The Saville report into Bloody Sunday

[Banquo's Ghost]

The long awaited report by Lord Saville into the killings on Bloody Sunday (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0615/breaking1.html) has been published.

In a nutshell, he has found what everyone already knew: The British Army shot unarmed civilians for no very good reason and then lied about it through a couple of inquiries.

Prime Minister Cameron has given a dignified response to Parliament (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10321886.stm) and acknowledged what should have been said thirty years ago.


What David Cameron said:

What happened was "wrong".
Troops went in as a result of a order that should not have been given.
The first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army.
None of those killed was armed.
There was some firing by republican paramilitaries, but none of this was justification for the reaction of the soldiers.
No warning was given by British soldiers.
It was a loss of self control by soldiers.
Some of those shot and injured were clearly fleeing or aiding other wounded.
One man was shot when was lying fatally wounded on ground.
None of the casualties were doing anything that could justify their killing.
You do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible.
No point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report.
He said the tribunal found that some soldiers had "knowingly put forward false accounts".
Bloody Sunday was not the defining story of the army in Northern Ireland. He said the British Army, over the course of the Troubles, "had displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law".
More than 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives during the Troubles.
The prime minister also acknowledged the grief of the families: "Nothing can bring back those that were killed but I hope, as one relative has put it, the truth coming out can set people free."

The key lessons for me were always apparent: Don't deploy aggressive forces like paratroopers on a police mission (you don't train them to be passive and thoughtful) and if you murder civilians willy-nilly you guarantee recruitment for terrorists.

Now, enough is enough. I really hope they don't go down the route of trying to prosecute soldiers - the truth is enough and Ireland has long moved on.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yes I agree we have moved on and I hope the relatives of the people killed that day can now rest easier.

Seen Cameron on RTE good speech and good to see he said sorry to the families.



One final point yes we have moved on here but the troops and officers should be prosecuted they broke the law and murdered people thats not acceptable. If convictions are impossible due to loss of crucial evidence etc then they should just be man enough to admit there guilt in an open forum and ask forgiveness from the families.


At long last a dark cloud in relations between the two traditions and the two islands is removed from the scene long may it continue.

[Beskar]

You beat me to it, Banquo.

[Vladimir]

So unlike the Boston Massacre, this is actually England's fault.

That's horrible and took a lot of courage on behalf of the PM. I agree with Banquo: Don't send your most aggressive troops on a police mission, send the (military) police.

Thirty years is a long time. I thought the UK was more open than that.

[rory_20_uk]

We're pretty closed in reality. Just more open that places such as France.

~:smoking:

[johnhughthom]

One final point yes we have moved on here but the troops and officers should be prosecuted they broke the law and murdered people thats not acceptable. If convictions are impossible due to loss of crucial evidence etc then they should just be man enough to admit there guilt in an open forum and ask forgiveness from the families.


We have a situation in Northern Ireland where hundreds of terrorists are free after committing crimes just as abhorrent as those committed on Bloody Sunday. Why should the soldiers be treated any differently? Perhaps you mean have trial so those responsible can be held accountable and not given a custodial sentence? What's the point, it had been shown there was no justification for their actions. As for an open forum asking for forgiveness, so we get the IRA/INLA/UDA/UVF men up and get them to do the same?

[gaelic cowboy]

deleted post

[Pannonian]

One final point yes we have moved on here but the troops and officers should be prosecuted they broke the law and murdered people thats not acceptable. If convictions are impossible due to loss of crucial evidence etc then they should just be man enough to admit there guilt in an open forum and ask forgiveness from the families.


Why stir up the politics again? We're not going to press for the prosecution of republican killers for pre-Agreement actions, so why the converse? The inquiry should be for historical purposes only, with the difference that the people involved and affected are still alive.

[gaelic cowboy]

deleted post

[gaelic cowboy]

deleted

I have broken my promise not to post I am lessened

[tibilicus]

The report should serve to close the chapter of painful history known as the "troubles". Prosecuting is a bad idea. The British army, Loyalist paramilitaries and Nationalist paramilitaries all have their fair share of inexcusable crimes. As already mentioned, prosecuting the troops would be daft. We currently have certified former terrorists sat in the Northern Irish executive, do you think anyone has the moral authority to prosecute the troops involved in such circumstances?

I do hope however that the Nationalist community also refrains from using it as justification for the various atrocities they committed over the years. Neither side can claim the moral high ground in Northern Ireland, both sides need to move on and hopefully this report wont prevent that.

[johnhughthom]

I am deleting my two post in reply to two people here in this thread. It seems I have hit a nerve with them so I will abstain from this thread from now on.

I didn't read your posts but I can guess their content, personally I have no problem with your viewpoint and can understand the reasoning. I don't see why you can't post them here, it's what the Backroom is for, right?

[Rhyfelwyr]

How much can this inquiry even be trusted anyway? I don't really know the ins and outs of it, but there would be an obvious political motive in that condemning the soldiers will allow them to close the book on all those events, and show the republicans that the British state isn't working against them. Some views from military figures are on the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10323541.stm). <--- link there, doesn't show up well in the new skin

"I think Lord Saville felt under very considerable pressure after 12 years and £191m to give a report which gave very clear findings, even in truth where the evidence didn't support them.

