Bloody Sunday: Soldier F faces murder charges

mat said:
If that isn't an inflammatory Thread title then what is?

They'll be no proper debate on here. Just people sporting their Anti Irish pro British views.
Click to expand...
Murder is murder, whether it is done in the name of terrorism or not. The law should apply equally and proportionally in this case. If numerous IRA/UVF and countless other terrorist were given pardons and exemptions from prosecution, then as participant in the same conflict, the soldiers should be afforded the same. Innocent people on both sides of the conflict lost their lives. Who knows; there could have been a soldier with murderous intent, but they were effectively in the middle of a war, and they were fighting their enemy. It is essentially the function of the British Army to defeat their enemy, and they are trained to kill.

The soldiers on the ground, on that day must have been operating under Rules Of Engagement (ROE), and following orders. Now, the law of armed conflict, and UK law state that if a member of the armed services operate within their ROE (which define the legal use of firearms), then they will be operating within the law. I understand that some of them may have operated outside their ROE, but the situation on the ground that day, and the effect it had on the soldiers can only be fully understood by the soldiers. Nobody can put themselves in their position.

What also needs to be questioned is the leadership of the soldiers (senior officer on the ground, and battalion commanders), who were ultimately responsible for the action of their soldiers on the day in question. They gave the orders, and put their charges in the position they found themselves in, and whilst they didn't directly order them to fire into the crowd, something triggered the shooting.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
Perhaps the 12 year Saville Inquiry?


Bloody Sunday (Irish: Domhnach na Fola)[1][2]—sometimes called the Bogside Massacre[3]—happened on 30 January 1972, in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland. In this event, 26 unarmed civil-rights protesters and people who were watching were shot by soldiers of the British Army. Thirteen males, seven of whom were teenagers, died immediately or soon after. A fourteenth man died from his injuries four-and-a-half months later. Two protesters were also run down by army vehicles.[4] Five of the wounded were shot in the back.[5] The incident happened during a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march. The soldiers involved were members of the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment (1 Para).[6]

Two investigations have been held by the British government. The Widgery Tribunal, held soon after the event, said that the soldiers and British authorities were almost reckless. Critics said the report made it seem like the British did nothing wrong. [7][8][9] The Saville Inquiry was held in 1998 to investigate the events a second time. The inquiry took 12 years. The report was made public on 15 June 2010. The report said that some soldiers were wrong to have shot the protesters.[10] The report found that all of the people shot were unarmed, and that the killings were "unjustified". When the Saville report was published, the British prime minister, David Cameron, said sorry to the victims.[11]

The Provisional Irish Republican Army's (IRA) war against the partition of Ireland had begun in the two years before the incident. The incident helped the IRA to recruit new members.[12]Bloody Sunday remains among the most important events in the Troubles of Northern Ireland. The reason it is seen as so important is because those who died were shot by the British Army rather than paramilitaries.[3]


Try and imagine this happening in Manchester....a huge part of your population discriminated against and holding a demonstration against it....then, (in their opinion) a foreign army...opens fire on them...killing many, as described above



Its easy, from England, with no association to what happened to say "ah they mush have been terrorists, or the must have been shooting at the Army."...but this shit happened, the Army indiscriminately and deliberately shot at unarmed civilians with the intention of killing them.
Again, imagine YOUR army and/or police force doing that in Manchester.
Click to expand...

Peterloo Massacre??????????????????????????????????????????
 
No surprise to see some of Corbyns biggest fans on here supporting this.

My old man did 3 tours in the 70's.

My mum, me and my unborn brother where booked on the coach that got blown up on the M62 in 74 and but for her being heavily pregnant and us getting a lift back to Catterick with my uncle we would most likely not be here.

Our servicemen should be afforded the exact same rights as the terrorists who murdered with impunity and would have happily murdered every soldier out there that day as they sadly managed to do far too often during the troubles.

If we are not seeking charges against them, the same should go for our soldiers who where following orders and risking their lives in doing so.
 
blueinsa said:
No surprise to see some of Corbyns biggest fans on here supporting this.

My old man did 3 tours in the 70's.

