Bloody Sunday. This Might Be A Lively Topic.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

18 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

SLR's (Self Loading Rifles)   were used firing 7.62 Rounds.

That was for the squaddie I thought. As an elite Para wouldn't they have had the lighter 5.56?.

 

Angel1.

[woodview 10]

2 hours ago, Lex Luthor said:

I appreciate what you're saying and I think you are right that it doesn't seem fair and seems like one rule for one and another for the other.  But on the other hand, the British Army was and is the envy of the world and if we set our standards by what terrorists do or have done, then it's not much of a yardstick to adhere to. 

I agree. I'm not for a moment saying terrorists carried out attrocities, so it's ok for troops to do the same. I don't think that 

My point was regarding the amnesty. If prosecutions for terrorists actions during the troubles had stopped, then a prosecution against these soldiers shouldn't proceed.

If that is correct version of the amnesty is tbc.

[Lex Luthor 10]

35 minutes ago, woodview said:

I agree. I'm not for a moment saying terrorists carried out attrocities, so it's ok for troops to do the same. I don't think that 

My point was regarding the amnesty. If prosecutions for terrorists actions during the troubles had stopped, then a prosecution against these soldiers shouldn't proceed.

If that is correct version of the amnesty is tbc.

I get where you're coming from, woodview.  

[Top Cats Hat 10]

35 minutes ago, woodview said:

If that is correct version of the amnesty is tbc.

Confirmed by who?

 

It's been in operation for nearly 20 years!

[PRESLEY 1,224]

1 hour ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

That was for the squaddie I thought. As an elite Para wouldn't they have had the lighter 5.56?.

 

Angel1.

 It would make sense  about 5.56  but From the footage I have seen in the past they  looked like they were carrying Wooden Stock SLR' s which  changed gradually to black plastic stocks,  It was the  standard infantry weapon after the Le-enfield 303.  Eventually some 303' s were converted to 7.62  for Sniper purpose. They were deemed more accurate at a  greater distance. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by PRESLEY

[Halibut 12]

2 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Because it's an impossability to fire "hundreds" of rounds at "thousands" of people at a close range and only kill 14. 

 

Angel1.

Again, utter nonsense, and utterly without foundation.

[phil752 10]

2 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

That was for the squaddie I thought. As an elite Para wouldn't they have had the lighter 5.56?.

 

Angel1.

not in the 70;s

[Annie Bynnol 612]

4 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Abundance, for your benefit means, "a very large quantity of something" in this case it was people. 

"Unknown number of near misses from the hundreds of rounds fired" like I stated, this is a complete fallacy and simply could not happen.

"Soldiers panicking in the face of thousands" you say. So the elite Paras fired HUNDREDS of rounds at a group numbering "thousands" and only killed 14. As I said, it cannot have happened, it's a an impossibility.

 

Angel1.

I am trying to understand how you come up with an "abundance of targets".

How does a crowd of protestors  constitute a target?

Historically when the British Army encountered  "civil rights" march of thousands of British people on British soil and regarded them as an "abundance of targets", things go very badly for the commanders and politicians. Why did they repeat their mistake? In other parts of the UK it would be called a massacre. 

 

Amongst soldiers firing at fleeing protestors "Soldier F" admitted he shot a person from behind, forensics and independent photographs immediately before and after proved that the protestor was crawling to safety, unarmed and had not been holding a weapon. This was concluded within ten weeks. 

 

There are difference between, soldiers panicking in the face of thousands, or being too enthusiastic when following orders or excessive in their actions. We all have a right to know who gave the orders.

 

 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

37 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

There are difference between, soldiers panicking in the face of thousands, or being too enthusiastic when following orders or excessive in their actions. We all have a right to know who gave the orders.

Anyone wanting to put the day's events in context could do worse than watch a Channel Four made film called The Ballymurphy Precedent. It presents an argument that the murder of eleven unarmed civilians six months before Bloody Sunday was a 'dry run' for a situation where the mass killing of civilians could be used as a 'tactic' to suppress the growing protests at the time.

 

One of the things the film reveals is how bad things were in parts of Belfast at the time. The family members of the people killed at the time had never even met or heard of each other until a few years ago when the film makers went looking for them. To put that in context, imagine eleven Sheffielders shot dead by the police over three days in Woodseats and nearly 50 years later, relatives of the dead were not even aware of each other's existance.

 

 

 

 

[Ridgewalk 97]

19 hours ago, woodview said:

why? can you explain the differences and the amnesty on terrorists? What those soldiers did was wrong, and ordinarily, they should face the full force of the law. Steps have been taken to draw a line under all the troubles, I don't understand how this aspect is different. I might be wrong, but you'll have to explain the difference.

Well the authorities have examined the case and decided the evidence suggests that one ex soldier should face prosecution. They were shooting into a civilian crowd and people were shot in the back as they ran away. Many Republican and Loyalists served long prison sentences for serious offenses whereas the Paras would have gone on to have normal productive lives, families etc. 

 

Perhaps there are those that believe all crowds of protesters should be fired upon, eg Churchill and the Welsh miners or attacked with horses and batons (Orgreave)  but don't forget, according to One Nation Conservatives we are all in this together and rule of law should apply to us all

 

 

[woodview 10]

43 minutes ago, Ridgewalk said:

Well the authorities have examined the case and decided the evidence suggests that one ex soldier should face prosecution. They were shooting into a civilian crowd and people were shot in the back as they ran away. Many Republican and Loyalists served long prison sentences for serious offenses whereas the Paras would have gone on to have normal productive lives, families etc. 

 

Perhaps there are those that believe all crowds of protesters should be fired upon, eg Churchill and the Welsh miners or attacked with horses and batons (Orgreave)  but don't forget, according to One Nation Conservatives we are all in this together and rule of law should apply to us all

 

 

I don't mean it was ok for the military to kill innicent people. Not for one second.

I was talking about the amnesty applied to killings in the troubles.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

There is no "Amnesty" in Northern Ireland. A true amnesty is feared by the many victims of the Troubles who fear they will never know what happened.

Any new evidence brought before the Courts can result in the conviction and imprisonment of any individual of any nationality or role.

 

What there is a  continuing prisoner release scheme where most  convicted terrorists are released on licence.

And most controversially this applied to  "on the run" wanted men as well. These people may not have been sentenced or completed their sentence. The  new evidence=new prosecutions still applies.

 

Arguably there is no "new evidence" in the case of the Bloody Sunday soldiers, but their is evidence that some soldiers lied while under oath and their "evidence" needs to be tested in Court.