User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:15 am

Today sees the report from the Saville inquiry. Its taken 12 years and cost £195 million. Hopefully the report will bring closure to the families.


Lawyers for the families of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday and the soldiers involved are studying Lord Saville's report on the events.

The outcome of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the longest and most expensive public inquiry in UK legal history, is due to be made public later.

Thirteen people died in 1972 when British soldiers opened fire on civil rights marchers.

The Saville Report cost £195m and took 12 years to complete.

The shootings were among the most controversial state killings in the Northern Ireland conflict.

The marchers were shot dead on 30 January 1972 when British paratroopers opened fire on crowds at a civil rights demonstration. Fourteen others were wounded, one of whom later died.

5,000 pages
According to BBC NI political editor Mark Devenport, while it may not have been the bloodiest day in the history of the Troubles, "the significance of that day in shaping the course of the conflict cannot be overstated".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/northern_ireland/10310598.stm
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:30 pm

Quoting oa260 (Thread starter):

Lawyers for the families of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday and the soldiers involved are studying Lord Saville's report on the events.

The outcome of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the longest and most expensive public inquiry in UK legal history, is due to be made public later.

Depending on the outcome, will the UK be obligated to pay victims' families? Seems only appropriate.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:50 pm

"Unjustified and Unjustifiable" is how Saville describes the action of the British Army on that day, one that changed the course of Irish History, and hastened Northern Ireland's descent into violence.

I am so deeply happy that finally these innocent people, who's only crime was to defy a Unionist ban on peaceful protest, have been exhonerated after all these years.

I am also deeply happy that new Prime Minister of the UK has so unreservedly said "Sorry". Its a small word that we have never heard for the historical wrongs commited against the Irish people by succesive British governments, until now that is.

Well done Saville, Well done David Cameron, and thank you.

I hope we can all continue to move on, and that neither the Irish or British ever again have to go through the painful events that have marked our common history.
 
User avatar
alberchico
Posts: 2938
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:24 pm

Why the hell did it take so long to investigate this incident? Surely previous govt's must have slowed or delayed the investigation right ?
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:18 pm

Finally a very sore point between the Irish and British people has been laid to rest. They were labled as terrorists by the British government for years and its finally been admitted that they were innocent.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:23 pm

Quoting alberchico (Reply 3):
Why the hell did it take so long to investigate this incident? Surely previous govt's must have slowed or delayed the investigation right ?

There was one weeks after the event, frankly it was a whitewash.
Context is important however, this was under the worst post war government in UK history (I know some will want to say more recent ones fit this bill - but they have all, except Heath's Conservatives in 1970-74, managed to keep the lights on).
This was matched by Heath's reaction to the N.I. situation which they had inherited from Wilson's Labour government.
Or rather his Home Secretary Reggie Maulding, on the plane after his first trip to the province, what a bloody godawful place, for chirsts sake get me a large scotch!

After the request to send in troops from the N.I. government in 1969, as a civil rights campaign, deliberately modelled on the US ones around the same time, sank into near anarchy.
The majority staunchly pro Loyalist majority, had within them, mainly in the poorer inner cities, people who saw any attempt to make right the excesses of the Unionists there, as a front for some new IRA campaign.
They acted accordingly, the police (RUC) either could not cope or had in their ranks, notably the notorious Police reserve, the 'B Specials', officers way too partial.

At this stage, the IRA had little or no involvement in this campaign, largely seen as a bunch of has-beens with some rusty old weapons.
The rioting started turning into a pogrom, with both sides in cramped, poor inner cities, trying to burn the other side out of their homes.
But the Loyalists had the numbers.

So British troops were, reluctantly, deployed in a role akin to a UN peacekeeping force.
Even the Republicans welcomed them, they had stopped Loyalist mobs burning their homes.
(The first security force member killed was a RUC officer by a Loyalist sniper).

A new, younger element were emerging within the IRA, stung by the failure of these self appointed 'Community Defenders' to stop Loyalist mobs, their own people saying 'IRA' stood for 'I Ran Away'.
They looked to the Palestine for ideas as they began to infiltrate and use the Civil Rights Movement.

On deploying the troops, the UK government should at this point have instituted direct rule from London, if the N.I. government had to ask for troops - unknown in modern times, to keep order, something was clearly very wrong.
Not until mid 1972 did this occur.
Maybe had the Wilson government stayed in office and not lost the 1970 election, this might have happened, they did, at the army's insistence, to the anger of the hard core Loyalists, disband the 'B Specials'.

However, being under the effective direction of the N.I. government - seen by many Republicans as illegitimate, the army began to be used as a quasi police force. Even well trained troops are not policeman, as sweeps of nationalist estates and rioting developed, meanwhile the more radicalised elements in the IRA gatthered strength.

In 1971, with rioting now being supplemented by IRA attacks on the security forces, the N.I. government instituted interment without trial.
A mass sweep of IRA suspects, from lists decades out of date. (Why the hell did Heath and Maulding not veto this?)
Notable suspects arrested included an old, blind man.
(This is why many in the UK were sceptical from the start about 'extraordinary rendition' and the prison at Gitmo three decades later - it had the opposite effect as intended in N.I. Increasing support for the IRA).

The Civil Rights march on 30th Jan 1972, though banned by the government after surging unrest, was to protest about internment.
Londonderry had a particular hard core of rioters, adept at slinging rocks, petrol bombs, bottles filled with acid, crude firework powder and shrapnel derived 'blast bombs', at the security forces, who replied mostly with rubber bullets, water-cannon (not effective), CS gas (not effective and dangerous to innocents).
Often riots were staged to allow IRA gunmen to fire on troops encumbered with riot gear. Casualties were mounting.

They were bound to come out for this parade, some the security forces wanted them dealt with.
To relieved exhausted troops in Derry, 1 PARA deployed from Belfast, where they had a reputation for dealing with rioters more directly than from behind riot shields dispensing gas and rubber rounds.
The Parachute Regiment, extremely tough soldiers, they wore their flak jackets under their camo jackets to appear more bulky and maybe have the opposition think they were nuts - if they thought these troops were not wearing body armour.

If the violence kicked off, the Paras would enter the Nationalist stronghold of the Bogside estate, catch and arrest the ringleaders of the riot, all the while expecting to be targets for gunmen.
No riot shields for them, rifle, baton, speed and aggression instead.

What happened next is covered by this unprecedented report, 12 years and £195 million of it.
It does seems that there was some limited firing from IRA gunmen, however this report does not place it in the direct context of the army opening fire.
The troops carried on them a 'yellow card' which set out their legal restraints, only fire when life is threatened and on clear targets.
Whatever the first Para who fired was thinking is not clear, it is likely in the confused situation he did think he was under fire, that does not mean he kept with the Yellow Card guidelines.
Whatever was the case, the subsequent firing certainly did not.
108 rounds from it seems, 4-5 soldiers.
7.62mm rounds from their SLR's, 2750 feet per second velocity.