"What's he's had to do is to adopt the pieces of evidence that fitted the theory and abandoned those that didn't."

[Furunculus]

sure, in this incident they appear to have acted badly, and worse by covering it up, but it pales against the staggering good conduct over decades of nasty insurrection and terrorism.

there are IRA scum walking free to this day because 'reconciliation' was needed, well that works both ways.

[Beskar]

People can kiss and make-up, and move on. Only a good thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am deleting my two post in reply to two people here in this thread. It seems I have hit a nerve with them so I will abstain from this thread from now on.

I suspect you are the one with a raw nerve, which while understandable, does not the make the prosecuting of British soldiers an acceptable outcome. The paramilitarties have been either pardoned or given immunity, the same must now be done for the paratroopers. Especially as we will never know which of them actually shot anyone.

[Rhyfelwyr]

there are IRA scum walking free to this day because 'reconciliation' was needed, well that works both ways.

Never mind walking free, they are sitting in Stormont!


People can kiss and make-up, and move on. Only a good thing.

Well if they had been doing that why have this report?

The whole thing just seems like some feel-good politics, regardless of the reality. It's like with the arms decomissioning, yeah let them hand in some redundant weapons that are decades old. Loyalist communities got some investment out of it, some killers got off the hook, and the government gets to tell people the paramilitaries are disarmed. Then the UVF goes and shoots people in broad daylight...

[gaelic cowboy]

I am deeply depressed at the majority of the posts does everyone think I posted some kind of tribal point scoring for the IRA is that what you all think I did.

Amazingly I had deleted two posts precisely because I wanted to avoid getting stuck in a swamp of "what about this" and "what about that" back and forth all day

Truly the land of the dreary steeples

Is the peace that fragile and the truth that toxic that we cannot say yes this is what we must do.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Excellent report*, long overdue.

*Or such is my wild guess, since I have of course not read a single letter of it.



To prosecute or not to prosecute - I am not sure what I think should be done.
South Africa didn't prosecute. Germany did. Sharpeville shooters still go free, there has been a truth and reconcilliation effort. German soldiers are prosecuted for having shot unarmed people at the wall, often decades later. The thought behind the latter is that there are innate human values a soldier needs to adhere to. There is no such thing as 'order is order'.

Which would be my verdict about the paramilitary too: the politicians are to blame, but so is each and every single soldier who partook in the shootings. They can not be excused by saying that they shouldn't have been put in that position.

As we speak, Demjanjuk - ninety years old - is prosecuted for crimes committed in the 1940's. Part of me rejoices at the sight of seeing a murderer prosecuted, of whatever age, however long ago it may have been.

[johnhughthom]

Personally I thought you posted something along the lines of "States and the armies representing States should always be held accountable for crimes against civilians, hence the comparison with treatment of terrorists is irrelevant."

edit: replying to gaelic cowboy.

[gaelic cowboy]

Personally I thought you posted something along the lines of "States and the armies representing States should always be held accountable for crimes against civilians, hence the comparison with treatment of terrorists is irrelevant."

edit: replying to gaelic cowboy.

Exactly my point

They should be held to a higher standard and they should act in good faith even when one or both side of communities may not act the same back.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hah! Ninja'd! I sneaked in one of those irritating posts that are submitted just before a reply to somebody else.


Edit: As is the way of the world, I have just been ninja'd in the exact same manner myself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am deeply depressed at the majority of the posts does everyone think I posted some kind of tribal point scoring for the IRA is that what you all think I did.

If that was what we thought the reaction would have been violent. It has not been, we merely catagorically refuse to accept your point.


Amazingly I had deleted two posts precisely because I wanted to avoid getting stuck in a swamp of "what about this" and "what about that" back and forth all day

Truly the land of the dreary steeples

Is the peace that fragile and the truth that toxic that we cannot say yes this is what we must do.

You can't distinguish between the two without de-ligimising the entire Peace Process, because it relies on allowing that the PIRA was a legitimate paramilitary movement, and that their break-away groups were not. We also allow that the UVF was a legitimate militia to protect civilians.

The things you accused the paratroopers of doing (of which no individual can now EVER be convicted due to massive degradation of evidence) is exactly the same those things done by the First Minister of Northern Ireland.

He is a politician, they are all retired soldiers (some who went into special forces) drawing pensions. You cannot possibly prosecute one and not the other.

Prosecutions would not be in the public interest, they would simply harm the soldiers and their families and friends. They would also harm the regiment at a time when it is fightingt hard in Afganistan.

[gaelic cowboy]

If that was what we thought the reaction would have been violent. It has not been, we merely catagorically refuse to accept your point.

Why do you not accept the point that they should be prosecuted why should anyone be protected?????




You can't distinguish between the two without de-ligimising the entire Peace Process, because it relies on allowing that the PIRA was a legitimate paramilitary movement, and that their break-away groups were not. We also allow that the UVF was a legitimate militia to protect civilians.

This I may concede but I dont like it maybe if the governments had shown some backbone and helped SDLP an UUP things might be differant.




The things you accused the paratroopers of doing (of which no individual can now EVER be convicted due to massive degradation of evidence) is exactly the same those things done by the First Minister of Northern Ireland.

He is a politician, they are all retired soldiers (some who went into special forces) drawing pensions. You cannot possibly prosecute one and not the other.

