Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,699
My point Paul is that if we prosecute the soldiers after all this time we also should be prosecuting the "reformed" paramilitaries for their activities during those troubled times, including those who now find themselves in positions of authority within the NI establishment. Not doing this will open all those old wounds etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
ROSS
I'm with you on the soldiers we cant prosecute now, also again you have to bear in mind the troubles in northern ireland at the time, not forgetting the IRA ond bombings,(not sayings soldiers righ what they did)
times were diffrent and the soldiers were under command.
Iv never been in the army but know many people that are/have and it is very difficult to refuse a command.
It doess sound like from the report on the news that leading lights in the army were givingout bad commands.
But i think Mr Cameron didnt skate round the issue and offered a deep apology to all those affected.
After £192million and time lessons should and will be learnt.
The other thing mr Cameron said was;
We need to support our forces working in very difficult circumstances, we cannot justify the unjustifyable, but our forces need to know we support them.
I think the enquiry is clear, and lessons will be learnt, in my view we now need to move on
Paul B,
What on earth gives you the idea that My post seeks justification for the killings?? What an utterly incredulous suggestion. I along with the majority would rather that the "Troubles" had never occurred. Your statement seems to imply that my opinion is that they got what they deserved, totally untrue.
With regards my "daft logic" as you call it well how would you assess what happenned ?? I still maintain that if the people of Ireland north and south had been able to resolve their differances, Just like the scots and english after Culloden then there would have been no need for british troops to be on the streets in the first place. Mark my words you will never have harmony in northern ireland as long as they are insistant on hating each other. I think it is fair to say that the present peaceful period is a most unusual state of affairs. I hope for all our sakes especially our young squaddies who will be called on again to make the piece according to law if the protagonists decide to have another go at each other,and knowing what I know of irish history I have to say I am not optimistic.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
There remain questions regarding McGuinness and whether he did or did not fire on the troops. Regardless of the weight of evidence the possibility has not been totally demolished.
I have just read a Telegraph article that looks into the McGuiness question on the possibility that he fired at troops from the Rossville flats. Infliction is the code-word for an IRA supergrass who could not personally testify, so little weight was placed on his evidence by the enquiry.
From the report: my comments in brackets.
"""""The Infliction material raises the possibility that he did (fire on troops). We have set out above our reasons for not giving much weight to this material. Accordingly, we can in this report make no finding on the point."
147.351 """""Nevertheless, our inability and that of those representing Martin McGuinness to question Infliction on such matters as his relationship with Martin McGuinness and the circumstances in which Martin McGuinness is said to have made the remarks in question, and otherwise to test the truth of Infliction's account and the accuracy of his recollection, have led us to conclude that it would be unwise and indeed unfair to place much weight on that account. On this basis we consider that this account by itself does no more than raise the possibility that, notwithstanding his denial, Martin McGuinness did fire a Thompson sub-machine gun on "single " shot from the Rossville Flats on Bloody Sunday.""""""""""
It is worth pointing out that a number of people who witnessed McGuinness on the day corroborate some of the substance of Infliction's claims. (Telegraph writer)
The report goes on at 147.355:
"""We should note at this point that in the course of considering the events of Sector 2, we have concluded that someone probably did fire a number of shots at the soldiers from the south-west end of the lower balcony of Block 3 of the Rossville Flats, close to one of the walkways joining Block 3 to Block 2 of the Rossville Flats, probably at a stage after soldiers had opened fire in that sector. From that position Margaret Deery could have been seen being carried to a house in Chamberlain Street after she had been wounded in the thigh. The evidence that we have on these shots suggests that they were fired from a carbine, but in our view this does not necessarily establish that it could not have been a Thompson sub-machine gun. Unless the weapon can be clearly seen and identified, for reasons given elsewhere in this report1a Thompson sub-machine gun fired on "single " shot (ie not repeatedly on automatic) could be mistaken for some other type of weapon being fired more than once. After firing there would have been an escape route away from the soldiers and out of their sight by the stairs that led down to ground level in the gap between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Rossville Flats. However, Infliction's account is to the effect that Martin McGuinness told him that he had fired the first shot, not a number of shots, so that there is little to connect this account with the firing from the south-west end of the lower balcony of Block 3 of the Rossville Flats."