There is even footage of troops by their vehicle, a very officer like voice barks, cease firing, unless you can clearly identify the target! - meaning a gunman about to shoot.
Then one of the Paras raises his SLR, then the crash like sound of him firing a round.

Why did they do it? Over nearly three decades some 250,000 troops served in N.I. Many on multiple tours in the early years when it was at it's worst, without acting in such a lethally overkill manner.
What made them do, on that day, what so many others, in more difficult or worse situation not do?
This is the unknown still.
At the enquiry, the ex soldiers involved did not give for the most part very convincing answers.
I think they just lost it, pent up aggression, being told that they very likely faced an armed opposition for entering the Bogside (areas of Belfast and Derry had become de-facto 'no go' areas for the security forces, until in July 1972 the troops finally broke these with their physical barricades up, the only casualties that night being two IRA gunmen - the rest got the hell out).

But disciplined troops, carrying highly lethal weapons, constrained by rules they all knew of, cannot do this.
Because aside from the direct loss of life, Bloody Sunday provided a massive boost to the IRA, the deaths that went on cause. The violence became much worse, then in the shape of blowing up crowded pubs on the UK mainland, reached beyond this unhappy province.
(Later, some IRA members admitted that it was such a boost for them).

The troops now will all be in their late 50's and 60's, all long out of the army.
They should have faced justice in 1972.
The discredited initial enquiry that year did speak of shooting 'bordering on the reckless', but also spoke of the possibility of some of the dead handling weapons, petrol/acid/blast bombs.
Sure, rioters that day, plus some IRA elements did, but not those killed.

There will be pressure now to prosecute, while the ex Paras involved do in truth deserve it, it is likely, in the context of so many terrorists, including some with the most serioius convictions, released under the peace agreement, this will be seen by the Ulster Protestants as a step too far.
They've had to swallow the likes of Adams and McGuiness enter mainstream politics and power.

My view here is that though this is hard for many IRA victims families to bear, the IRA, however they spin it, lost.
Their self declared goal of a '32 County Socialist Republic', a damp Cuba in NW Europe, was not achieved.
Whatever we think of their past, these two had the intelligence around 20 years ago to realise it was not going to happen. Their 'Long War' looked to become the 'Unending War'.
Considering the fate of previous IRA men who sought compromise, like Micheal Collins, this could have been a risky move for them directly.

So I think that this compromise extended to former terrorists, even allowing for the fact that the forces of the state must be held to a much higher level than such people, should come into play here too.
They should have faced justice 38 years ago, another epic fail from the Heath Government.

[Edited 2010-06-15 13:24:44]

[Edited 2010-06-15 13:27:10]
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5853
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:56 pm

It's interesting to note that the event can now be filed under the cock-up rather than the conspiracy theory, which, I believe, tends to be the case with most conspiracy theories.

Glad to see that the truth has finally come out, and seems to be accepted all around, not least by Prime Minister Cameron who made a very gracious apology on behalf of the British Governmnent.

Hopefully the whole episode has been finally laid to rest, and the relatives of the victims can put it all behind them once and for all.

Quoting alberchico (Reply 3):
Why the hell did it take so long to investigate this incident? Surely previous govt's must have slowed or delayed the investigation right ?

IIRC it was part of a deal in the mid-to-late '90s to get Sinn Fein to sign up to the peace process, which eventually saw the IRA "disband". There were many other atroicites in the North (on both sides) during the Troubles, but this was the one that had the biggest impact on the Nationalist/Catholic community.
 
scarebus03
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:14 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:44 am

Although nothing to celebrate it certainly goes a long way in removing the most entrenched stain on Anglo-Irish relations since the troubles began.
I'm happy in a bittersweet way for the families of the victims as some closure has finally come to light.
Mr. Cameron's apology left me humbled as it was the first time that the British establishment has taken responsibility for what happened in Northern Ireland, kudos to him. I hope this will herald a brighter future and will allow the three governments to work together in a more positive way.

There is a long way to go but at least there is a willingness to put things right.

I for one salute David Cameron

Brgds

SB03
No faults found......................
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:49 am

Quoting scarebus03 (Reply 7):
Mr. Cameron's apology left me humbled as it was the first time that the British establishment has taken responsibility for what happened in Northern Ireland, kudos to him. I hope this will herald a brighter future and will allow the three governments to work together in a more positive way.

There is a long way to go but at least there is a willingness to put things right.

I for one salute David Cameron

And I for two!!  

I was shocked to hear a British PM say the simple word "sorry". We've waited a long time to hear that, about any event in Irish History.

Yesterday dug up a lot of old feelings about the conflict, but the outright apology just stunned me. Well done Mr Cameron.

Now lets all move on.
 
EISHN
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:31 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:11 pm

Quoting scarebus03 (Reply 7):
I for one salute David Cameron

Hear hear, count me in too.

Has the Real IRA released any sort of statement.

Although this report brings some sort of closure (although we still need to hear about the DPP's decision on whether to prosecute any of the paras), I fear that the RIRA and other paramilitaries might throw a big spanner into the works. There have been more bombs, smarter bombs, and it's only a matter of time before something"big" happens.

However, the murder of two soldiers and one Policeman last year brought about a sort of solidarity in the North which shows that the RIRA won't win in their attempt to bring war back to the region.
St. Flannan/ Fhlanain- She took off to find the footlights, And I took off for the sky
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:07 pm

Quoting EISHN (Reply 9):
There have been more bombs, smarter bombs, and it's only a matter of time before something"big" happens.

True but at least this time Police on both sides of the border are working together and the old days of the Gards accused of maybe ''letting some through'' are long gone.

David Cameron is getting alot of respect , he is just what the UK needed.
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:48 pm

Quoting oa260 (Reply 10):
David Cameron is getting alot of respect , he is just what the UK needed.

Well, he has a lot of respect from the Republic of Ireland at any rate!

Sadly though I read some reaction in UK papers today along the lines of "Cameron sold out the British army". I was simply disgusted. Another choice comments was "what about Justice for the Birmingham and Guildford bombings". Aside from the fact that it was British police who just went and nicked the fist "damn paddies" they could find and banged them up for 20 odd years while the real killers went free, it shows an overwhelming lack of genorosity on what was a truly huge day for Ireland.

It sadly looks like a minority in the UK still cannot accept that the invasion and occupation of Ireland, and the subsequent handling of issues in Northern Ireland, were a mistake, were accompanied by brutal state terror, and were quite simply wrong.

