Bloody Sunday Relative to take part in protest walk against Raytheon and the Fallujah massacre.

by Righteous Pragmatist Mon May 12, 2003 16:32

Bloody Sunday was a mistake. A clear mistake.
The fourteen people who died were unarmed and were shot by soldiers of the Parachute Regiment who felt they were in a life threatening situation. They believed that the stones being thrown at them by some in the crowd were nail bombs which could have resulted in fatal wounds.
They were mistaken but in such a situation very few soldiers would take the chance. So they opened fire and people died. That is essentially it. When soldiers blood is up they will kill without hesitation. They are not as diserning as policemen but then the police at that time in northern ireland could not be trusted to protect the Catholic population.
At that time too soldiers were regularly killed by IRA gunmen in civilian dress. IRA gunmen were tackled by demonstrators that day as they tried to shoot at soldiers. A car was seen with guns in the trunk. Martin Mcguinness admitted he was commander of the IRA that in Derry and some of his men opened fire.
It is hard to discern which armed group, either the soldiers or the paramilitaries opened fire but civilians were unfortunately caught up in the crossfire.
obviously if the situation was truthfully explained rather than "revised" the Northern conflict might not have erupted as it did in the 1970's. but it was sure to recieve a hostile reaction anyway. It was white washed as a result.
To compare Bloody sunday to Iraq the situation is justified because the same situation applies.
Many of the shooting incidents which resulted in shooting innocent civilians were by troops who have already experienced intense combat.
If a crowd of civilians have gunmen dispersed among them armed troops will have to defend themselves. They open fire and kill civilians in the crossfire. However instances where aimed shots hit unarmed civilians may be explained by the posture and agressive stance of a riled demonstrator. If he is throwing stones it looks to a frightened soldier that he is throwing grenades. If a camera man is pointing a camera it can look like he his pointing a weapon.
In the heat of the situation it is often not possible to know what if going on and mistakes occur.
In Palestine for instance there are gunfights between soldiers and gunmen. Sometimes a stray bullet might hit a child who had nothing to do with the situation. However this is often protrayed as murder by the Palestinians.
During the Second Gulf War several civilian vehicles were shot up and women and children killed. The vehicles were speeding towards checkpoints as panicked drivers ran into armed American troops. There had been several suicide bombings so the troops assumed they were under attack and opened fire to stop the vehicles. Unfortunately their assumptions were wrong and inocents died. however that is the nature of war.
It is tragic and unfortunate.
It does not mean that British presence in northern Ireland was not justified in stopping Republican terrorism nor the the Iraq war was unjustified. It certainly doesn't mean that war or use of arms is unjustified in all cases.

P.S. memorials should be built to innocent victims on Bloody sunday and in the iraq War.

by Reality Bites Mon May 12, 2003 23:39

This is the usual complete and utter rubbish masquerading as an excuse for murder and cover-up. If you actually read any (or all) of the non-military (and even some of the military) evidence, eye-witness reports, etc., you'd know this line is nothing but propaganda. Ask yourself why 1 Para - the 'most elite' unit of the British Army were sent in and told - in the words of one of those sent in - to 'get some kills'.The FACT of the matter is that innocent people were murdered. What do you actually know about Bloody Sunday, other than that which the mainstream British media and other apologists for the state in NI choose to print? Have you bothered to investigate the matter? There are over 600 eye-witness accounts which contradict your view. Try reading them before you make apologies and excuses for murder.Ask yourself why 1 Para - the 'most elite' unit of the British Army were sent in and told - in the words of one of those sent in - to 'get some kills'. Do you think it acceptable that 13 people can be shot dead and 14 others shot and seriously injured, one to die later as a consequence of his injuries? Not one of the soldiers was prosecuted or disciplined and the commander of I Para, Wilford, was decorated by the Queen.