Prosecutions would not be in the public interest, they would simply harm the soldiers and their families and friends. They would also harm the regiment at a time when it is fightingt hard in Afganistan.

All irrelevant if taken in the context of my thinking he would not even be in Stormont and so the need to molly coddle the "Regiment" would not exist.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How much can this inquiry even be trusted anyway? I don't really know the ins and outs of it, but there would be an obvious political motive in that condemning the soldiers will allow them to close the book on all those events, and show the republicans that the British state isn't working against them. Some views from military figures are on the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10323541.stm). <--- link there, doesn't show up well in the new skin

"I think Lord Saville felt under very considerable pressure after 12 years and £191m to give a report which gave very clear findings, even in truth where the evidence didn't support them.

"What's he's had to do is to adopt the pieces of evidence that fitted the theory and abandoned those that didn't."

The only problem with this attitude is that, extrapolating a bit, EVERY inquiry ever by anyone into any controversy cannot be trusted either because someone is whitewashing things or someone is doing a Breaker Morant. Ends up being counter-productive towards any effort to improve and encourages nothing but tit-for-tat response. That way lies Palestine/Israel....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do you not accept the point that they should be prosecuted why should anyone be protected?????

It will not be accepted because no one else will be prosecuted in connection with violence. Since justice has to be applied equally it would be unjust to prosecute the soldiers.


This I may concede but I dont like it maybe if the governments had shown some backbone and helped SDLP an UUP things might be differant.

I didn't say I liked it, but it's how you achieve peace. In any case, if the PIRA aren't legitimate you then have to ask if the (operationally similar) IRA were; i.e. is Ireland legitimately independant. I don't think anyone wants to go there.


All irrelevant if taken in the context of my thinking he would not even be in Stormont and so the need to molly coddle the "Regiment" would not exist.

Thinking you at no point make clear. Calling for the prosecution of the paratroopers does not presuppose the prosecution of the First Minister.

[Fragony]

Now was that so hard

[Idaho]

I don't see any point in trying to identify/prosecute the soldiers. The whole point of the NI peace agreement was that we moved on and buried the past. This latest report should just be an adendum to the tombstone.

[gaelic cowboy]

All right then I say let them go free so, I will move on and I will say let them be given same treatment as the IRA/UVF etc I am big enough to accept that this is what must be done for the peace.

But I want to see them condemned just like the IRA/UVF types if one side are scum so are these men who are nothing but murderers in my view.

Fair play to Cameron yesterday he rightly condemned these men he could see that the families of the bereaved deserved an apology and that giving such did not weaken Britain but strengthen it in my view.

Long may peace and good relations continue between our two islands.


Included some reaction and articles on Bloody Sunday as usual the last link by Kevin Myers is full of historical nuggets the man is a veritable one man history book.

How the victims died (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-the-14-victims-of-the-bloody-sunday-massacre-died-2221936.html)

Cowen welcomes vindication at last for murdered civilians
(http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-welcomes-vindication-at-last-for-murdered-civilians-2221957.html)

Article on Parachute regiment and IRA makes depressing reading (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)

[Pannonian]

All right then I say let them go free so, I will move on and I will say let them be given same treatment as the IRA/UVF etc I am big enough to accept that this is what must be done for the peace.

But I want to see them condemned just like the IRA/UVF types if one side are scum so are these men who are nothing but murderers in my view.


The IRA aren't scum. They're a chapter in the history books which has hopefully been consigned to the past thanks to our hardworking politicians. That the IRA and our hardworking politicians may be the same people is beside the point.

[gaelic cowboy]

I didn't say I liked it, but it's how you achieve peace. In any case, if the PIRA aren't legitimate you then have to ask if the (operationally similar) IRA were; i.e. is Ireland legitimately independant. I don't think anyone wants to go there.

Some other time I will maybe post on this but not here in this thread it would not be correct in my view.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It should be noted that it is perfectly possible to prosecute the soldiers. The question is more; is it desirable?

The soldiers are identified and gave evidence to the inquiry. Several soldiers admitted to the shootings and cross-referencing other evidence gives complete credence to these admissions. Several (notably Lance Corporal F) were found to have shot people in the back, under flags of truce and whilst running away: and admitted as much.

However, this testimony was given under an agreement of immunity from prosecution using evidence from self-incrimination. Not, it should be noted, immunity from the use of evidence provided by others. The evidence for most of the soldiers is incomplete without their own testimony, but my understanding is that Lance Corporal F at least, could be stitched up like a kipper.

The fact remains that justice is done to serve a greater purpose than mere revenge. Prosecutions in the United Kingdom must pass a "public interest" test. The majority of the bereaved families were concerned with clearing the names of the fallen, which the Widgery report had falsely and maliciously blackened to protect the paratroops and the British government. Those murdered have been proven entirely innocent. The British government has issued a clear and gracious apology. Further prosecutions therefore, are desired only from a sense of revenge, to open old wounds - the curse of this island since the Tuatha Dé Danann moved underground.

An interesting tangent has opened up however: that the soldiers and some officials lied consistently to Her Majesty's Inquiries under oath. This is a perversion of the British justice system and is therefore a matter for HM Government, which has to decide whether it feels comfortable with officers and soldiers of the Crown committing widespread perjury in her courts.