Anyway, I trust from the generally positive response in the British media that such people are thankfully in the minority.
 
MD11junkie
Posts: 2499
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:09 pm

Quoting alberchico (Reply 3):
Why the hell did it take so long to investigate this incident? Surely previous govt's must have slowed or delayed the investigation right ?

The investigation was commended by Labour PM Tony Blair in 1998. You can't just treat these matters lightly, especially if you start an inquiry (the 2nd one, for that matter) 28 years after (the actual hearings began in 2000). Hearing all of the witnesses accounts, IRA, Paras, bystanders, marchers and the list goes on. Some of the people participating in Bloody Sunday and couldn't be "questioned" (as they were dead) - therefore the Saville Inquiry had to rely on others testimony to build their accounts, and place them in the imaginary scene. Remember there were TONS of contradicting statements, with the Paras saying very different things from what the Marchers had to say (and some IRA members too).

It was a difficult task, and to my knowledge the Saville Inquiry should be set as a milestone for the whole world to try these acts of stupidity (there's no other word for it).

Finally, I want to congratulate PM David Cameron and express my sincere admiration for his courage to admit the wrong doing of the Government and the Paras in NI. Hearing him say:

"Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces and for that, on behalf of the government, indeed, on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry."

...was absolutely fabulous.

And finally, what's most important after the Saville Inquiry:

"And come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland's troubled past.

That is not to say we should ever forget or dismiss the past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the last 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future. "


These fragments are part of what I consider a sensible and brilliant statment of the Prime Minister addressing the Commons, on the results of the Saville Inquiry.

You can read the report here.

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 2):
Well done Saville, Well done David Cameron, and thank you.

Cheers to that!

Saludos,
There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:10 pm

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 11):
It sadly looks like a minority in the UK still cannot accept that the invasion and occupation of Ireland, and the subsequent handling of issues in Northern Ireland, were a mistake, were accompanied by brutal state terror, and were quite simply wrong.

There are on both sides , you still have the idiots that think they are somehow going to re unite Ireland by planting bombs even if it means killing their own Irish Catholic brothers. Just like we saw in Omagh. These people are nothing more than criminals, the majority on the Island voted for peace and anyone caught these days trying to cause trouble should be banged up for life with no early release and a shoot to kill policy should be in force on both sides of the border if need be.
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:30 pm

Quoting oa260 (Reply 13):
There are on both sides , you still have the idiots that think they are somehow going to re unite Ireland by planting bombs even if it means killing their own Irish Catholic brothers. Just like we saw in Omagh. These people are nothing more than criminals, the majority on the Island voted for peace and anyone caught these days trying to cause trouble should be banged up for life with no early release and a shoot to kill policy should be in force on both sides of the border if need be.

Shoot to kill is exactly what got us in this mess in the First place. The widespread abuses of civil rights gave carte blanche to the security forces, and their subsequent actions fuelled radicalisation on both sides.

If you are going to lock people up, or end their crimes, at least do it honestly and stick to your principles. I know it can be difficult, but these painful events should have taught us that much.

While I accept that many wrongs have been commited oon both sides, we also have to accept that it was Britain's occupation of Ireland and it's policies during that time that caused this conflict in the first place. From that occupation, came plantations, the theft of lands, the displacement of populations, and the ultimate partition of the country (even if that partition was designed to protect at least one side of the community) You cant go around invading countries and expect people to just sit back and take it. A few other countries badly need to learn this too.

I am shocked how people in this day and age can still defend colonialism - yet another form of legitamised theft.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:52 pm

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 11):
It sadly looks like a minority in the UK still cannot accept that the invasion and occupation of Ireland, and the subsequent handling of issues in Northern Ireland, were a mistake, were accompanied by brutal state terror, and were quite simply wrong.

Anyway, I trust from the generally positive response in the British media that such people are thankfully in the minority.

Correct, it would not surprise me if the Daily Mail linked it to house prices or 'immigrants'.
It is not anything like a majority view.

However,

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 14):
While I accept that many wrongs have been committed on both sides, we also have to accept that it was Britain's occupation of Ireland and it's policies during that time that caused this conflict in the first place. From that occupation, came plantations, the theft of lands, the displacement of populations, and the ultimate partition of the country (even if that partition was designed to protect at least one side of the community)

The fact remains the Protestant majority have been in N.I. rather longer than those who consider themselves the indigenous in many nation states today.
From the North and South and America and many other places.
Who we now call the British were colonised by Romans and Normans - and raided by Vikings as well as African slave traders.
It's everywhere.
The history of Ireland and Scotland's history with England is also bound up with the religious strife of centuries past, which in turn led to attempts by hostile foreign powers, to use these places as launchpads for possible invasion of England.

This is the problem of both N.I. Republicans and Loyalists presenting their histories as linear, simple, based on grievance.

History is messy, few are innocent.

As I mentioned above, there was no choice but to deploy troops in 1969, the failure was not previously addressing the legitimate concerns of Nationalists in the province (a place I think many in the UK government - with all that history in mind - wanted little to do with and found bewiildering).
Though the British PM who sent them in, Harold Wilson, soon developed a strong dislike for the hard core Unionists, (for all his many faults he had a very strong dislike for racism and prejudice in general), this is why I supect had he stayed in power Bloody Sunday probably would not have happened - since the other mistakes which led to the events might well have been averted - disbanding the 'B Speciails', a very sectarian bunch, icons of hard core Unionists, described by one Army officer as highly trained shots and little else.
British Army joke from that period - what's the difference between a pair of knickers and a B Specials landrover? Only one c**t in a pair of knickers!

With this announcement (and I agree Cameron did very well- given his party it cannot have been so easy), some would like to see some reciprocation.
Sinn Fein coming clean and admitting the IRA's long and extensive use of drug running and other crime would be good.

Also as before, with so many terrorists set free by the Good Friday agreement, trying to prosecute the Paras involved would be selctive justice - even allowing for their reponsibility as agents of the state.
Including the commander, who the report claims, disobeyed orders in deploying 1 Para in the way he did.
1972 was the time to have done that.
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:22 pm

Leaving aside the rights and wrong of the origins of the issue, becuase it really does not matter now, it is how it is (and, I am only to well aware, my family being from Cork, and spent many years fighting the British, before changing sides). The fact is that feelings run as high in some places in the UK, where PIRA committed atrocities. Mostly those were against completely innocent civilians, and yet, PIRA, specifically, and their political leaders, who now have real power, will not conduct a similar exercise.
If you put it into that context, you can understand why the feelings have been expressed, and I have to agree, they have a point. The running sore that Bloody Sunday caused, in Ireland, is mirrored to an extent in places Like Brum, and Aldershot, but for them there will not be a solution.
That having been said, there has to be an end to this retrospective, Ireland can't go on living in the past, nor can Birmmingham and Aldershot.
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:53 pm

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 14):
Shoot to kill is exactly what got us in this mess in the First place. The widespread abuses of civil rights gave carte blanche to the security forces, and their subsequent actions fuelled radicalisation on both sides.

