trimble, the former leader of the Ulster Unionists and one of the architects of the Good Friday agreement, revealed to the Guardian that when Tony Blair agreed to the inquiry in 1998, he warned the then prime minister that any conclusion that departed "one millimetre" from the earlier 1972 Widgery report into the killings would lead to "soldiers in the dock".

[Rasputin]

There is a shock, who would have thought they were guilty?

[OneRedArmy]

To be honest, I'd argue there's should be an even bigger case for anyone still alive associated with Widgery to go in the dock. Bloody Sunday was a disgrace (as were many, many actions on all sides during the Troubles), but the subsequent cover-up was even more disgusting IMO and effectively makes Britain and its political and legal system look like a tinpot democracy for the 38 years it has taken to clear this up (again in expectation that that is what Saville will do).

[awec]

I don't see how this is going to solve anything.

If you're going to haul soldiers before the courts, then in the interests of fairness and justice, McGuinness and the rest of the IRA boys from the time should be hauled before the courts too.

Then it's just going to be can of worms after can of worms being opened, it'll cost a fortune and it'll solve absolutely nothing.

Draw a line and move on, as harsh as that sounds. It may seem crass, but it's the best option. You cannot be selective with justice, if the Bloody Sunday victims are getting justice (and I don't want to sound like a begrudge them justice) then the victims of IRA atrocities deserve justice too. And again, I don't see how that will help the situation at all.

[OneRedArmy]

I don't see how this is going to solve anything.

If you're going to haul soldiers before the courts, then in the interests of fairness and justice, McGuinness and the rest of the IRA boys from the time should be hauled before the courts too.

Then it's just going to be can of worms after can of worms being opened, it'll cost a fortune and it'll solve absolutely nothing.

Draw a line and move on, as harsh as that sounds. It may seem crass, but it's the best option. You cannot be selective with justice, if the Bloody Sunday victims are getting justice (and I don't want to sound like a begrudge them justice) then the victims of IRA atrocities deserve justice too. And again, I don't see how that will help the situation at all.The Cold Case Review team are and have been doing exactly what you say is "a can of worms" for unsolved crimes committed during the Troubles.

I also disagree that Governments and their agents be held to the same standard as terrorist organisations, which is effectively what you are arguing. Surely its proper and correct to hold them to a higher moral standard?

In any case, I believe for many families (but not all)
1)finding the victims innocent, as Widgery should have done; and
2) discrediting those senior individuals in the armed forces, civil service, Government, legal profession and judiciary who falsified evidence will be enough.

Remember, the only reason all this money had to be "wasted" is because senior figures in the employment of the British Government willfully engaged in a sham inquiry. In the circumstances maybe Bloody Sunday itself couldn't have been stopped, but had the aftermath been handled different, maybe some of the 3,000 odd people who died subsequently may still be alive now.

Bloody Sunday wasn't just another barbic episode in the Troubles, it was almost singularly responsible for strengthening and empowering the Provisional IRA and therefore a key act in shaping 25 years of murder and terror.

The fact that there are lots of other acts of terror that require closure isn't a good enough reason to stop the relatives belatedly clearing the names of those that died.

[awec]

But what about all those who lost loved ones to IRA bombs and bullets?

Will there be an enquiry into those?

Whilst Bloody Sunday was one massive screw up by the brits, it does not excuse 30 years of terrorism.

[OneRedArmy]

But what about all those who lost loved ones to IRA bombs and bullets?

Will there be an enquiry into those?

Whilst Bloody Sunday was one massive screw up by the brits, it does not excuse 30 years of terrorism.For all serious crimes that are "unsolved", then these already fall under the remit of the Historical Enquiry Team (aka Cold Case Review). There is no amnesty for unsolved crimes, never was and as far as I'm aware isn't proposed to be one.

Regardless of who the perpetrator was, the victims and their families wishes for information must be reflected (through an inquiry, Truth & Reconciliation Commission or whatever) and if needs be, the legal process must be allowed to run its course in the absence of a formal amnesty.

Just my 2 cents and my comments apply to any act committed during the troubles by any side.

[osarusan]

But what about all those who lost loved ones to IRA bombs and bullets?

Will there be an enquiry into those?

Whilst Bloody Sunday was one massive screw up by the brits, it does not excuse 30 years of terrorism.