(Oh, and Philipvs :dizzy2: - the Republic's legitimacy as an independent state is recognised by treaty, international law and in fact. It's establishment thereas has no relation whatsoever to the perceived status of those who so established it - any more than the independence of the United States is lessened by you considering her founders as rebels).

[Louis VI the Fat]

The fact remains that justice is done to serve a greater purpose than mere revenge. But a greater good is served by prosecution. A good that trancends the British Isles.

Grave human rights transgressions are prosecuted to show all states, all armies, that human rights exists. It prevents states from grossly infringing on human rights by showing that it can't be done with impunity, regardles of internal politics, or settlements of conflicts.
It prevents men of arms from hiding behind a uniform, from hiding behind 'an order is an order'. It imposes morality on armies.

That is why I supported Garzon in prosecuting Pinochet, regardless of the Chilean resolution of the conflict. It is why I support current Argentinean and Spanish attempts to prosecute junta members and the military, despite their protests of 'let bygones be bygones, for the sake of internal peace'.


Lies and deceit for decades, cover-ups, combined with a self-declared amnesty, both kept up for decades until sheer passage of time becomes their argument for absolution. The pattern is the same everywhere.

A relentless pursuit of war crimes, international, with a patience and memory that outlasts a few decades of cover-ups - I'm all for it. If anything, it makes clear that there is a limit to the amount of violence a state or individual can use against civilians. It will make them think twice before employing it, and it embolds the ones who protest or refuse to participate.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But a greater good is served by prosecution. A good that trancends the British Isles.

Grave human rights transgressions are prosecuted to show all states, all armies, that human rights exists. It prevents states from grossly infringing on human rights by showing that it can not be done without impunity, regardles of internal politics, or settlements of conflicts.
It prevents men of arms from hiding behind a uniform, hidong behind 'an order is an order', and imposes morality on armies.

That is why I supported Garzon in prosecuting Pinochet, regardless of the Chilean resolution of the conflict. It is why I support current Argentinean and Spanish attempts to prosecute junta members and the military, despite their protests of 'let bygone's be bygone's for the sake of internal peace'.

Lies and deceit for decades, cover-ups, combined with a self-declared amnesty, kept up for decades until sheer passage of time becomes their argument for absolution. The pattern is the same everywhere.

A relentless pursuit of war crimes, international, with a patience and memory that outlasts a few decades of cover-ups - I'm all for it. If anything, it makes clear that there is a limit to the amount of violence a state or individual can use against civilians. It will make them think twice before employing it, and it embolds the ones who protest or refuse to participate.

I agree with you in every respect - in principle.

However, there is also realpolitik. To pursue prosecutions in this case, whilst right in principle, would re-open cans of worms across this island. To pursue your principle, it would be necessary to also re-imprison the paramilitaries and charge several key members of the devolved government - and indeed, several now retired government ministers (including Prime Ministers) in both the Republic and United Kingdom. There also exists prima facie evidence to demand the extradition of several US senators.

Such prosecutions would destroy the peace process and alienate the unionist community even further. This would provoke the cycle of violence again, and more innocents would die at the hands of murderers on both sides. A high price to pay for principle, don't you think?

As I noted previously, the curse of this island of Ireland is that we are held in thrall to history. Just this once, at the cost of a few gulps of bile, let us move on and forgive each other.

[Pannonian]

Such prosecutions would destroy the peace process and alienate the unionist community even further. This would provoke the cycle of violence again, and more innocents would die at the hands of murderers on both sides. A high price to pay for principle, don't you think?


Not at all. It's only British and Northern Irish who will be inconvenienced by any resumption of violence, whereas the message that justice is inescapable can be sent throughout the world, so the prosecution of the fighters on either side is entirely worthwhile. I presume the French, Irish, Americans, and whoever else wants to restart the Ulster Game will be happy to pay for the weregeld and reconstruction costs.

[Furunculus]

Not at all. It's only British and Northern Irish who will be inconvenienced by any resumption of violence, whereas the message that justice is inescapable can be sent throughout the world, so the prosecution of the fighters on either side is entirely worthwhile. I presume the French, Irish, Americans, and whoever else wants to restart the Ulster Game will be happy to pay for the weregeld and reconstruction costs.

but that is kind of the problem, it isn't Britain's job to care what the rest of the world thinks, it is Britain's job to seek the welfare of its citizens as its paramount duty.

the first duty of a sovereign nation state is the provision of internal and external security.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I agree with you in every respect - in principle.

However, there is also realpolitik.The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, that you may be quite right about.

Peace settlements are intricate, precarious business, that require some moving on. Not all Nazis, not all collaborators could be prosecuted - there wouldn't have been a Europe left. At the other end of the scale are the juntas of Latin America, who proclaim full amnesty for themselves and maintain it with the threat of renewed military intervention. The shrink for the tortured, the grave for the victims, and continued provocations for the perpetrators.

Somewhere some balance has to be struck. What the wisest balance would be for the British Isles, I am not sure. To me, it is not a simple 'let bygones be bygones'. In turn, prosecuting each and every crime - that seems beyond the realm of the wise and possible too.



I must say the prediction / assessement / threat of renewed violence doesn't cut it for me. If the prosecution of murderers is made impossible because the murderers will then resume murdering, then there is obviously no peace, but blackmail.