But times are different now and the ones planting bombs or trying to are far from freedom fighters the Irish need to accept that now , most do but there are still some minorities who have a warped dream. I live on the border so know the area/communities of both sides of the border. If someone is about to plant a bomb or refuses to stop and it known 100% that they are carrying something in a car then there is no issue but to shoot to kill. Its going to save lives.

Quoting GDB (Reply 15):
Sinn Fein coming clean and admitting the IRA's long and extensive use of drug running and other crime would be good.

Everyone knows they did its no secret, its a given here on both sides of the border. If you said that to someone here they would laugh and say ''You really didnt know that''. There were plenty of governments lining up to assist also it wasnt the drug running or crime that brought the big bucks in. The currency was $$ just to give you hint where it came from.

Anyway its finally come out that these people were unarmed innocent civillians and thats the most important thing, the UK troops and British government messed up big time that day and then tried to cover it up. At least justice has been done now. There is no doubt that for many years Catholics were the under dogs in their own country , this isnt the case today.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5853
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:58 pm

Quoting oa260 (Reply 17):
it wasnt the drug running or crime that brought the big bucks in. The currency was $$ just to give you hint where it came from.

They're certainly not bucks, but twenty six million pounds from the Northern Bank probably helped too . . .
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:21 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 15):
The fact remains the Protestant majority have been in N.I. rather longer than those who consider themselves the indigenous in many nation states today.
From the North and South and America and many other places.
Who we now call the British were colonised by Romans and Normans - and raided by Vikings as well as African slave traders.
It's everywhere.

I think you have misinterpreted my view there, but thats understandable, I am not saying for a minute that the Protestant population should have to leave, or not be accomodated in any way. I accept that NI is now there, and it cant be dissolved without the agreement of the majority.

I would not wish to discommode such a large section of our society. My vision of a united Ireland is not some papist state, but an inclusive one, and one achieved by peace, and not by terror.

But, one has to make the point that had it not been for the forced plantations of Irish lands, would the issue of a divided country ever have arisen? This is the legacy Ireland has been left with, and one we now must deal with in a compassionate way.

I know Colonialism happened everywhere - but I will never agree that it was right, and I will never agree that our campaign for freedom was unjustified. Britain commited unspeakable acts against this country and its people, and despite the fact that we are all now willing to move on, I will never ever feel that Ireland should somehow feel guilty for wanting her Independence.

Quoting oa260 (Reply 17):
If someone is about to plant a bomb or refuses to stop and it known 100% that they are carrying something in a car then there is no issue but to shoot to kill. Its going to save lives.

If it is 100% known, then shoot the f*****r in the leg, arm or whatever and disable him. Trained officers should be well capable. A shoot to kill policy leaves security forces wide open to suspicions, which could only help fuel radicalism.

Quoting bjcc (Reply 16):
If you put it into that context, you can understand why the feelings have been expressed, and I have to agree, they have a point. The running sore that Bloody Sunday caused, in Ireland, is mirrored to an extent in places Like Brum, and Aldershot, but for them there will not be a solution.

That sore has been felt by all of us. I hope the people of the UK realise how disgusted we were by these atrocities too. Unfortunatly, UK police botched these investigations, and have probably made them so politically sensitive that it would be difficult to now seek prosecutions.

This is why I am not in favour of charges being brought against the Paras. Given that prisoner release was one of the main tenets of the peace process, it would be unfair to now seek redress in the other direction.
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:32 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 18):
They're certainly not bucks, but twenty six million pounds from the Northern Bank probably helped too . . .


It goes way back before the Northern Bank   Collecting outside Mass in New York ''For the children of Ireland''
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:35 pm

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 19):
If it is 100% known, then shoot the f*****r in the leg, arm or whatever and disable him. Trained officers should be well capable. A shoot to kill policy leaves security forces wide open to suspicions, which could only help fuel radicalism.

That's for the movies, if you have to use a lethal firearm, aim for the legs you'll likely miss - or if you don't might well sever a main artery. Hence aiming for the largest target - the centre of the body.
Hence the use by the police and army of plastic bullets, having petrol and acid bombs thrown at you is no joke, is potentially fatal, add in the fact that many disturbances were 'come ons' for the security forces - making them more vulnerable to armed attack - the baton rounds put distance between the security forces and rioters too.

Baton rounds were also controversial, some had a lethal effect, designed to be 'like a hard punch', well a single hard punch can kill too.
Throwing potentially lethal projectiles at armed police or army is a very risky act in itself.

Repeated in the wake of the announcement of the inquiry, was the excellent Bloody Sunday , made in 2002, a reconstruction of that day, directed by Paul Greengrass, who went on to direct the last two Bourne films and United 93.
One scene in this film has been debunked by the Saville inquiry, that the army planted blast bombs on one of the dead.
He was carrying them. But for someone else? Who knows, nonetheless using rifle fire against such a target was seen as excessive, unless he was about to throw one, which seems unlikely.

But I do find some of the 'givens' of Irish Republicanism somewhat one eyed.
1916 - Would the British response had been as severe if most of the nations young men were not fighting the First World War, with all the horrors that brought?
Again, we can never know.
To many in the UK, the Easter Rising would have been seen as possibly another front in this world war.

Then there was the effect of Irish PM De Valera, a one man recruiting army for hostile Ulster Loyalism.
He retarded the economic and social development of Eire for decades, small wonder the largest export was many of the best and brightest, or just those who wanted out.
Many, a majority, only had to go far as crossing the Irish sea to build a better life.
This one cannot be laid at the door of the 'Brits'.

There has always be a hypocrisy in the Orange Order and the like, they made much hay about the repressive 'Priest Ridden' South, though they themselves were hardly getting with the programme with the liberalisation in the mainland UK which they pledged such alligence to.
But just imagine what Paisley and co would done if the revelations about Catholic child abuse in Ireland had become known a few decades sooner?

For the vast majority of the some 250,000 British troops who did tours in N.I. over all those years, there was little difference in Nationalist and Loyalist, the year after Bloody Sunday, another Parachute Regiment Battalion, 3 PARA, had it's biggest contact on their Belfast tour with Loyalist gunmen on the Shankill Road.
Started after they searched Loyalist drinking clubs for arms based on information provided.