Nobody is excusing 30 years of terrorism, and there are victims on each side of the divide, with each one as tragic and unnecessary as the last. This isn't about deciding that some victims are more worthy of having an inquiry than others. Rather, as ORA has pointed out, this inquiry is about ensuring (or attempting to ensure) that goverments and their legitimate armies are held to a higher moral standard than terrorist organisations.

[SkStu]

a good thing in my opinion as it will hopefully help give some element of closure (however late) to the families of the victims. Has the British government ever officially apologised for it? Are they likely to do so now?

to awec: although the lives taken by the IRA were tragic and absolutely unneccessary, you are not comparing like with like. Bloody Sunday was murder committed by a State.

[awec]

Murder is murder.

[osarusan]

Awec, can you seriously not see the difference between a killing carried out by an illegal organisation like the IRA, who operate beyond any law, and a killing carried out by a legitimate army who are bound by the law?

There's no reason to hold an inquiry into the the legitimacy of killings by an organisation which, as it is itself illegitimate, cannot act legitimately.


Murder is murder.

But the Widgery report concluded that this was not the case. Whereas an atrocity carried out by the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation is rightly condemned as 'murder', the Widgery report concluded (falsely, if rumours of the Saville report turn out to be true) that the killings were in self-defence, and therefore not 'murder'.

[Mr A]

I think there's a slightly dangerous line of logic there- it seems like acts carried out by people (now in government) were not as bad as those carried out by soldiers. I can see the distinction when the IRA were only a minor political force and were mostly engaged in terrorism and organised crime, but now these guys have ministries. Now that they are in the tent, I can certainly see the argument: should not the same standards apply? Especially since there are claims that they still are involved (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ira-linked-to-8364200m-fake-cash-operation-2219006.html) in organised crime?

At the same time, Bloody Sunday was such a pivotal moment in the history of the troubles that it's very important that the truth comes out. But the cost was staggering, and ultimately how many people's views will it change in Northern Ireland?

I appreciate that fudge is necessary to make things work, and things are a million times better than they used to be, but it's little wonder people wonder why they must look the other way from some people's past yet in other cases hundreds of millions are spent to get to the truth.

[OneRedArmy]

No wonder Northern Ireland has problems when section of the community (on both sides) seem more intent on denying "the other side" the right to civil liberties, rather than trying to ensure that EVERYONE gets access to these necessitities.

Depressing, but oh so predictable.

EDIT: Mr A, you, and many other in the media, seem to miss the point. If you undertake causal analysis, Bloody Sunday didn't cause the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, Widgery did. I know that might sound obtuse, but I'll repeat again: had Widgery exonerated the innocent, then we wouldn't have needed a £200m inquiry. This inquiry is only investigating Bloody Sunday to undo the wrongs perpetrated by Widgery & the various arms of the British State.

The "why don't we have investigations into Enniskillen, Warrenpoint" argument is also a complete red-herring and a crude attention diverter to stop the Bloody Sunday inquiry. IMO the vast majority of those who support the Bloody Sunday inquiry would certainly not oppose similar inquiries into IRA atrocities and a fair percentage would actually welcome them. But do those asking these questions actually want inquiries into IRA atrocities? Do the loved ones want an inquiry? Or is it just bluster and a clumsy attempt to hide from the truth.

Second, even the mention of IRA atrocities as somehow "opposite" events to Bloody Sunday that act as a counterweight is completely disingenuous. It wasn't IRA members who suffered as a result of Bloody Sunday. It was innocent civilians.

Put simply, Bloody Sunday is the UK's Tianamen Square and I doubt many of the anti-inquiry camp were supporting the Chinese government to brush it under the carpet and asking the UN not to investigate it.

[The Fly]

Bloody Sunday report states those killed were innocent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10320609.stm


All those killed on Bloody Sunday were innocent, the Saville Report has ruled.
Thirteen marchers were shot dead on 30 January 1972 in Londonderry when British paratroopers opened fire on crowds at a civil rights demonstration.

Fourteen others were wounded, one of whom later died.
A huge cheer erupted in Guildhall Square in Derry as Prime Minister David Cameron delivered the findings which unequivocally blamed the Army. The report said that the Army fired the first shot of the day in one of the most controversial state killings in the Northern Ireland conflict.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Cameron said what happened on Bloody Sunday was unjustifiable and wrong. He said his government and the country were "deeply sorry" and the findings were "shocking".