Not at all. It's only British and Northern Irish who will be inconvenienced by any resumption of violence, whereas the message that justice is inescapable can be sent throughout the world, so the prosecution of the fighters on either side is entirely worthwhile.Britain had little trouble in inconveniencing the peace process / amnesty in Chile, when it apprehended Pinochet.

The International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague prosecutes perpetrators of the Yugoslavian war, sometimes with disregard for the internal political situation in the former Yugoslav republics. From the lowest to the very highest rank have been prosecuted. As far as I'm concerned, the second largest post-WWII civil war in Europe - in the British Isles - is not at all above prosecution either.

Not that I expect any such thing to happen. Such is the prerogative of the mighty.


but that is kind of the problem, it isn't Britain's job to care what the rest of the world thinks, it is Britain's job to seek the welfare of its citizens as its paramount duty.

the first duty of a sovereign nation state is the provision of internal and external security.Quite so. It is indeed the first job of a state to protect the lives and welfare of its citizens...


That is, it is the first duty of the British state to protect the lives of British citizens, and it is my duty to see to it that it does so indeed. That the human rights of all people on the British Isles are protected, in first instance by their states, and if not, by outside intervention. Such is the limit of sovereignity.
(Yes it is. As to any objections, I refer to international involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia etc)

[Pannonian]

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Peace settlements are intricate, precarious business, that require some moving on. Not all Nazis, not all collaborators could be prosecuted - there wouldn't have been a Europe left. At the other end of the scale are the juntas of Latin America, who proclaim full amnesty for themselves and maintain it with the threat of renewed military intervention. The shrink for the tortured, the grave for the victims, and continued provocations for the perpetrators.

Somewhere some balance has to be struck. What the wisest balance would be for the British Isles, I am not sure. To me, it is not a simple 'let bygones be bygones'. In turn, prosecuting each and every crime - that seems beyond the realm of the wise and possible too.


And what if the native population want to just forget about the past and move on into the future? Over at TWC, there's a chap with a republican background, who would probably have joined the IRA if the conflict were still ongoing. There's another chap who's a former British soldier, who spent some time in Northern Ireland. They thoroughly respect each other, and have a shared dislike of plastic paddies who argue for principles they don't have to face the consequences for.

Edit: I don't mean the above as an insult, or at least not in the context of this thread. "Plastic paddies" is the wording those chaps use to describe those brave Americans who argue vigorously for the British to leave Northern Ireland.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And what if the native population want to just forget about the past and move on into the future? Over at TWC, there's a chap with a republican background, who would probably have joined the IRA if the conflict were still ongoing. There's another chap who's a former British soldier, who spent some time in Northern Ireland. They thoroughly respect each other, and have a shared dislike of plastic paddies who argue for principles they don't have to face the consequences for.

Edit: I don't mean the above as an insult, or at least not in the context of this thread. "Plastic paddies" is the wording those chaps use to describe those brave Americans who argue vigorously for the British to leave Northern Ireland.1 - Prosecute the Americans too.

2 - The IRA and the British soldier don't interest me. I am interested in the victims and their relatives. Their peace is important to me, not the peace of a terrorist or (para)military. Whether a murderer has moved on or not is none of my concern.

3 - It is unfortunately often true that murderers will not refrain from more murders unless we give in to their demand to murder with impunity. This is the mechanism that needs to be stopped. We need to strip away the possibility to use terrorism and state-sponsored murder with impunity, or it will remain the standard mode of conflict resolution.
If justice had been done in 1972, or 1973, how many terrorists would've sprung up? Terrorism is the method not so much of the desperate, but of the humiliated.

[gaelic cowboy]

Banquo and Louis you are both treasure's to the .ORG truly I am humbled before you both, my own clumsy attempts given in the heat of the moment far beneath you both. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Banquo and Louis you are both treasure's to the .ORG truly I am humbled before you both, my own clumsy attempts given in the heat of the moment far beneath you both. :bow:

Of COURSE you are, you erse vaquero, they're both from the Privileged classes, no?




Just teasin' lads.:laugh4:

[gaelic cowboy]

but that is kind of the problem, it isn't Britain's job to care what the rest of the world thinks, it is Britain's job to seek the welfare of its citizens as its paramount duty.

the first duty of a sovereign nation state is the provision of internal and external security.

I would like to point out the people killed were legally British, even if they did not feel so the state failed them that day.

It was grossly irresponsible to do this risking civil war in the north and actual state versus state war ie between UK and Ireland.

The country most at risk in fact from Bloody Sunday was my own country and not the UK. The mob is a terrifying thing and sweeps all before the Republic would have stumbled but for shear luck it did not.

[gaelic cowboy]

Of COURSE you are, you erse vaquero, they're both from the Privileged classes, no?




Just teasin' lads.:laugh4:

Top drawer there Seamus top drawer indeed :beam:

I am of course a member of the landowning class myself and so have more in common with the nobility than the commoner naturally :clown:

In evidence of this I proclaim that it is the dream of every Irishman to be able to drive around his house in his car just like I can :smug:.

[Pannonian]

1 - Prosecute the Americans too.

2 - The IRA and the British soldier don't interest me. I am interested in the victims and their relatives. Their peace is important to me, not the peace of a terrorist or (para)military. Whether a murderer has moved on or not is none of my concern.