As the IRA campaign escalated, the Eire government introduced legislation against the IRA, more severe than on the UK mainland, for thier part, the Provos called the Eire government 'The Shit State'.

Mention has been made of the serious injustices of the Guilford Four and Birmingham Six, however context is needed.
We enjoyed the rip roaring TV series Life On Mars a few years back, with it's depiction of 1970's British policing.
On one hand there is a humour in the unreconstructed, very un 'PC' attitudes, on the other, the physical interrogation and fit ups.

It wasn't just 'hauling the nearest Paddies off the street', there were many others with noting to do with N.I. and terrorism too.
People locked up for murder who had 'confessed' after severe pressure put on them with no legal representation, no interview recording, often the suspect was of lower intelligence or vulnerable in other ways.
Stefan Kiskow, mental age of 12, nearly 20 years inside for killing a young girl before the case was quashed. (More recently, DNA advances caught the real killer).
The 'Bridgewater Three', convicted of gunning down a paperboy who stumbled upon a break in and plenty of others.

Even after the requirement of recorded interviews and other legislation to try and prevent repeats, there have been other cases, the attempt to snare Colin Stagg for the murder of Racheal Nickell, another inadequate Barry George falsely imprisoned for shooting TV presenter Jill Dando.

What have all these, including the wrongful convictions of IRA suspects, have in common?
They were all very high profile cases, much media frenzy, crimes which shocked the nations, thus putting the Police and justice system under severe pressure to solve them.
These institutions being staffed with fallible humans, the desire to 'get a result' led to false assumptions, cutting corners and worse.
Not an excuse, just a fact of life.
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:57 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
Then there was the effect of Irish PM De Valera, a one man recruiting army for hostile Ulster Loyalism.
He retarded the economic and social development of Eire for decades, small wonder the largest export was many of the best and brightest, or just those who wanted out.
Many, a majority, only had to go far as crossing the Irish sea to build a better life.
This one cannot be laid at the door of the 'Brits'.

Again, I feel im a being misrepresented here. Just because I lay the blame for the conflict at the door of the British, It doesnt mean I dont recognise the faults of the Irish government or anyone else. There is a perception that if you hold these views about the source of the conflict, that you buy into all the IRA propaganda. That is simply not true, and is definitely not true in my case.

De Valera was no great Irishman. He retarded Ireland for too long, and at a time when we should have been showing loyalism genorosity, showing the modern, secular Republic that we were forming, his government destroyed any chance of that with his insular, mono cultural ways.

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
There has always be a hypocrisy in the Orange Order and the like, they made much hay about the repressive 'Priest Ridden' South, though they themselves were hardly getting with the programme with the liberalisation in the mainland UK which they pledged such alligence to.

Bang on. If anything, it is the Republic which is now the real secular, multi cultural state, but even still some are finding new ways to criticise us. We have gone from being cast as "poor and backward" to being "materialistic and fake". I've even been called a "nazi" by a Northern Loyalist because I live in a country where the Main Railway station in Dublin has a 20 cent fee for toilet usage!!!!! (one wonders had he ever been outside the 6 counties before)

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
Mention has been made of the serious injustices of the Guilford Four and Birmingham Six, however context is needed.
We enjoyed the rip roaring TV series Life On Mars a few years back, with it's depiction of 1970's British policing.
On one hand there is a humour in the unreconstructed, very un 'PC' attitudes, on the other, the physical interrogation and fit ups.

I only mention those injustices because there are some commenting in English papers saying the the Bloody sunday enquiry was a waste of money, exhonerated terrorists, and "where was the justice for the victims of Birmingham and Guildford". I was simply making the point that if these people have an issue (and they do - and are entitled to), then take it up with their own police who botched the investigations. That was all. I am not bringing it up to score points.

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
1916 - Would the British response had been as severe if most of the nations young men were not fighting the First World War, with all the horrors that brought?
Again, we can never know.
To many in the UK, the Easter Rising would have been seen as possibly another front in this world war.

Sorry, but tough luck Britain. Britain was occupying this country against the wishes of the majority, and quite frankly, whatever chance the 1916 guys had to get rid of them, they should have taken it, World War 1 or no World War 1. I'm sure Britain took advantage of perceived weaknesses on the part of it's opponents in that war and others as well - thats what you do to win.

People in the UK seem to just not get this point - Ireland was being occupied against the wishes of the vast majority of its people. That is a military occupation. What is so different about Britain fighting valliantly for her freedom during World War 2 and us fighting for ours in 1916?

Quite simply, there is no difference. The British people need to wake up and accept that the Irish are not just "renegade Brits" who simply wanted "out" of the "Union" but a distinct ethnicity who wanted their freedom, and were sick of being pushed around in their own country. What is so wrong with that?

Should we Paddies have thought "oh no, we cant possibly strike for freedom now, while they are fighting a war, that would be awfully unfair on our colonial oppressors"?? No, of course not, we saw our opportunity and we went for it, and I am damn glad we did.

This isnt because I dont like Britain (I do!), or I dont like the British (I do also!), but because I am Irish, not British. I do not have a British identity, I do not feel any special bond with Britain apart from the normal neighbourliness, and I want us to govern ourselves, but to have an excellent relationship with all our neighbours, and especially with those with whom we now share a language.

I am an outward focused, modern Irishman who welcomes multi culturalism, rejects dogma be it religious or political, and is willing to move on. But that doesnt mean I have to pretend that history didnt happen and that Ireland somehow deserved the treatment it got. It didnt.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:58 pm

Shamrock, I do get the point about the perceived occupation, however 'Home Rule' for Ireland was a major political issue for British governments over decades, it felled administrations, ended political careers, made others, created divisions within parties.
The obstacle was of course, a colonial legacy, the unionist population in the North, Carson and all those (German) rifles shipped in to resist, if it came to it, the mainland British if the whole of Ireland was forced into home rule.
Did the new Republic avoid the sort of strife we saw from the late 60's, but decades sooner with those fighting for their 'home rule' against a new Eire government and people?

Before independence, the two islands were closely intertwined, culturally in particular, large numbers of Irish - not of the north, served in the British Army including in WW1. And would in WW2, after Irish independence.
There were large numbers then, as now, of Irish living and working in Britain.
Of course a substantial number of Irish always wanted independence, that grew after attempts at a political home rule agreement was stalled more than once.

So yes, for these reasons many in Britain did see Ireland as naturally part of Britain, not as a far flung colony peopled by those of a different race and creed, however odd that might seem now, they saw Ireland the same way they saw Scotland.
The world is full of islands of two (or more) distinct nations, for all sorts of political/historic reasons.
Irish independence was inevitable, it was seen by many in the UK as such, as despite those links, the culture, sense of nationhood, the major faith practiced in Ireland , made such a severing certain at some point.
It could have, probably should have, been before WW1, even before the start of the 20th century, but like other parts of the world, it wasn't as simple to bring it about.