Little is not nothing....
So regardless of what is said in the press headlines and while the evidence may not be sufficient to obtain a court conviction there remains the possibility that the Troops were fired on by McGuiness.
Amazing what you find when you get into the detail of such reports. It really is not as clear-cut as it seems yesterday based on the report summary.
This is one more reason that a trial of the troops in question will not provide justice.
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
I did serve in Northern Ireland in the early seventies and the one thing that has always remained with me is the pure hatred felt by the Catholics towards the Protestants and the English. I deliberately use the word English because that is who they particularly hate due to our appalling treatment of the Catholic population over the centuries and in particular the mid 1800's. Unless you have stood on a Belfast sreet facing an angy mob,who may or may not have an armed terrorist in their midst,you would not be able to comprehend what goes through the mind of those facing them.
I do not defend what happened in Londonderry(Derry) that day, but to seek 'justice' at this stage would be incomprehensible to those who have. For Paul to seek 'justice' does him little credit as I think he believes that because he has a prolonged Irish brogue he is seeking it on behalf of his countrymen. Justice would be to return to prison all those released under the Good Friday agreement who had murdered innocent people,but in the name of progress and peace it was justified, just as not prosecuting those soldiers would be justifiable.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I think when 12 years of evidence is examined by the finest of legal brains there seems little point in us trying to re-write the same Report. We must accept the Report as it is at this juncture as its the clearest assessment there is ever going to be. The Report is as is, and has been accepted by the Conservative Prime Minister, The Conservative N Ireland Secretary, and indeed even by General Sir Mike Jackson who was on the spot as a captain in those days. I heard him on R4 this morning.
He pointed out that there were 100,000 troops in Ireland over the wide period and only a handful have let them down..ie the ones in question. There can be no doubt, and it seems beyond dispute at this stage, having been looked at over and over, that soldier F killed at least three people and possibly a fourth while being under "no threat".
The report makes it clear he was under no threat whatsoever. He shot victim one in the back while he crawled away, victim two who went to help the first victim waving a white flag, he shot him in the back of the head, he shot a third victim also in the back of the head and a fourth was killed at a barrier by either him or soldier H.
It is not acceptable to just whitewash this behaviour away.
Jimmy I hear what you say...we dont really want to go back to the era of Culloden or indeed the Plantation of Ulster as there are 100 years of discussion there as to why we have got to where we are. This Saville Report is a work of stunning clarity on a relatively current situation.
I was happy with Prime Minster Cameron's statement yesterday...and many hope a line will be drawn under it all, and to some extent I agree....but..when I think of soldier F... I am just deeply shocked.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i hope that the head case mentioned in posts 9 and 26 does face justice, i feel sure that many of his colleagues at the time would have been shocked by his behaviour.
barry
much as i would like to believe that martin mcguiness was responsible for starting it all off, the evidence shows that all the opening shots came from our troops.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The point I was making is that buried in the report lays some doubt as to that.
But - there is insufficient solid evidence to come to any conclusion than what the report actually concludes.
PaulB - I was not trying to reinterpret it but showing a little of what it says in detail. It shows as well the problem of trying to obtain 'justice' through the courts.
I am, and always have been, pro a united Ireland. My wish is that some day this can be achieved by peaceful means. This does not mean I support terrorism or murder of innocents by any side in the argument. It is just right and proper to end English occupation of Ireland.
The Saville report gives everyone an opportunity to get closure, not just for Bloody Sunday, but also for a broader set of circumstances not covered by the report, The Troubles if you will, and move on, and I hope we can all seize the moment to do so.