[Mr A]

No wonder Northern Ireland has problems when section of the community (on both sides) seem more intent on denying "the other side" the right to civil liberties, rather than trying to ensure that EVERYONE gets access to these necessitities.

Depressing, but oh so predictable.

EDIT: Mr A, you, and many other in the media, seem to miss the point. If you undertake causal analysis, Bloody Sunday didn't cause the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, Widgery did. I know that might sound obtuse, but I'll repeat again: had Widgery exonerated the innocent, then we wouldn't have needed a £200m inquiry. This inquiry is only investigating Bloody Sunday to undo the wrongs perpetrated by Widgery & the various arms of the British State.

The "why don't we have investigations into Enniskillen, Warrenpoint" argument is also a complete red-herring and a crude attention diverter to stop the Bloody Sunday inquiry. IMO the vast majority of those who support the Bloody Sunday inquiry would certainly not oppose similar inquiries into IRA atrocities and a fair percentage would actually welcome them. But do those asking these questions actually want inquiries into IRA atrocities? Do the loved ones want an inquiry? Or is it just bluster and a clumsy attempt to hide from the truth.

Second, even the mention of IRA atrocities as somehow "opposite" events to Bloody Sunday that act as a counterweight is completely disingenuous. It wasn't IRA members who suffered as a result of Bloody Sunday. It was innocent civilians.

Put simply, Bloody Sunday is the UK's Tianamen Square and I doubt many of the anti-inquiry camp were supporting the Chinese government to brush it under the carpet and asking the UN not to investigate it.

Fair points, well put ORA.

Still, the points about not ignoring the past of some of the people now in positions of power in Northern Ireland, regardless of what side of the divide they come from, stands, even if not entirely relevant to the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

[OneRedArmy]

Fair points, well put ORA.

Still, the points about not ignoring the past of some of the people now in positions of power in Northern Ireland, regardless of what side of the divide they come from, stands, even if not entirely relevant to the Bloody Sunday inquiry.Absolutely.

But as you say whether or not the British Government and/or judiciary had/have the evidence/appetite to pursue those individuals should not be dependent or seen as a quid pro quo for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, which many unionist politicians seem to try and equate it to.

I can only assume that certain sections of the community are uncomfortable with the truth being released, as it challenges the same stereotypes and tit-for-tat justifications that the North is built on.
EDIT
As predicted, the bigots get their speak in (ecxerpts from BBC)
JEFFREY DONALDSON, DUP MP FOR LAGAN VALLEY

"The difficulty is that we have the truth on one side, but not the truth on the other.

"We don't know the truth about what Martin McGuinness and the IRA were doing on that day.

"While we regret every death... we must not lose sight of the need for balance."

JIM ALLISTER, TRADITIONAL UNIONIST VOICE LEADER

"My primary thoughts today are with the thousands of innocent victims of the IRA who have never had justice, nor benefitted from any inquiry into why their loved ones died.

"Thus today's jamboree over the Saville report throws into very sharp relief the unacceptable and perverse hierarchy of victims which the preferential treatment of 'Bloody Sunday' has created."

Donaldson the little twerp that he is clearly states that those killed on Bloody Sunday are on the same side as the IRA as if it's some kind of zero sum gain. Mindblowing.

[bennocelt]

Put simply, Bloody Sunday is the UK's Tianamen Square and I doubt many of the anti-inquiry camp were supporting the Chinese government to brush it under the carpet and asking the UN not to investigate it.


Wow ORA thats an excellent point, made me think, thanks

[OneRedArmy]

Just to follow up on the criticism from Unionists like Gregory Campbell, Donaldson and Allister. They talk a lot about Bloody Sunday creating a "hierarchy of victims".

These are the same people that for 30 years have claimed that the Troubles were not a war and were an act of terrorism. Now all of a sudden all the deaths are equal. Convenient. I never thought I'd see Unionists legitimising the IRA, but it shows you what lengths people will go to contort their position to avoid acknowledging an inconvenient truth.

The problem for these bigots is that they HAVE preached consistently throughout the Troubles that there IS very much a hierarchy of victims, and yesterdays findings don't sit easily with their personal hierarchy, which put the Bloody Sunday victims down at the bottom rung of the ladder along with IRA men and the like.

To Allister and his cronies, you can't have your cake and eat it. The various arms of the British forces can't be the victims of terrorism AND be above the law, otherwise they effectively become the terrorists.

Riddle me that one.