Another irony is that, increasingly, the Unionists, particularly the Orange Order, were to the average Britain more alien to them than a Irish person, who they probably knew plenty of at home.
Including after independence.
All that fire and brimstone brand of Protestantism, the social structures, that ultra patriotism, Ulster was not a part of Britain that 'swung' in the 60's and beyond.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:13 am

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 19):
This is why I am not in favour of charges being brought against the Paras. Given that prisoner release was one of the main tenets of the peace process, it would be unfair to now seek redress in the other direction.

In two minds myself, shamrock604. From seeing the TV newsreels at the time, I have always felt that this wasn't an entire unit running amok - but that it amounted to relatively few soldiers completely losing their heads and firing indiscriminately. I can still remember, on the newsreels, seeing and hearing an officer shouting, "Stop firing, STOP firing......." while the SLRs were bang-banging away.........

And then there's 'Soldier H' - the 'I fired at a window' man. I saw him interviewed on TV too - and was struck by his strong Glasgow-Scottish accent. His actual evidence is still on file. At the original (Widgery) enquiry he admitted to (in company with 'Soldier F' and 'Soldier G') shooting several 'youths' who were 'believed to be carrying nailbombs.' Then he testified:-

On the west sido of the flats about 200 metres from my passing location, the patrol came under fire from a concealed. sniper, using a high velocity rifle. I located his position to be a toilet facing me. He was firing from the window, about 1 ft square.

"I took a covering position, cocked my rifle, and fired 17 x 7.62 aimed shots at the sniper. I then changed my magazine, loaded the rifle with a fresh magazine and fired 2- x 7-.62-shots., He did not return fire. No investigation of the premises was carried out."


http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/evidence/B/B218.pdf

My reaction at the time was - and remains to this day - that someone should have cross-examined him (starting with the old army phrase, "Pull the other leg, mate, it's got bells on it......"); and that, further, someone should have taken him to Belfast and invited him to identify the 'window' he was referring to. If 19 rounds from an SLR HAD in fact been fired at it, there'd have been plenty of evidence even years later (even today, for that matter). It wouldn't have been the sort of damage that you could tidy up with a tube of Polyfilla and a can of emulsion paint.

AND, of course, someone should have asked him why he felt it was necessary to reload and fire a total of 19 rounds in any case, since (by his own admission) the 'alleged' sniper was not returning fire...........

The Army storemen will have recorded all the ammunition 'out and in' in accordance with standard procedure. He had to explain what he had fired no less than 22 rounds at. So it's highly probable (to say the least) that he just plain invented the 'sniper at the window' story........

Tend to agree, though, that there will not be any prosecutions. Not because of any ideas about 'natural justice' or anything - just that the tragedy was not properly investigated at the time, and it's too late now: so that there is no evidence on which to base any proceedings..........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:31 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 23):
Before independence, the two islands were closely intertwined, culturally in particular, large numbers of Irish - not of the north, served in the British Army including in WW1. And would in WW2, after Irish independence.
There were large numbers then, as now, of Irish living and working in Britain.
Of course a substantial number of Irish always wanted independence, that grew after attempts at a political home rule agreement was stalled more than once.

We are still intertwined GDB, and I have no issue with that at all. Its a good thing, and is how any two neighbours should get along!

I must also congratulate you on your excellent knowledge and understanding of the issues, It is very refreshing, and I only wish it was shared by more in the United Kingdom.

Quoting GDB (Reply 23):
So yes, for these reasons many in Britain did see Ireland as naturally part of Britain, not as a far flung colony peopled by those of a different race and creed, however odd that might seem now, they saw Ireland the same way they saw Scotland.

I understand why the British people held that view. Britain's government and institutions were very good at articulating the intergration of the UK at the time, and it seems to be accepted as a given, even still, that we are an integral part of their country. What bothers me, is that this view continues, and that the symbols of such, such as the Union Jack and Royal emblems, still allude to Ireland being part of the UK. This is grossly unfair, and of course completely innacurate. As much as we need to move on, so does Britain, and it needs to stop this reference to "British Isles", and accept that we are a seperate nation, and that the concept of the "UK" was one we were forced into, didnt accept, and came with major mistreatment of the Irish people. There was nothing glorious about this form of "lebensraum".

Much has been said by both of us about moving on. To move on, we need to admit the truth, and Britain needs to face up to how shocking its colonial past was. The double standard of fighting against German invasion, so glorified in Britain's history, and of doing plenty of the invading itself to other nations needs to be realised. The British need to break through their self imposed facade of pride and glory. Some humility, as shown so graciously by David Cameron this week, does an awful lot to heal old wounds.
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:48 pm

But surely, the Ulster, which is part of the United Kingdom, shares many of the symbols of Eire?
Given that is the case, then the flags of the United Kingdom, not Britain, as you say, are going to reflect that, and not as you say, reinforce the stereotype in peoples mind that Eire is still part of the Union. The same will also hold true for Royal cyphers etc.
What does strike me as strange though, is that Eire, is very much more pro the EU than the UK. Are you not exchanging one 'master' Nationality and identity for another, hardly independence.
On the subject of the Birmingham 6, and Guilford 4, it should be remembered that at the time, forensic science was a lot less advanced, and that evidence also pointed very much to the guilt of the people concerned. That evidence becoming, unreliable, was the main reason why they were eventually cleared. Of course, that does not mean they didn't do it, just that there is insufficient evidence to justify the conviction. I do have to contrast the UK's legal process though with that of the IRA, where once your knee cap is removed by gunshot, there is no room for appeal, on the basis of evidence becoming available.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:15 pm

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 25):
Much has been said by both of us about moving on. To move on, we need to admit the truth, and Britain needs to face up to how shocking its colonial past was. The double standard of fighting against German invasion, so glorified in Britain's history, and of doing plenty of the invading itself to other nations needs to be realised. The British need to break through their self imposed facade of pride and glory. Some humility, as shown so graciously by David Cameron this week, does an awful lot to heal old wounds.

Bad as colonialism often was, by ALL nations who practiced it, it is worth recalling how some in the Far East saw, for a moment, the Japanese as liberators who had sent the European colonists packing.
That lasted literally hours.
The same would have been true had Hitler controlled all Europe, including Ireland.
IRA members would have been the first to be imprisoned more likely killed.