If, as you claim, the soldiers were shot at, how come not one of them was hit? If they were coming under a hail of nail bombs petrol bombs and acid bombs - as they and you claim - how come not one of them had a mark on them? Are the IRA such terrible shots? Get real. All the hard evidence contradicts your view. The only solider who was injured on Bloody Sunday was a squaddie who fell down the stairs with the safety catch on his rifle off and shot himself in the foot.

by Righteous Pragmatist Tue May 13, 2003 09:58

the comments you have made are worth a reply.
I think you misunderstand me.
I am not justifying murder.
But I don't believe what happened on bloody Sunday was murder.
Take this example.
In America a few years ago New York police responded to a call concerning a robbery and were given a description of a blackman wearing distinctive clothing. As the police sped toward the scene they saw a young blackman who fitted that description remarkably and they gave pursuit on foot as he ran into a building with what was believed to be gun in his hand. other police followed.
When the policemen entered the building naturally with guns drawn they were confronted by who they taught was the same man. He appeared to be unarmed but the police were not taking any chances. They told him to show his hands and ly on the floor. Instead he had his hand in his pocket and was about to pull something out.
The police opened fire with pistols and submachine guns and riddled the man with bullets.
Unfortunately he was no armed and in his hand was his wallet, He was not the original suspect. He was just a poor innocent who got in the way. It seems he was producing his wallet with his I.D.
Do you think that police would have foreseen such a thing when they were in a stressful situation in pursuit of an armed suspect? A calmer person would not have opened fire but very few people would have hesitated if they believed they were having a "gun" drawn on them.
On Bloody Sunday 1972 the British Army would appear to have genuinely believed that there would be violence orgastrated by the IRA using the cover of the protest march. The "Derry Young Hooligans" often threw stones, nail bombs and acid bombs at soldiers on other occasions and soldiers were injured. IRA snipers did shoot and kill British soldiers regularly.
The British ASSUMEd that this would happen again and they decided to arrest dangerous people in the crowd.
A British soldier or any soldier when fully armed will believe that he faces an opposition who is willing to kill him. Armed IRA were present on Bloody Sunday according to eye witnesses and a car was seen with guns in the trunk by others.
Could it be that a soldier also saw what he believed were armed men and bomber throwers? There might have been a few but they ran off.
Nobody is really sure whether an IRA man fired the first shot or the frightened soldiers opened fire first.
It took just one spark and the situation turned lethal.
Innocent people died. The shooting continued for several minutes after the orders to stop maybe because the soldiers still thought they were in danger.
For example one victim was shot as he stepped out of cover waving a white hankerchief.
A soldier might have thought he was about to fire and killed him before he had a chance to see the hankerchief. Maybe he thought the man he killed was creating a diversion.
The soldiers fired in to groups of people running together maybe thinking gunmen and bombers were moving with them.
Of course the reality was that they were shooting innocent people but it is quite possible that they didn'y know that.
It is also quite possible that the Paras when they meant "get kills" was to shoot innocent people. A few Paddies wouldn't be missed it seemed?
However how can one know that truly and definitively? You cant im afraid.
The original investigations were a whitewash because the truth was too embarrasing. Nobody in the Northern Ireland Catholic population would have been prepared to believe an admission by the British that they made a mistake.
The response of the Catholics was emotional. Fourteen people died and that was clearly murder.
An example would be the reaction of the Carthy family when John Carthy was shot in 2000. The ERU gardai believed that he would open fire on them and they shot him.
Bloody Sunday should not have happened. It should have been handled differently. But times were different in 1972 than today.

by Shane Gallagher Fri May 16, 2003 07:45

Hi there!
Well the people in the concentration camps were there as a result of mistaken identity and then the contractors got the plumbing mixed up due to a typo on the plans and, after one thing led to another, 8 million people wound up dead as there was a bit of confusion and, quite frankly, embarrassment at the highest levels about the whole gassing/mass murder thing...
What planet are you on, pal? There are lots of people like you around who seem to think that if someone is wearing a uniform then they can't do anything wrong and somehow are above and beyond the normal standards applied to the rest of humanity. You will excuse them all and come up with the most bizarre set of excuses to justify their actions. Well... if you are that deluded then there is not really any point even writing this to change your mind.
I think that the people who are doing this march are courageous and compassionate souls who show deep empathy with people they may never meet who live far, far away and it makes me proud to be Irish!

by Righteous Pragmatist Fri May 16, 2003 10:09

When the SS killed the millions in the concentration camps they knowingly killed innocents. none of these people were armed. They were herded into the trains, whisked to the camps after being forced to give up their homes property bank accounts and valuables. Their heads were shaven to make socks for Germans on the Eastern front, there clothes were taken and sold cheaply to the German population suffering under the bombardment by the Allies. They were then gassed to death. Their gold teeth were pulled out and they were burned to a cinder in the ovens. sometimes their skins was made into leather prodducts, their fat into soap or their bones ground into fertiliser.
That was pure murder and total barborous and unjustified.

There is NO comparison between an SS soldier murdering concentration camp inmates and what happened on Bloody Sunday.

