Sunday Bloody Sunday

[John Cheek]

....this is NOT a rebel song.

After justice (of sorts) appeared to be done yesterday, with the publishing of the Saville Report in Bloody Sunday, I wondered if any prosecutions will be brought, in the future...whether they should be...and whether the officer who disobeyed orders and deliberately sent 1-Para into the Bogside on the 30th January 1972, knowing that they couldn't differentiate (sp?) between the hot-heads and the vast majority of peaceful protestors...knowing that they had a reputation for violence...should be stripped of the OBE he was awarded in the light of Bloody Sunday, six months later?

God Bless,
John (hypocrite)

[sonictruth]

When people were shot by soldiers whilst tending dying people then yes they should be prosecuted. It is the same with armies all over the world when massacres happen.

'We had to open fire they were throwing stones at us'.

It happened in Derry/Londonderry, Soweto, Baghdad, Tinnamen Square, Bucharest and Israel and so on and so on. 

Killing innocent protesters is not just doing your job.

[John Cheek]

sonictruth:

"It happened in Derry/Londonderry, Soweto, Baghdad, Tinnamen Square, Bucharest and Israel and so on and so on."

Sadly, how many of those soldiers ever ended-up in a Court of Law, for their atrocities? Perhaps this country can send a message to the world, be an example, that we won't tolerate this.



I know that many people were killed during the Troubles, on both sides. These were all terrible, murderous acts of evil, without doubt. I know that Public Inquiries haven't been heard about their particular cases. But, with most, they've been properly investigated - and often convictions have been secured.

Bloody Sunday wasn't a terrorist act - it was the cold-blooded murder of civilians, by 'their' own troops. Which is why I hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions will act; which is why a certain Officer who disobeyed orders and sent in the Paras to perform a bloody massacre, will also be stripped of the OBE he received for his actions...

God Bless,
John (hypocrite)

[Anfauglir]

I don't know all the details of what happened in this case - but I have an awful lot of sympathy for the soldiers on the ground, here and in most modern conflicts.

Way back when, the English soldier donned his red uniform, and marched in ranks to the designated battlefield, where the enemy marched towards him in nice blue uniforms.  You knew who the enemy was because he was marching towards you in column and you could tell who he was.

But in Northern Ireland - and, to similar extent, in Vietnam, or Iraq, the other side doesn't wear a pretty uniform that clearly says "I am the enemy" - instead they wear exactly the same clothes as the innocent civilian walking nearby, right up to the moment when they suddenly pull out a handgun/grenade/machette and do their best to kill you.  So I find it extremely hard to blame ANY soldier in that situation who makes the wrong call and shoots the civilian.

(As an aside - it's proven human nature that when we are uncertain we look to our peers to determine the actions that are appropriate.  Once the first soldier or two has made a mistake and started shooting, the others will, by nature and training, open fire as well - "my mates are shooting - they must've seen something I didn't")

So I find it hard to blame any soldier, of whatever country, operating in those circumstances.

[John Cheek]

Anfauglir:

"But in Northern Ireland - and, to similar extent, in Vietnam, or Iraq, the other side doesn't wear a pretty uniform that clearly says "I am the enemy" - instead they wear exactly the same clothes as the innocent civilian walking nearby, right up to the moment when they suddenly pull out a handgun/grenade/machette and do their best to kill you."



There's some truth in what you're saying, but in the case of Bloody Sunday - the longest and most expensive inquiry of it's kind, in this country - this wasn't what was going on, at all.

As revealed last week, the Army expected there to be a minority of stone-throwers amongst the otherwise non-violent Civil Rights marchers. This was nothing new: our troops had faced this on several occasions, in the previous twelve months to January 1972. They had protective headgear and armoured vehicles, to help deal with flying stones. But at the end of their Tour of Duty, the Paras admitted that they 'wanted to teach the Paddys a lesson they won't forget' before they returned home.

As vindicated by the Inquiry, the vast majority of (peaceful)marchers had turned away from their intended destination of the city's Guild Hall and were processing back to their neighbourhoods in the Bogside. Our troops were familiar with the local geography. Then, deliberately disobeying a prior order from his superior to NOT follow marchers into the Bogside area, an Officer ordered his troops...to shoot at the stone-throwers? No. To follow the rest into the Bogside. He must've known what might happen next.

Indeed, as proven last week, the Paras opened fire first. They didn't come under any form of attack and had no reason to believe they were under any threat. The Inquiry has identified two soldiers who shot a number of innocent people who clearly, were either trying to get out of the way, or go to the aid of an injured victim. An unprofessional breakdown of any form of disciple amongst the Paras, was highlighted. As was an attempt to cover-up the atrocities by the Widgery Report, in 1972 - something confessed by anonymous Paratroopers at the latter inquiry.

A wrong-call, by our troops? I'd say that shooting an unarmed person in the back, whilst they're clearly helping the injured, is murder.


God Bless,
John (hypocrite)

[Anfauglir]

I did say I wasn't familiar with the details of this case.

If a soldier deliberately fired with no provcation on an unarmed civilian who was running away....then yes, I would agree that was murder.

I think it shows the folly of using combat-trained soldiers in a "police" function: there are quite different skills and temperaments involved.  This is not to say that the British Army, certainly nowadays, cannot do a good job in civilian-type roles.  But certianly I would tend not to put the regiments with the most serious combat-oriented traditions and training into a situation where they are not expected to take combat action.

But I've still got some sympathy for the soldiers - though, I have to say, not nearly as much for the victims.  A soldier's training is at least partially designed to get them to be able to de-humanise the people they come into contact with in battle.  A soldier who sees "the enemy" will do his job and be able to shoot - and kill.  The soldier who always sees human beings in his gunsight will hesitate, at least - which could mean the loss of his own life. 

To be a soldier you MUST be able not to see the human being that loves and lives and breathes and plays, but rather to see a depersonalised target.  The trick is then to be able to  switch that ability off in circumstances where it is not appropriate - as in that Sunday. 

[John Cheek]

Anfauglir:

"I think it shows the folly of using combat-trained soldiers in a "police" function..."


Yes - although the reason the British Army were called into Ulster in the summer of 1969, was to protect the Nationalist minority, whose citizens in (London)Derry were quite literally on the verge of being 'ethnically-cleansed' by the Loyalists, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary were basically, murderously supporting them. If you ever get the chance, do read Eamonn McCann's 'War And An Irish Town', the gripping story of how half-a-city was basically under-seige for around three weeks, and how the uniformed authorities were in cahoots with bloodthirsty mobs who were determined to rid the Province of despised Fenians, using whatever means necessary. On what was (technically) British soil. Only forty-odd years ago.


God Bless,
John (hypocrite)