The Nazis used to cite British Concentration Camps in the Boer War as a justification for theirs, while these were a huge stain on Britain, we know how Germany's camps would develop into something entirely worse.
In South Africa, they were a stupid and ham fist-ed attempt to separate civilians from the Boer fighters and then lethally neglected, in Nazi Germany they were for beating up political prisoners, disposing of the 'unfit' such as the disabled, then into industiral mass killing factories.
It was a British women, Emily Hobhouse, an aid worker, who exposed the Boer camps creating a major political scandal.

And there was the essential difference, Britain was not a dictatorship, therefore it had the capacity to change and right wrongs. Governments, though by today's standards barely democratic in the range of suffrage, still were subject to public and politifcal pressure.
The first European colonists to abolish slavery after a long campaign of political pressure leading to wide public revision of the practice.
(That smug lot across the Atlantic, for all their fine words about 'fighting off colonialism' practiced it for another half century, it took an appallingly bloody civil to end it. As well as colonising parts of Mexico and of course, the native Americans).

Dictatorships had no such pressure, the only way to stop the massive, unprecedented in human history, levels of abuse, slave labour and murder, was to effectively destroy Germany and Japan.
Stalin also had no pressures at home, unless you wanted a trip to Siberia and/or death too.

That is why we DO see a difference with fighting the Axis (and the Kaiser, and Napoleon), but in particular Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Had they prevailed, the result would have been unimaginable.
In doing so, Britain effectively ended it's Empire, already in decline not least due to the effects of WW1, Churchill, born into the height of Pax Britannia, who saw himself as the epitome of it, knew full well that by fighting on in 1940 he would be the one who sounded it's death knell.
Whatever he said in public, the massive debt build up to sustain the last outpost of Europe against something truly malevolent, would hand over superpower status to the USA.
It was coming anyway, he just fast forwarded several decades.

I think most people in the UK are aware of the both the light and dark of our history, certainly my education included it in no uncertain terms.
But it IS light and dark, Britain gets more attention for it's imperial past since it's Empire was the biggest, but why?
And how did a small Island with a not particularly large European population end up ruling so much of the world (and with, let's remember, a small army by European standards)?
It has to be linked in with the fact that this was also the same place that started the industrial revolution, to a large degree, 'Empire' was a crude form of corporate 'vertical integration'.
Finding markers, securing them against other colonialist rivals, bit by bit, a trading post here, the search for resources there.

Why did the industrial revolution start in Britain?
It seems to be a result of the enlightenment, the casting off of what many in England them saw as a malign foreign influence, The Church Of Rome.
Much of what would happen in Ireland and Scotland, came from this, with foreign powers of the Catholic faith trying to reassert the rule of the Pope in that renegade island of heretics.
It does not excuse, it does in part, at least, explain.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5853
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:46 pm

Quoting bjcc (Reply 26):
What does strike me as strange though, is that Eire, is very much more pro the EU than the UK. Are you not exchanging one 'master' Nationality and identity for another, hardly independence.

There are two main differences here: as a memeber of the EU we get to keep our own identity (even if we've handed-over a lot of decision-making to Brussels), Crucially we have (like all the other EU members) an input into this decision-making. Also, EU membership was put to a referendum, and voted for by the majority of the elecorate.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:07 pm

Bono attempts to educate Americans on the subject in his NYT column this week:

every Irish person conscious on that day has a mental picture of Edward Daly, later the bishop of Derry, holding a blood-stained handkerchief aloft as he valiantly tended to the wounded and the dying....

...Contrast all this with last Tuesday ... a bright day on our small rock in the North Atlantic. Clouds that had hung overhead for 38 years were oddly missing ... the sharp daylight of justice seemed to chase away the shadows and the stereotypes of the past. No one behaved as expected. The world broke rhyme.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/opinion/20bono.html?hp
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:53 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 28):
There are two main differences here: as a memeber of the EU we get to keep our own identity (even if we've handed-over a lot of decision-making to Brussels), Crucially we have (like all the other EU members) an input into this decision-making.

Bit of a mix-up here, Braybuddy, IMO.  

First point is, Southern Ireland 'achieved' - or 'was granted' - 'Dominion status' in 1921. This effectively made it as independent as Australia or Canada. However, two things happened. First of all, the province of Northern Ireland - having a majority of Protestants - exercised its right to opt out of the Irish Free State in the subsequent referendum. Secondly, the Sinn Fein 'hard-liners' decided that Dominion status (even though it was the only thing that made sense in economic terms) was not enough, and followed up the 'war of independence' against the British by starting the two-year Irish Civil War against the Irish Free Staters.

Not content with that, once they had killed off enough Free Staters forcibly to be able to set up the Irish Republic, they 'started again' with a fifty-year campaign of terrorism aimed at forcing the people of Northern Ireland (a clear majority of whom wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom) to become part of said republic........

For my part it comes down to 'people'.......

Like my own (Australian-English) father - who, while awaiting his own call-up in the First World War, had to watch friends of his being sent to Ireland and get themselves killed in the 1916 'Easter Rising'; and then later fought in both world wars, defending Ireland just as much as the rest of the UK. Paradoxically, serving in 1918 in the 'First Battalion, 18th. London Regiment (London Irish Rifles) - which, of course, was full of Irishmen fighting to defend not 'Ireland' or 'England' but, to put it simply, the 'British Isles.'

And my mother, a Waterford girl who happened to be from a C of E family - which had to move to England after their farm was burned down and 'appropriated' in the Civil War; and was an Admiral's secretary in WW2, travelling in to Central London right through the Blitz - ALSO defending Ireland.

And, much later, my daughter's riding instructor here in Australia, an Englishman who had previously lived only for two things, horses and the Army. He was in the Household Cavalry and survived that awful IRA bomb atrocity in Hyde Park in 1982. Soon afterwards he was sent on a tour in Northern Ireland. As an NCO, he was 'relieving' an observation post in South Armagh when some 'Shinners' opened up with a US-supplied M60 machinegun from across the Irish border. He was 'lucky' in that he was standing beside the slit trench - he just got half-a-dozen 'dum-dum' rounds rounds through the legs, which ended both his Army career and his riding one. The two guys IN the trench got the rest of the magazine through their chests and were killed........

I don't doubt that 'Bloody Sunday'' was a dreadful affair, in which a lot of innocent people wre killed or wounded by soldiers who ran amok. But the Irish 'Troubles' were not simply the fault of the 'English' - indeed, the ordinary people of Britain tended most often to be 'piggy in the middle' rather than on one side or the other........

In my opinion a helluva lot of the 'troubles' of the Irish people over the last hundred years or so have been self-inflicted. As far as I'm concerned, all those tragedies just proved what anybody with any sense knew already.

That religion and politics don't mix.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
EISHN
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:31 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:04 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
Not content with that, once they had killed off enough Free Staters forcibly to be able to set up the Irish Republic, they 'started again' with a fifty-year campaign of terrorism aimed at forcing the people of Northern Ireland (a clear majority of whom wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom) to become part of said republic........