[Mr A]

It doesn't help that you have Martin McGuinness all over the media saying about how good the verdict was etc. And yet at the same time he was adjudged to have probably been carrying a sub-machine gun on the day. He's part of the reason (albeit a peripheral one) such a terrible thing happened and the IRA weren't slow about using the events to make hay and cause further mayhem for so many years afterwards.

[osarusan]

The problem for these bigots is that they HAVE preached consistently throughout the Troubles that there IS very much a hierarchy of victims, and yesterdays findings don't sit easily with their personal hierarchy, which put the Bloody Sunday victims down at the bottom rung of the ladder along with IRA men and the like.
And McAllister is still doing it in the quote you mentioned below.



JIM ALLISTER, TRADITIONAL UNIONIST VOICE LEADER
"My primary thoughts today are with the thousands of innocent victims of the IRA who have never had justice, nor benefitted from any inquiry into why their loved ones died.

On a day when the aspersions cast upon dead innocent civilians by the British Army in order to make their actions justifiable have finally been revealed as false, thus finally accepting that they were simply innocent victims, McAllister's thoughts are with other victims (whose deaths, let me repeat, are absolutely no less tragic and unnecesssary) whose status as innocent victims has never been questioned. It's a mind-boggling statement really.

Because that's all that Saville has really done - exhonerate the dead, and describe them as just as innocent as victims of other atrocities. McAllister, however, doesn't seem to agree.

[EAFC_rdfl]

And McAllister is still doing it in the quote you mentioned below.



On a day when the aspersions cast upon dead innocent civilians by the British Army in order to make their actions justifiable have finally been revealed as false, thus finally accepting that they were simply innocent victims, McAllister's thoughts are with other victims (whose deaths, let me repeat, are absolutely no less tragic and unnecesssary) whose status as innocent victims has never been questioned. It's a mind-boggling statement really.

Because that's all that Saville has really done - exhonerate the dead, and describe them as just as innocent as victims of other atrocities. McAllister, however, doesn't seem to agree.
this lad makes similar statement, going on about soldier deaths during the troubles:
former head of british army (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8742373.stm)
sorry if you cant view the clip, i couldn't find his statement in text anywhere

[bennocelt]

It doesn't help that you have Martin McGuinness all over the media saying about how good the verdict was etc. And yet at the same time he was adjudged to have probably been carrying a sub-machine gun on the day. He's part of the reason (albeit a peripheral one) such a terrible thing happened and the IRA weren't slow about using the events to make hay and cause further mayhem for so many years afterwards.


Thats nonsence, so its the IRA's fault:rolleyes:
I suppose he was able to hide the machine gun inside his jacket?

[micls]

Thats nonsence, so its the IRA's fault:rolleyes:
I suppose he was able to hide the machine gun inside his jacket?

Why is it nonsense? No one said it was the IRA's fault, in fact the report says it specifically wasn't. But if also says McGuinness was armed(probably).

Why would he have hid it?

[Mr A]

Edit:


Thats nonsence, so its the IRA's fault
I suppose he was able to hide the machine gun inside his jacket?

n my opinion they were a part (and I made it perfectly clear it was peripheral) of creating the circumstances that lead to what happened. That does not in any way justify the shootings that took place.

I think his attempts to gain from the findings (and dismiss the bits that don't suit him) are as reprehensible as those that attempt to write them off completely.

[bennocelt]

Why is it nonsense? No one said it was the IRA's fault, in fact the report says it specifically wasn't. But if also says McGuinness was armed(probably).

Why would he have hid it?


Might be good idea to actually read the threads:rolleyes:

[bennocelt]

Edit:



n my opinion they were a part (and I made it perfectly clear it was peripheral) of creating the circumstances that lead to what happened. That does not in any way justify the shootings that took place.

I think his attempts to gain from the findings (and dismiss the bits that don't suit him) are as reprehensible as those that attempt to write them off completely.

Well it sounds like it................

[micls]

Might be good idea to actually read the threads:rolleyes:

I have. What's your point? I also read your post and responded with questions which aren't answered in the thread. Mr. A never blamed the IRA for the deaths, despite your insinuations

[Sinéad K]

Normally I stay clear but feel that I have to answer.
The IRA or McGuinness were not part of the reason for Bloody Sunday or the events that led to it, even peripheral. It was a Civil Rights/Anti-interment march on the 30th January and after the events of Magilligan beach the previous week the people of Derry came out in their thousands.