The Paras shot innocent people who were unarmed but believed they were armed at the time. They were mistaken and made horrible mistakes by shooting innocents. The motive was not a sick desire to kill or a personal hatred of the "Paddies" but to preserve their own lives which they believed were in danger. BUT they over reacted to the situation. what they believed was mistaken.
Suppose a prankster decides to get on T.V by pulling a plastic toy gun on the President of the U.S. in protest at the war on terror? The Secret Service are trained to deal with a real assassin pulling a real gun on the President and it could happen that they would think that the prankster is a real assassin. They would be justified in shooting him believing the life of the President was in danger. They would of course have made a big mistake.
A soldier or secret service agent or anyone in uniform who makes such a mistake should of course be punished but not branded a murderer.

by Reality Bites Fri May 16, 2003 23:39

I hate to dignify yer man's brainless prattle with a reply,as he clearly knows nothing about Bloody Sunday and hasn't bothered to read anything than the Para Old Boys newsletter, but one important question arises.

Why, pray tell, is the killing of innocent civillians by the Nazis different to the killing of innocent civilians by the British Army? Barney McGuigan, waving a white hanky, steps out from the pitiful shelter of the Rossville Flats, going to the aid of Paddy Doherty, lying dying. Shot through the eye. And the difference between him and someone herded into a gas chamber is what, exactly? They are both innocent civilians, murdered by an army acting beyond the law.

When did waving a white hanky become a capital offence? On that basis, we'd better issue a general warning to northern fenians not to hang out their washing in case a british soldier mistakes a dingy pair of knickers for an armalite or flowery duvet cover for an active service unit.I can just see the defence now ...(well, I can imagine it: the chances of any brit squaddie being charged with a criminal offence are non-existent.)

"I didn't mean to shoot anyone. Honest, your honour. Mrs O'Shaughnessy was provocatively hanging out her washing in a built up republican area. You can't tell the genuine washing from all those tricolours. And IRA gunman are wily old boys - lurking behind nighties and Y-fronts, just waiting to have a pop at us poor lads. You know that they use their knowledge of Bogside washing-lines to trap us? You see, when I saw those y-fronts, I just flipped. It's the post-traumatic stress, your honour. My fingers just slipped on the trigger, when I mistook her shift for an IRA gunman. An understandable mistake, your honour,in the circumstances. That's right, your honour, mine's an MBE. Ta very much. See you at the next Masons meeting. "

by Righteous Pragmatist Wed May 21, 2003 10:40

If you were a soldier on the streets of Derry on Bloody Sunday and you had been told that it was nearly a certainty that the IRA would use the cover of the demonstration that day wouldn't you be fearful and would you not decide that should you hear gunshots that anyone in the crowd that you suspect may be armed with a weapon and prepared to attack you or other soldiers is a danger to you? In such a situation you have seconds to make a descision to shoot or not. If you do not shoot there are two outcomes.
A. The "gunman" will shoot you.

B. The innocent civilian is not going to shoot at you because he is unarmed.

If you believe due to fear and the impression of given to you by the officer who briefed you before the demonstration that that person is infact a "gunman" you WILL shoot. This will happen EVEN if you are mistaken!
That is basic psychology. People take situations to be as their senses tell them. Especially in violent siuations.
It only took one soldier to fire a shot or One IRA man in a nearby building to fire a shot.
Once the firing began extreme confusion results.
Soldiers will not realise who is firing at who. They will shoot at people they believe are a threat.
That is clearly what happened on Bloody Sunday as the testimony of witnesses suggests. They describe soldiers responding with complete and utter agression. Training essentially took over.
Soldiers are trained to kill people who they percieve are a threat to them.
BUT THEY SHOT INNOCENT CIVILIANS!
The motive was not murderous but misguided self defence.

by Roisin Fri May 30, 2003 16:01

My dad went to the demonstration with his friend Jim. After the shooting started, Jim and my dad were running away from it. But my dad stopped when he saw a soldier looking at them and the soldier shot Jim in the back while he was still running.

Did the soldier believe that Jim was a threat when he was running away?

A while later a soldier (I don't know whether it was the same one, or different) walked over to where Jim was lying and nudged him with his foot to see if he was still alive. He was, so the soldier shot him in the head.

Did that soldier believe that Jim was a threat when he was standing over him?
You might still say so, but what kind of a person will believe you?

by Righteous Pragmatist Mon Jun 23, 2003 23:02

My Point Exactly!