My mum, me and my unborn brother where booked on the coach that got blown up on the M62 in 74 and but for her being heavily pregnant and us getting a lift back to Catterick with my uncle we would most likely not be here.

Our servicemen should be afforded the exact same rights as the terrorists who murdered with impunity and would have happily murdered every soldier out there that day as they sadly managed to do far too often during the troubles.

If we are not seeking charges against them, the same should go for our soldiers who where following orders and risking their lives in doing so.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know a thread on here where you dont drag Corbyns name into it.
 
blueinsa said:
No surprise to see some of Corbyns biggest fans on here supporting this.

My old man did 3 tours in the 70's.

My mum, me and my unborn brother where booked on the coach that got blown up on the M62 in 74 and but for her being heavily pregnant and us getting a lift back to Catterick with my uncle we would most likely not be here.

Our servicemen should be afforded the exact same rights as the terrorists who murdered with impunity and would have happily murdered every soldier out there that day as they sadly managed to do far too often during the troubles.

If we are not seeking charges against them, the same should go for our soldiers who where following orders and risking their lives in doing so.
Click to expand...
Wtf has Corbyn got to do with this topic...and for the record i have no live for him at all

If you want this to be a dick swinging contest, my dad was involved in the Oxford Street (Belfast) bombing...had to shovel body parts into bags...a friends dad was killed in a car bomb, because he was an ex police officer...we had to be moved to another house due to security issues with my Dad being in the UDR....

Your dad may have done 3 tours but my dad lived, served and brought up a family right in the middle of it....for his entire career.

Of course terrorists deserve all they get...but like too many people you are missing the context of this issue.
This was 1972...arguably this incident was the start of the troubles...much of the hatred your dad may have heard was as a result of bloody sunday.
Innocent people were murdered by the british troops brought in to protect them.....from then on, they were no longer welcome.

This was not the result of a campaign of violence towards the paras/army....their actions started it.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Murder is murder, whether it is done in the name of terrorism or not. The law should apply equally and proportionally in this case. If numerous IRA/UVF and countless other terrorist were given pardons and exemptions from prosecution, then as participant in the same conflict, the soldiers should be afforded the same. Innocent people on both sides of the conflict lost their lives. Who knows; there could have been a soldier with murderous intent, but they were effectively in the middle of a war, and they were fighting their enemy. It is essentially the function of the British Army to defeat their enemy, and they are trained to kill.

The soldiers on the ground, on that day must have been operating under Rules Of Engagement (ROE), and following orders. Now, the law of armed conflict, and UK law state that if a member of the armed services operate within their ROE (which define the legal use of firearms), then they will be operating within the law. I understand that some of them may have operated outside their ROE, but the situation on the ground that day, and the effect it had on the soldiers can only be fully understood by the soldiers. Nobody can put themselves in their position.

What also needs to be questioned is the leadership of the soldiers (senior officer on the ground, and battalion commanders), who were ultimately responsible for the action of their soldiers on the day in question. They gave the orders, and put their charges in the position they found themselves in, and whilst they didn't directly order them to fire into the crowd, something triggered the shooting.
Click to expand...


Yes something did trigger the shooting, though they were wrong to fire at those that they did fire at.
As one of our friends on here says ‘put yourself in their position’ they were being stoned and bottled, rubber bullets had failed to disperse the crowd.the soldiers left the barricades to make arrests and heard shots, they then opened fire. Incorrectly opened fire yes, but to charge this man for murder is wrong it wasn’t premeditated and planned. He is being used as a sacrificial lamb, those higher up need to be prosecuted.
This was not a peaceful march it was in fact illegal but that does not justify the killings.
Later we were issued the ‘yellow card’ this gave us our ROE and were strictly enforced, sometimes at the cost of soldiers lives.
 
