Jump to content


Bloody Sunday. This Might Be A Lively Topic.

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, phil752 said:

let not forget, it was McGuinness  that opened up on our troops with a machine gun that sparked it all off

Complete rubbish.

 

This like all the other attempts to justify the murders, including attempts to plant handguns on the dead and dying as they were transported to hospital, turned out to be lies.

 

The night before the march, a rumour went around Derry thay the British Army were going to use the march as an opportunity to arrest many of the Derry IRA. As a result, most of the Derry Brigade including McGuinness, was actually across the border in Donegal. 

 

This is a futile argument anyway. The Savile Enquiry made it clear what happened that day and even led to a government apology by the Prime Minister to the people of Derry. The only open sore left, is that nobody has every been prosecuted as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Complete rubbish.

 

This like all the other attempts to justify the murders, including attempts to plant handguns on the dead and dying as they were transported to hospital, turned out to be lies.

 

The night before the march, a rumour went around Derry thay the British Army were going to use the march as an opportunity to arrest many of the Derry IRA. As a result, most of the Derry Brigade including McGuinness, was actually across the border in Donegal. 

 

This is a futile argument anyway. The Savile Enquiry made it clear what happened that day and even led to a government apology by the Prime Minister to the people of Derry. The only open sore left, is that nobody has every been prosecuted as a result.

so the independent got it all wrong

Edited by phil752

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Here is the Question, should the Soldiers who were involved in Bloody Sunday be prosecuted, especially as their enemy's leaders have escaped any punishment and even been elected to Parliament, although they never took up their seats.

 

My opinion, the soldiers were doing their duty.

 

Angel1.

No , they shouldnt , never. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phil752 said:

so the independent got it all wrong

The Independent didn't get it wrong. It was reporting claim that was made not that it was a fact. That's what the article says and it's also why the headline has quotes round it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, phil752 said:

so the independent got it all wrong

I’d say that was much more likely than a 12 year inquiry did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I can't remember the exact figures from the Savile Report but something like 150 unarmed people were shot at with live rounds by something like 60 members of the Parachute Regiment. 14 of these people died. This was a massacre.

 

Only one soldier being prosecuted is being seen by local people as a token ggesture despie the dignified response of the victims families.

I doubt your figures. 60 members of the elite Para Regiment shot at an abundance of targets and they only killed 14. Doubtful is an underestimation in my opinion, unless 46 were badly injured.

 

Angel1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

No , they shouldnt , never. 

Is it your view then that shooting unarmed civilians is acceptable behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

I doubt your figures. 60 members of the elite Para Regiment shot at an abundance of targets and they only killed 14. Doubtful is an underestimation in my opinion, unless 46 were badly injured.

 

Angel1.

 

Are 28 shot civilians to be called an "abundance of targets"?

Considering that 14 survived being shot and the unknown number of near misses from the hundreds of rounds fired, "elite" does not apply.

 

What is described in all three reports  is a group  officers who were totally out of their depth wanting  to show the civilians who was boss.

Where the  soldiers panicking in the face of thousands, or too enthusiastic when following orders? We all have a right to know.

 

Lessons from that day were learnt by the Army (their own Operation Banner report) but the initial success of the 'hearts and minds'  was thrown away and the IRA were able to claim that only they could protect catholic community.

Edited by Annie Bynnol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

and the IRA were able to claim that only they could protect catholic community.

Bloody Sunday and the death of Bobby Sands saw the two largest number of recruits to the IRA in the history of the conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Bloody Sunday and the death of Bobby Sands saw the two largest number of recruits to the IRA in the history of the conflict.

shame the IRA didn't put a uniform on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Are 28 shot civilians to be called an "abundance of targets"?

Considering that 14 survived being shot and the unknown number of near misses from the hundreds of rounds fired, "elite" does not apply.

 

What is described in all three reports  is a group  officers who were totally out of their depth wanting  to show the civilians who was boss.

Where the  soldiers panicking in the face of thousands, or too enthusiastic when following orders? We all have a right to know.

 

Lessons from that day were learnt by the Army (report on Operation Banner) but the initial success of the 'hearts and minds'  was thrown away and the IRA were able to claim that only they could protect catholic community.

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.

Edited by nikki-red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penistone999 said:

No , they shouldnt , never. 

Why not? Should we allow soldiers to go after the natives willy-nilly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.