The actions of the Para's on Bloody Sunday & subsequent Widgery report killed the Civil Rights movement in the North & provided ample bodies for the IRA for years to come.

[The Fly]

Piece by Kevin Myers in the irish Independent.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-the-ira-had-no-better-friend-than-the-paras-wherever-they-went-ira-recruitment-rose-2221842.html



YOU would have to be an idiot, psychopath or militaristic bigot to think that anything other than mass murder occurred on Bloody Sunday, January 30, 1972. But that day was not totally unique: it was merely an extravagant example of what the Parachute Regiment was already doing -- and would continue to do -- in Northern Ireland. And the real crime was not just the killings that Lord Saville has been investigating in his insanely wasteful enquiry, but the tolerance of the Parachute Regiment's conduct by both the British army and successive British governments.

That is the real mystery. Because the IRA had no better friend than the Parachute Regiment; wherever the Paras went, IRA recruitment subsequently rose. The price to be paid for their random and reckless brutality was the lives of other soldiers and the many, many more civilians killed by the IRA. So I want no lectures about Para brutality from those whited sepulchres of Sinn Fein-IRA, whose murders were far more terrible than anything the Parachute Regiment did and some of which I mention here.

These include the Birmingham pub bombings, which left nearly two dozen dead; the 10 Protestant workmen taken off a bus in South Armagh by IRA gunmen and massacred; the 12 Protestants burned alive in an IRA firebomb attack on La Mon House; and the IRA's M62 coach-bombing, in which 10 people, including an entire family -- Linda Houghton (23) her husband, Clifford (23) and their two children Lee, aged five, and Robert (2) -- were murdered.

So. Not a word from you murdering IRA *******s: not a f**king word -- do you understand?

Which still leaves us with the larger issue of why the Parachute Regiment was deployed in Northern Ireland and why its often evil conduct was tolerated as it was. Something like 90pc of clearly unlawful army killings throughout the Troubles were by the three battalions of the Parachute Regiment. Both Catholic priests who died in the Troubles were shot by the Paras and were, to my mind, murdered. So too were the dozen or so civilians who were killed alongside them in New Barnsley/Ballymurphy in the shooting gallery that the Paras made of those estates in August 1971 and July 1972.

Other Para killings have totally vanished in the sea of blood that was to inundate Northern Ireland and spread to the Republic and Britain.

I remember -- because I was there -- Paras shooting dead Patrick Magee, an innocent 20-year-old student teacher on the steps of St Comgall's school on the Falls Road as he left teaching practice. The same day, the Paras shot dead one-eyed Patrick Donaghy, aged 86, one of the oldest victims of the troubles.

He was killed as he stood at his window, eight storeys up in Divis Towers. Paras who gave evidence -- entirely unrehearsed, of course -- at his inquest said they had fired at a "gunman" in the window. Of course they did. The coroner -- wise fellow -- told the jury that one-eyed 86-year-old Patrick Donaghy was unlikely to have been "the gunman".

The list is not endless but it is long and, worse, it is inexcusable. And it was not Northern Ireland that did this to the Parachute Regiment but what the Parachute Regiment did to Northern Ireland.

For they had shown comparable murderousness while they were 'policing' the sunset days of the empire in Aden and Cyprus. Moreover, we now know that British Paras massacred captured Egyptian militiamen in Port Said during Suez in 1956.

But the many murders by Paras should not blind us to murders of the security forces.

Five months after Bloody Sunday, Lt John Wilson, Royal Artillery, was leading a foot patrol near Rosslea in Co Fermanagh when a claymore mine blew up, killing a couple of soldiers, both of them 23-year-old fathers of two: Gunners Victor Husband and Brian Robertson.

Everything below the line of Brian's flack jacket was blown away, as was his right arm. Only a one-armed torso, plus head with eyes wide-open, remained. Nearby trees were festooned with body parts. Brian's fellow gunners had to climb up to retrieve these in hessian sacks, all the while fearing they might be shot as they reached for yard of guts and shard of shin.

Victor's body was never found and his coffin was returned to his young widow in Middlesborough, ballasted with sandbags.

No police officer ever questioned Lt Wilson -- later British military attache in Dublin and a close friend of mine -- about the events of that day or what, or whom, he might have seen. These two soldiers of the queen were killed doing their duty to their country and their country thanked them by not even investigating their murders.