An illegal civil rights march....if so, you should ask why it was "illegal"

Also you cant state "they essentially at war"....no they werent...this was 1972. You cant call in the rules or war or rules of engagement....the british government refused to acknowledge it as a war....remember the hunger strikers is the early 80s, fighting for political status!!
 
kinkyblue said:
Yes something did trigger the shooting, though they were wrong to fire at those that they did fire at.
As one of our friends on here says ‘put yourself in their position’ they were being stoned and bottled, rubber bullets had failed to disperse the crowd.the soldiers left the barricades to make arrests and heard shots, they then opened fire. Incorrectly opened fire yes, but to charge this man for murder is wrong it wasn’t premeditated and planned. He is being used as a sacrificial lamb, those higher up need to be prosecuted.
This was not a peaceful march it was in fact illegal but that does not justify the killings.
Later we were issued the ‘yellow card’ this gave us our ROE and were strictly enforced, sometimes at the cost of soldiers lives.
Click to expand...
Pre-meditated murderous intent was definitely the modus operandi of the terrorist in NI. They also had no qualms with blowing up innocent civilians.
 
Mike D said:
You cannot justify someone's actions by what the other side did, that doesn't just white wash away what happened. Just because he was a soldier doesn't make him exempt, if was acting on what he was ordered to do I really don't see the problem do you? Because if he is he will be cleared end of matter.
Click to expand...

I notice that you haven't responded to my post.

Please just answer whether you think that it's right that terrorist murderers were set free and some promised they wouldn't face prosecution yet a similar policy shouldn't apply to former members of HM Forces.
 
blueinsa said:
No wish to at all but my post is factual and i dont see why you take such umbrage at me stating those facts?
Click to expand...
Because you are trying to use your minimal experience to justify your (incorrect) opinion.....if your weren't using it for that, you had no reason to tell us.

If you (quite rightly) want servicemen to be treated in thr same way as terrorists they too should face the consequences of their actions...be charged, punished and if applicable be exonerated under the terms of the GFA.
It cant be ignored because they were "following orders"
 
Cheesy said:
I notice that you haven't responded to my post.

Please just answer whether you think that it's right that terrorist murderers were set free and some promised they wouldn't face prosecution yet a similar policy shouldn't apply to former members of HM Forces.
Click to expand...
Ill jump in....those disgusting horrible terrorists were firstly caught, charged and then punished.....that punishment is temporarily suspended until they commit another crime....as agreed by over 60% of this country.

Those guilty of murder, from within the British Army should be subject to the same rulings....not forgotten aboout, dismissed or indeed praised...but punished for what they did.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
This was 1972...arguably this incident was the start of the troubles...much of the hatred your dad may have heard was as a result of bloody sunday.
Innocent people were murdered by the british troops brought in to protect them.....from then on, they were no longer welcome.

This was not the result of a campaign of violence towards the paras/army....their actions started it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's news to me that Irish Republicanism terrorism only started in 1972.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
Ill jump in....those disgusting horrible terrorists were firstly caught, charged and then punished.....that punishment is temporarily suspended until they commit another crime....as agreed by over 60% of this country.

Those guilty of murder, from within the British Army should be subject to the same rulings....not forgotten aboout, dismissed or indeed praised...but punished for what they did.
Click to expand...

What of the 187 letters 'sent' to terrorists, some of whom never faced justice in the first place, informing them that they could return home without facing the risk of prosecution?
 
The desire for people to defend the actions of people, proven by a 12 year inquiry really shocks me.

A multimillion pound inquiry has shown their actions to be entirely unlawful.

Accept the consequences
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
Because you are trying to use your minimal experience to justify your (incorrect) opinion.....if your weren't using it for that, you had no reason to tell us.

If you (quite rightly) want servicemen to be treated in thr same way as terrorists they too should face the consequences of their actions...be charged, punished and if applicable be exonerated under the terms of the GFA.
It cant be ignored because they were "following orders"
Click to expand...
Sorry to be a pedant, but opinion can't be incorrect. Opinions may differ, but they are essentially a viewpoint, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
 
Cheesy said:
What of the 187 letters 'sent' to terrorists, some of whom never faced justice in the first place, informing them that they could return home without facing the risk of prosecution?
Click to expand...
Those letters were disgusting and wrong and the idea of the british government....they were not part of the GFA.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
The desire for people to defend the actions of people, proven by a 12 year inquiry really shocks me.

A multimillion pound inquiry has shown their actions to be entirely unlawful.

Accept the consequences
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people are questioning why different standards seem to be being applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top