Should we now prosecute certain members of the armed forces? Was this a war crime? Should we re-arrest those convicted murderers and/or freedom fighters allowed out early? The answer to these questions has to be a resounding, "No". Let us not forget that all sides in this conflict did terrible things to innnocent folks and it serves no real purpose to keep dragging the past up. That route lies a certain road back to strife, which none of us want.
In my lifetime this is perhaps the best opportunity to look forward rather than back 300 years. It is to be hoped we don't waste this rare chance, whether Catholic ot Protestant.
However, to avoid an possibility of a return to the troubles as JimmyL warns, a serious programme has to be agreed upon, by which the northern counties can be returned to the Republic peacefully. Even if one county every decade was repatriated it would be a start, a slow start but a step in the right and honest direction.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i cannot foresee a united ireland any time in the future.
the republic shows no interest and the public do not want to know in the main.
the government in the south was delighted when the anglo irish agreement came in, made them look to the voters like they had some input in affairs there.
my own view is that northern ireland should eventually become an independent state, helped out financially by us, ireland and our friends across the atlantic, whose citizens financed so much of the terrible events there.
Sid Perkins,
Much as I admire your principals I must disagree with your intended return of the 6 counties to the republic. As far as I am aware ,and I stand to be corrected but I do believe the republic of Ireland held a plebecit on the return of the 6 counties to the republic and this was rejected. In view of that decision by the republic, why are people of your opinion still so insistant that we must strive for unity.?? All that would happen is that the troubles would just be transferred to the republic,and we would have a minority protestant population fighting for there so called "Freedom"
Jimmy - Ireland is much more complex than the Scots/Brits issue, for lots of reasons.
Keith - I am not sure why you think I want to prosecute the soldiers - I mentioned the South African solution as an aspirational way forward. SA is still in a degree of turmoil, but the peace and reconciliation drive made many amends. The guys - all of them on all sides - are older, different people now. There is no real purchase in trying to second guess what people felt or how events unfolded other than to acknowledge the many enquiries and scrutiny of events and move on. On all sides there was fear and hatred, as well as other emotions and political aspirations. In some places there still is. It's no good blaming the Irish - the Brits had consistently bullied and abused the Irish and Ireland for centuries before we arrived at this point.
Bern, Bill the Conk started it all I believe, back in 1067+.
Jimmy, in reality the south just doesn't want Ulster, for obvious reasons. Am I insisting on striving for unity? It is something I would like to see, but who am I? A nobody in this scheme of things. Perhaps it just comes down to returning Ireland to its rightful owners, for them to do what they will with it.
Sensitive and sensible words there, Sid.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
james
i have looked through the thread and not picked you up on anything.
ex squaddie?
where were you 38 years ago, just as a for instance?
Notwithstanding the investigation into the deaths of 13 people on Bloody Sunday I would be interested to know how enquiries are proceeding into the deaths of 21 in the Birmingham Pub Bombings, the deaths of 5 in the Guilford Pub Bombings and closer to home the deaths of 11 in the Deal Barracks Bombing to name but a few.
As Colonel Wilford, who commanded 1 Para that day said in 1999 'I have to ask what about Bloody Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and every other day of the bloody week? What about Bloody Omagh? What about Bloody Warrenpoint, ,Eniskillen, Hyde Park, or Bloody Aldershot and Brighton - bloody everything the IRA has ever touched'.
Howard Mcsweeney,
Dont go getting your knickers in a twist!!
I was a squaddy long before 1972 in fact I was demobbed in 1963 so you cant blame me for Irelands troubles
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I was in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings.
It was the last night of a course I was on, I was staying in Erdington with some mates. We argued about where to go on our last night, some of us, including me, wanted to go into Birmingham centre to the Talk of the Town, the others wanted to stay local. We tossed a coin and stayed local. The Talk of the Town was one of the two pubs that were bombed that night.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
bob you know very well that the ones you mention were criminal acts whilst the ones in "free derry" were government sponsored.
barry
i bet you still have flashbacks to that night and are aware of others that were less luckier than you.