3 - It is unfortunately often true that murderers will not refrain from more murders unless we give in to their demand to murder with impunity. This is the mechanism that needs to be stopped. We need to strip away the possibility to use terrorism and state-sponsored murder with impunity, or it will remain the standard mode of conflict resolution.
If justice had been done in 1972, or 1973, how many terrorists would've sprung up? Terrorism is the method not so much of the desperate, but of the humiliated.

Bloody Sunday probably made little difference to the overall picture. The conflict may not have been so immediately intense, certain avenues of recruitment may not been so readily available, but the conflict would still have been there, to a different degree at different times or in another form. Just like those SAS men who, when interviewed about their exploits, after recounting them with relish, concluded that what they did was of little overall importance. The resolution of the conflict was based on three major factors. Prosperity, which the British government contributed to via the highest level of public spending in the UK. Institutional fairness to the standards expected by the mainland. The third part is face, allowing the various sides to drawn down their violence without having their supporters split into splinter groups.

The prosperity which Northern Ireland enjoys will dry up pretty quickly if violence resumes, so anything that leads to that is to be avoided. Institutional fairness, rather than legal justice, is what affects the majority of Northern Ireland's population. In that respect, the cover ups probably did more damage than the actual killings, but we now know the full story as far as we can be reasonably certain, and the British government has admitted fault. The governmental institutions in Northern Ireland are now composed of all sides in reasonable balance, so there won't be any return to the old Stormont. Finally, after years of tortuous talks, the main players have agreed to sit down and work together.

Northern Ireland has never had it so good. Why upset things by raking up the past?

[gaelic cowboy]

Bloody Sunday probably made little difference to the overall picture.

It may seem that way in retrospect now but make no mistake the island was on a knife edge, the Republic was at a crossroads and could have been toppled so easily.

In the same year that we had these events in Derry rioters burned the British embassy to the ground in Dublin two days later.

William Craig launched the Ulster Vanguard Movement "We are prepared to come out and shoot and kill. I am prepared to come out and shoot and kill, let's put the bluff aside. I am prepared to kill, and those behind me will have my full support."

Bloody Friday 22 IRA bombs planted nine people killed and a further 130 civilians injured.

During all this we voted on accession to the EEC while various Anti EEC movements in the Extreme-Left marched in Dublin.

Incidentally the very papers to formalise our accession to the EEC were signed by Éamon de Valera himself as President of the Republic.


Pure luck is why we are nothing but pure luck.

[Pannonian]

It may seem that way in retrospect now but make no mistake the island was on a knife edge, the Republic was at a crossroads and could have been toppled so easily.

In the same year that we had these events in Derry rioters burned the British embassy to the ground in Dublin two days later.

William Craig launched the Ulster Vanguard Movement "We are prepared to come out and shoot and kill. I am prepared to come out and shoot and kill, let's put the bluff aside. I am prepared to kill, and those behind me will have my full support."

Bloody Friday 22 IRA bombs planted nine people killed and a further 130 civilians injured.

During all this we voted on accession to the EEC while various Anti EEC movements in the Extreme-Left marched in Dublin.

Incidentally the very papers to formalise our accession to the EEC were signed by Éamon de Valera himself as President of the Republic.


Pure luck is why we are nothing but pure luck.

It may have been pure luck at the time, but it's not pure luck now, and a retrospective view is exactly what we have, so let's take advantage of it. We know exactly what the factors were that led to the current peace, so giving them up in favour of the abstract pursuit of justice is foolish. It's easy to argue in sympathy for the victims, but that doesn't excuse creating more victims in the future.

To correlate the arguments more precisely, the prosecution of the soldiers means a loss of face on one or more sides, not solely the British government's. Which can lead to the perception that institutional fairness isn't present after all, and action unilaterally taken to restore the balance. Which can lead to the loss of prosperity due to instability. And at the end of it, people asking, was it really worth it, when we could have foreseen all this?

[gaelic cowboy]

Your missing my point I was not talking there about prosecuting the soldiers I was talking about how dangerous it was.

Your comment struck me as being in the mould of "ah sure it's all ok now so it must not really have been all that dangerous to begin with"

[Pannonian]

Your missing my point I was not talking there about prosecuting the soldiers I was talking about how dangerous it was.

Your comment struck me as being in the mould of "ah sure it's all ok now so it must not really have been all that dangerous to begin with"

My view is in the mould of "why risk the future for the past". I don't know how dangerous it was in the past, I wasn't even born back then. I do know what a delicate process it was to get to this current peace, and that numerous moral compromises were made in order to get everyone to the shared goal. I also know that I don't want the old times to return.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Regardless of the reliability of the Saville report, is the argument that the controversy surrounding it could lead to higher tensions and potentially conflict really relevant?

I'm forever confused as to what the situation is really like in terms of the attitudes of the ordinary person towards conflict and the paramilitaries etc. On the one hand, people say a lot of extreme things are there is still clearly some amount of hatred between republicans/unionists. Both sides of the divide seem to suffer from MOPE syndrome (most oppressed people ever), with republicans thinking the establishment is keeping them down, and the loyalists thinking the entire world is some sort of liberal-Marxist-Papist-Jewish plot set against them.

And yet the paramilitaries are now not popular as can be seen with the UVF's murder recently which caused an outcry in the Shankill area. It's not surprising that they've lost any sort of legitimacy, that all came from supposedly defending their communities, now there's nobody to fight, they've more or less devolved into drug-smuggling gangs etc.