Many today recollect the murdered dead of Bloody Sunday -- and rightly so. But let us also remember the many completely uninvestigated killings of the North, represented here by two men whose names have never appeared in a newspaper since their murders that warm summer's day in July 1972: the late Gunner Victor Husband, RA, and the late Gunner Brian Roberston, RA.

Rest In Peace.

[OneRedArmy]

As a rule, I wouldn't be a huge Myers fan at all. I find him very pompous.

But I can't disagree with much of what he says, and the central thrust of his argument, that one "bad" action doesn't automatically offset or net off against other equally bad events hits the nail on the head.

[The Fly]

Here's a Belfast Telegraph piece on the issue of “whataboutery”.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/laurence-white/bloody-sunday-therersquos-no-great-moral-dilemma-14842171.html


Bloody Sunday: there’s no great moral dilemma
By Laurence White
Monday, 14 June 2010




And so it begins. The Saville Inquiry report will not be published until tomorrow afternoon, but a carefully controlled leak hinting that it will find “some” of the killings unlawful has set an agenda.

So, too, has the suggestion that some of the soldiers who opened fire that day in 1972 when 13 marchers were shot dead in Londonderry could be prosecuted. A 14th died later.

What a great distraction that is. Before virtually anyone has had a chance to read the report, the discussion is moving on to what should be the consequences of it.

And that, of course, introduces what Gerry Fitt, all those years ago, referred to as “whataboutery”.

In the sister newspaper of the one which brought us the leak on Saville, yesterday Army commanders were saying that if soldiers are to be prosecuted, then Martin McGuinness and the IRA should also be investigated and prosecuted. It’s the old Northern Ireland argument — maybe I did something wrong, but what about the others who did something wrong too.

The Saville Inquiry through all its tortuous and hugely expensive investigations was simply into the events of what became known as Bloody Sunday. The central question under examination was if paratroopers, without justification, killed people who had been on a civil rights march, albeit one that was banned.

Even the original Whitewash Report conducted by the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery showed that four men were shot in the back while running away. There is other evidence that some of those shot dead were standing with their hands in the air at the time.

Those events were so shocking — and the original investigation by Lord Widgery so obviously a cover-up — that a second inquiry was inevitable, no matter how much the British establishment and the Ministry of Defence railed against the idea.

It has been said repeatedly that for an agency of the state, such as the Army, to commit what most reasonable people see as a crime involving mass deaths, cannot be dismissed.

There is no point in saying that the IRA or the UDA or any other terrorist organisation killed far more people and that atrocities such as happened at Omagh, Dublin, Droppin’ Well, La Mon, Enniskillen etc etc were as bad or worse and why was there not an inquiry into them.

Firstly every right thinking person accepts that those atrocities were vile and that anyone involved in causing those outrages should be brought to justice and jailed for a very, very long time. There is no need for inquiries into those events because everyone accepts that terrorists engage in terrorism.

Failure to bring those involved in mass terrorist killings to justice is a failure of the investigating agencies such as the RUC or Gardai. It wasn’t that no-one wanted the perpetrators jailed, they just failed to get the evidence to do it.

Bloody Sunday was completely different. Those who opened fire were legitimately in possession of weapons. They also had to follow rules. They were helping to impose law and order. And they were subject to the law.

The Army know who fired the fatal shots. If people were killed unlawfully then those who committed the crime should be amenable to the law. It is not a terribly complex equation or great moral dilemma.

It is time to stop muddying the waters and accept that crimes were committed on Bloody Sunday. Shamefully those crimes were committed by one of the forces of law and order.

[Mr A]

David Adams has a very good piece on this in the Irish Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0617/1224272698766.html

[bennocelt]

David Adams, as in ex- UDA!!!!! (albeit a fair article- but interested in your sources!!!)

[Not Brazil]

Mr A's source is the Irish Times.

The piece by David Adams outlines searching challenges for many on the road to reconciliation.

There's a former Provo writes for the Irish News every week up here - occassionally he makes some valid points too.

Personally, I think trying to understand the "other side" a good, healthy, thing.

Others think it best to stay within a myopic bubble.