To be honest, I don't think the social situation that allowed for the violence of the past really exist anymore. The main difference is that the quality of life is so much better, when you've got a decent life people tend to be happy to raise their kids and not get into anything extreme. Plus there are other things such as the loss of the sense of community etc, the paramilitaries could never reorganise themselves and control their communities like they used to. I remember the BBC had some pics where is showed you UDA events where ordinary citizens where setting up barricades, the women were all preparing lunch for everyone, ministers would come along as give speeches to them etc... that's never going to happen again. If there is violence, I would guess it would have to be more sort of tight cells doing bombings etc, and whatever side they're on, they'll just be scumbags and not even their own communities will want them.

So yeah... I don't see how tension over this issue could lead to serious violence as in the past.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All right then I say let them go free so, I will move on and I will say let them be given same treatment as the IRA/UVF etc I am big enough to accept that this is what must be done for the peace.

But I want to see them condemned just like the IRA/UVF types if one side are scum so are these men who are nothing but murderers in my view.

Fair play to Cameron yesterday he rightly condemned these men he could see that the families of the bereaved deserved an apology and that giving such did not weaken Britain but strengthen it in my view.

Long may peace and good relations continue between our two islands.


Included some reaction and articles on Bloody Sunday as usual the last link by Kevin Myers is full of historical nuggets the man is a veritable one man history book.

How the victims died (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-the-14-victims-of-the-bloody-sunday-massacre-died-2221936.html)

Cowen welcomes vindication at last for murdered civilians
(http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-welcomes-vindication-at-last-for-murdered-civilians-2221957.html)

Article on Parachute regiment and IRA makes depressing reading (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)

I agree completely, nor do I think these soldiers are in any way blameless. I would, however, point out that the paratroopers were deployed by HM Government as peacekeepers (why you would do such a thing being beside the point), and I remain suspicious about the beginning of the killings, viz why the PIRA were there and what they did.


(Oh, and Philipvs :dizzy2: - the Republic's legitimacy as an independent state is recognised by treaty, international law and in fact. It's establishment thereas has no relation whatsoever to the perceived status of those who so established it - any more than the independence of the United States is lessened by you considering her founders as rebels).

Yes, I do realise that. Leaving aside how I feel about the various gripes of the Irish people from the perspective of a provincial Englishman, I am not suggesting that Ireland is not a legitimate State. However, many of the men who governed Ireland when it initially broke from the rest of the UK were, if I recall correctly, of a similar strike as those currently sat in Stormont.

Those were the people the British Crown dealt with to create that peace.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yes, I do realise that. Leaving aside how I feel about the various gripes of the Irish people from the perspective of a provincial Englishman, I am not suggesting that Ireland is not a legitimate State. However, many of the men who governed Ireland when it initially broke from the rest of the UK were, if I recall correctly, of a similar strike as those currently sat in Stormont.

Those were the people the British Crown dealt with to create that peace.

Somewhat but not fully, we declared independence first through our elected representatives after the 1918 election.

Griffith, de Valera, Collins, Cosgrave etc etc all elected to UK parliament we declared UDI and the IRA acted as the armed forces of a state as we saw it.



Oh and the biggest event in propelling us to freedom was WW1, the Conscription Crisis as it became known unified people against British rule more than any event even 1916.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Those were the people the British Crown dealt with to create that peace.All of the people His Majesty's Governments have ever dealt with for independence negotiations anywhere had been previously considered violent thugs, terrorists.

A few bombs explode, people get killed. Then the regular army is deployed to kill even more people, after which the Crown then negotiates a settlement - in an atmosphere of perceived moral superiority, and of concessions made to thugs, nobly granted to keep the peace.


That is how the big empire can think itself a beacon of liberty, a bastion of sanity and reason, in an otherwise insane world.

[Pannonian]

All the people His Majesty's Governments have ever dealt with for independence negotiations anywhere had been previously considered violent thugs, terrorists.

A few bombs explode, people get killed, then the regular army is deployed to kill even more people, after which the Crown then negotiates a settlement - in an atmosphere of perceived moral superiority, and of concessions made to thugs, nobly granted to keep the peace.


That is how the big empire can think itself a beacon of liberty, a bastion of sanity and reason, in an otherwise insane world.

If we're not thuggish enough to forcibly keep them down, then we'll need to make some kind of accommodation so they'll keep their thuggish elements in check. It's how any state is formed and kept together, ie. the monopoly of organised force. Your own city declared independence or semi-independence following the Franco-Prussian war, but got beaten down by the national government's forces. Tens of thusands dead to reach an absolute conclusion. I prefer our way of doublespeak and looking the other way where expedient. In Britain, double figures is a massacre.

[Megas Methuselah]

All the people His Majesty's Governments have ever dealt with for independence negotiations anywhere had been previously considered violent thugs, terrorists.

A few bombs explode, people get killed, then the regular army is deployed to kill even more people, after which the Crown then negotiates a settlement - in an atmosphere of perceived moral superiority, and of concessions made to thugs, nobly granted to keep the peace.


That is how the big empire can think itself a beacon of liberty, a bastion of sanity and reason, in an otherwise insane world.

I cannot possibly emphasize how true this statement is.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If we're not thuggish enough to forcibly keep them down, then we'll need to make some kind of accommodation so they'll keep their thuggish elements in check. It's how any state is formed and kept together, ie. the monopoly of organised force. Your own city declared independence or semi-independence following the Franco-Prussian war, but got beaten down by the national government's forces. Tens of thusands dead to reach an absolute conclusion. I prefer our way of doublespeak and looking the other way where expedient. In Britain, double figures is a massacre.One does not need to hold one's nose and look away when dealing with thugs.

Rather, states need to look in a mirror and wonder just who exactly are the thugs. Which holds true for both mine and your example.



No need to reach back all the way to 1871. Algeria is the festering wound, not ancient history!
To provide you with ammunition - the only two colonies that the two empires fully incorporated into their homeland are Ireland and Algeria. 1.5 million deaths, after 1945, for the latter. We couldn't have topped that number if we had got them all to come to rely on potatoes. Fourteen deaths is indeed one village on a tuesday morning. Heck, the French state murdered, tortured and put in concentration camps French citizens, by the thousands, in Paris, in the 1960's.
Are there prosecutions? Nah. It still takes the private memoirs of aging generals to confirm what everybody knows about state ordered torture and massacres.

It is a mad world. And madness is not just what the silly brownies do. In 38 years, our children will wonder why we collaborated with torture camps, illegal internment, massacres and cover-ups to wage 'war on terror'. But then, if we keep the lid on for all that time, we can maybe avoid prosecution.

[Vladimir]

It is a mad world. And madness is not just what the silly brownies do. In 38 years, our children will wonder why we collaborated with torture camps, illegal internment, massacres and cover-ups to wage 'war on terror'. But then, if we keep the lid on for all that time, we can maybe avoid prosecution.

Who could hate those sweet, innocent children who's only dream is to grow up and sell cookies?

[InsaneApache]

It's ironic that the army was deployed in the province in the first place to protect the catholics. Then four years later they end up shooting them. Something went badly wrong there.

As for prosecuting the soldiers, that's a difficult one. I heard Martin McGuinness was in possesion of a sub-machine gun that day, at that place.

So are we to get into a postion of locking up (retired) soldiers, whilst former bombers and gunmen sit in the pub?

I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Two persons share their thoughts about the report:




(Clickable) Father Edward Daly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/18/saville-report-bloody-sunday-daly):

The day after Bloody Sunday, most of the priests who had witnessed the events met at midday in the parochial house of St Eugene's cathedral, located at the edge of the Bogside in Derry. There were seven of us. We were appalled by what we had seen the previous day. We shared the heartbreak of the families. We were trying to cope with our own heartbreak and felt a duty to tell the world the truth about what we had witnessed. We decided to issue a joint statement and to call a press conference in a city hotel that afternoon.

We made three points. We stated unequivocally that the army was guilty of wilful murder. We accused the army of shooting indiscriminately into a fleeing crowd, gloating over casualties and preventing spiritual and medical attention reaching the wounded and dying. We stated that none of the dead or wounded was armed.

Interestingly, the Saville report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/jun/15/bloodysunday-northernireland), 38 years later, after an investigation lasting 12 years, reached similar conclusions.

Last Tuesday was an unforgettable day. The vastness of the crowds in Guildhall Square, the great dignity of the families, the immense power and magnanimity of the prime minister's speech, the international media presence, the brilliantly sunlit afternoon, the ringing declaration of innocence of each and every victim and the minute of silence for all the victims of the past 30 years all added to the wonderful emergence of the truth after such a long time. It was theatrical, spellbinding and hugely moving. There was no triumphalism – just unadulterated joy and delight.


https://img718.imageshack.us/img718/604/edwarddalygiveslastri00.jpg
Edward Daly, then a curate at St Eugene's Cathedral in Derry, gives last rites to a boy injured in the Bloody Sunday shootings






(Clickable) Paratrooper Ken Lukowiak (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/18/bloody-sunday-paratrooper-apology)

I joined the Parachute Regiment in 1979. By then, within the ranks, Bloody Sunday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/bloodysunday) was regarded as a sort of warped battle honour. The attitude was very much "That'll teach the Paddies to go throwing stones at paratroopers." The way we saw it, if anyone was to be held responsible for the deaths, then it was the people who organised what was an illegal march and the senior ranks that made the decision to send 1 Para from Belfast into Londonderry.

Thirty-eight years on, and £200m later, the official inquiry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-inquiry-key-findings) is finally over and has reached what amounts to the same conclusion. It also concludes that the soldiers of 1 Para lied and tried to cover up their actions. And again – there's no denying it anymore. They did. And if I'm honest, had I been present on that day, I would have also lied. It might be nice to imagine that in the name of truth and justice, I would have started pointing fingers, but I wouldn't have.
Because what sort of paratrooper would that have made me?



https://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3493/britishparatrooperstake.jpg
British paratroopers take away civil rights demonstrators after the Bloody Sunday massacre.

[gaelic cowboy]

It is the eternal problem that an Irishman remembers too much Irish history and an Englishman remembers none of it, this seeming advantage to not be tied down by history is a problem in Ireland where history is how your defined.

It is English incomprehension of Ireland that leads to both sides blaming the other for both the problems of the past and of today.

The North continues to move to a normal society by small steps lets rejoice at this.