[Rasputin]

I find the whole larger debate on Ireland and Northern Ireland here fascinating since there are so many different strands of thought since its not an insular political forum.
People are so quick to point the finger at the PIRA or indeed the Squadies etc as to who was responsible for "murder" and "attrocities" etc etc.
This all the time ignoring the far larger socio-economic context that was Northern Ireland since partition.
The conflict in Northern Ireland effectively grew from Social Descrimination against a minority.
There is little dispute about this by those who have studied the topic in depth, if in doubt I suggest you read Whyte's article on descrimination in Northern Ireland which you will find on the Cain website.
So if we can trace the massive upsurge in military conflict from legitimate social grievencess by a state which descriminated and in many cases brutalised a minority can we blame the likes of the 18 year old PIRA Volunteers and British Squadies who were thrown into this context without their making?
It is a grave mistake to fob off the likes of the PIRA as "murderers" and "criminals" as I have seen some do as by relegating their significane to just criminality you will inevitably ignore the context which helped create this social anomoly.
The blame for the deaths from the PIRA's campaign and for British Squadies actions lies with those who helped create a society engineered around descrimination and injustice and not with those whos political perspective was moulded by the context they lived within.

[A N Mouse]

Mr A's source is the Irish Times.

The piece by David Adams outlines searching challenges for many on the road to reconciliation.

There's a former Provo writes for the Irish News every week up here - occassionally he makes some valid points too.

Personally, I think trying to understand the "other side" a good, healthy, thing.

Others think it best to stay within a myopic bubble.

Genuine question NB what's your opinion on comments by Gregory Campbell? Or more specifically I suppose what he doesn't say.

[bennocelt]

This all the time ignoring the far larger socio-economic context that was Northern Ireland since partition.
The conflict in Northern Ireland effectively grew from Social Descrimination against a minority.
So if we can trace the massive upsurge in military conflict from legitimate social grievencess by a state which descriminated and in many cases brutalised a minority can we blame the likes of the 18 year old PIRA Volunteers and British Squadies who were thrown into this context without their making?

.

Good post man, bit obvious but there you go people like to wear rose tinted glasses;)
Crossmaglen in the late 70s/early 80s - young unemployed men - boredom - etc etc etc. Just the same on all sides as well

[Not Brazil]

Genuine question NB what's your opinion on comments by Gregory Campbell?

Begrudging and mean-spirited. Unhelpful, in a wider context.

I thought the statement and sincere apology made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said what needed to be said.

By the way, some of you might find this article, written in February past, interesting:

http://www.derryjournal.com/eamonn-mccann/The-Johnstons-and-the-McKinneys.6055207.jp

[old git]

It doesn't help that you have Martin McGuinness all over the media saying about how good the verdict was etc. And yet at the same time he was adjudged to have probably been carrying a sub-machine gun on the day. He's part of the reason (albeit a peripheral one) such a terrible thing happened and the IRA weren't slow about using the events to make hay and cause further mayhem for so many years afterwards.

your clutching at straws here after a 12 year inquiry costing 0ver 200million ... mc guinness was adjudged to have probably !! been carrying a machine gun ?... the IRA before bloody sunday were struggling for the support of a lot of catholics but after bloody sunday it has been stated these horrible murders of so many innocent people only served as a major recruitment for the IRA In derry and northern ireland and more than likley set them on the road to major terrorism for so many years .. yes the IRA have also been responsible for many murders over the years also .. but people seem to forget that of these people killed on bloody sunday were all innocent civilians with no connection to the IRA who were killed by a professional goverment controlled british army and who then for 30 odd years lied and covered up the truth :mad:

[MariborKev]

OG,

I can understand an aspect of Mr A's argument.

The fact that McGuinnes was front and centre midweek means it is an easy excuse for people to vent at him. Did he have to appear in some many interviews? No. He could have just said "No, look this is a day for the families". But when he opted to appear on all those interviews it would have been remiss of the reporters not to ask him about the allegations made.

But then again, SF don't do subtlety.

[Not Brazil]

these people killed on bloody sunday were all innocent civilians with no connection to the IRA

It the interests of accuracy, one of the victims was a member of the IRA, albeit the Paras didn't know that when they shot him.

[old git]

OG,

I can understand an aspect of Mr A's argument.

The fact that McGuinnes was front and centre midweek means it is an easy excuse for people to vent at him. Did he have to appear in some many interviews? No. He could have just said "No, look this is a day for the families". But when he opted to appear on all those interviews it would have been remiss of the reporters not to ask him about the allegations made.

But then again, SF don't do subtlety.

agree with you he should have been a lot more sensitive to the familys .. but then again name me one politician who does subtlety ... plenty of other politicians of other northern partys also made quite a few statements on the day also still doubting results of enquiry !!!