Wrong.

The Anti-Treaty (Ireggulars) lost the Civil War. The Free State Government (Cumman na nGael) ruled until 1932, when the recently formed Fianna Fail (Soldiers of Destiny) won the general election. FF was the Anti Treaty part of what once was Sinn Fein, whilst C na G was the pro Treaty side. Eamon De Valera led FF from the 20's to the 50's. Dev wrote the constitution in 1937, which renamed the Free State 'Éire'. Throughout the 30's and the 40's Dev dismantled almost everything that was in the Treaty. He removed the role of the Kings representive (Govenor General?), made the President the Head of State, and Taoiseach (PM) Head of Government. Ireland officially left the Commonwealth in 1949 by declaring itself a Republic, which it was in everything but name at that stage. This was carried out by Fine Gael, who were once C na G.

One thing that clearly seems to be lacking here is the full story of how things were in the North for Catholics. It was just like being Black in the Southern US states. They had very little rights, the Unionists were completely undemocratic (yes, I know the Ireggulars were the same). It was very, very hard for Catholics in the North. The Unionists didn't want them there.
Do people understand that the Bloody Sunday march wasn't some sort of nationalist march similar to what the Orange Order or Apprentice Boys of Derry would carry out?
The march that took place on Boody Sunday was a Civil Rights march for Catholics, and the Unionists did everything they could to squash them.
Now, when we say Protestant and Catholic, it really had nothing to do with religion, we all know it was political. Protestant is Unionist, and Catholic is Nationalist.


I speak for a lot of Irish people today when I say that the IRA do not represent me, nor does the IRA who murdered children and ruined lives represent me.
We also need to remember that we can talk as much as we want about who was right and who was worng. We weren't there. They can tell us how they felt and what they lived through and saw, but we don't know how it felt, nor did we live through it, therefore we can't say that one side was right or wrong. Hind sight is 20/20, and makes it too easy to judge things.
St. Flannan/ Fhlanain- She took off to find the footlights, And I took off for the sky
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:53 am

Quoting EISHN (Reply 31):
Now, when we say Protestant and Catholic, it really had nothing to do with religion, we all know it was political. Protestant is Unionist, and Catholic is Nationalist.

The key element here EISHN, and what so many foreigners seem to misunderstand about the "troubles" in N. Ireland.
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5853
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:48 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
First point is, Southern Ireland 'achieved' - or 'was granted' - 'Dominion status' in 1921. This effectively made it as independent as Australia or Canada.

While we were indeed a member of the Commonwealth until 1948, Irish people look on the secession from the United Kingdom as de facto independence. While other Commonwealth countries incorporated the Union Flag on their national flags, we didn't, nor did we keep the monarch or royal symbols on our currency or institutions. By the time we left the United Kingdom it was only a matter of time before we exited the Commonwealth.

Bjcc was puzzled over why we swapped one "master" for another. While indeed we had as much independence in the Commonwealth as Australia or Canada, membership was only a stepping stone to full independence. Like a lot of legislation in history, change can only come about gradually.

So, we had to stay in the Commonwealth to leave the United Kingdom, which Irish people had been (sporadically) fighting for since the 17th Century. So you cannot seriously compare being part of the United Kingdom to membership of the EU.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:51 pm

Quoting EISHN (Reply 31):
The march that took place on Boody Sunday was a Civil Rights march for Catholics, and the Unionists did everything they could to squash them.
Now, when we say Protestant and Catholic, it really had nothing to do with religion, we all know it was political. Protestant is Unionist, and Catholic is Nationalist.

Sorry, EISHN, but that seems to confirm, rather than deny, my impression that politics in Ireland in those days were based on religion, not 'policies.' The two sides didn't have any political policies to speak of - all the argument amounted to was 'union' or 'independence.' Which boiled down to 'British/non-Catholic' or Irish/Catholic.'

Quoting EISHN (Reply 31):
we can talk as much as we want about who was right and who was worng. We weren't there.

As I've indicated, EISHN, I WAS, in a way. As a further twist, my mother, after finding refuge in the UK, converted to Catholicism, and I was brought up as one. I've visited Ireland a lot in my time, and love the place and the people; but I've never been able to understand how such charming people could ever have produced such murderous monsters as the Provisional IRA. Let's not forget that those cowardly bastards, for many years, did exactly what Al Queda is doing at the moment; loosed off bombs in public places with the direct intention of killing as many innocent civilians as possible. They even INVENTED the car-bomb and the nail-bomb - both first used, as far as I know, in Hyde Park in 1982:-

"The first attack was a large nail bomb hidden in a blue Austin car parked on the Mall in Hyde Park, along the route used by the Household Cavalry, the Queen's official bodyguard regiment during the Changing of the Guard between Buckingham Palace and Knightsbridge. Three soldiers of the Blues and Royals were killed instantly, and another died on 23 July from his injuries. The other soldiers in the procession were all badly wounded and shrapnel and nails sprayed into the crowd of tourists assembled to watch the parade, causing further injuries. Seven of the regiment's horses were also killed or had to be put down because of their injuries.

"Bomb experts believed that the first bomb was a remote-detonated improvised explosive device, which was exploded at just the right point to catch the parade.

"The second explosion occurred almost simultaneously, when a bomb hidden underneath the bandstand in Regent's Park exploded during a performance of the music from Oliver! by the Royal Green Jackets band to a crowd of 120 people. Here too, the crowd was peppered by shrapnel from the iron bandstand, causing dozens of injuries amongst the audience, as well as killing or wounding the entire band. The blast was so powerful that one of the bodies was thrown onto an iron fence thirty yards away, and seven bandsmen were killed outright.


Personally, I'm afraid that I see no practical difference whatever between the Provisional IRA then and people like Al Queda nowadays. Both organisations, in their times, have 'specialised' in killing innocent civilians without warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_and_Regent's_Park_bombings

During my time in the reserve I was even trained in 'counter-insurgency'; beyond that, because (for some reason) I turned out to be a good shot, I was told that I'd probably 'cop a rooftop' if we ever had to do it. Meaning that I'd have been a sniper and have had to decide whether to shoot someone I thought might be about to use a weapon. I was given about three smudgy sheets of foolscap carbon copy pages listing the circumstances in which I SHOULDN'T shoot ('at my peril,' in the Army phrase) - nothing at all about when I SHOULD......

None of that excuses what 1 PARA did that day in Londonderry. The Parachute Regiment (I've met 'em!) are exactly the WRONG sort of people for that sort of job. 1 Para were already under investigation for 'putting the boot in' against Protestants only a week before:-

"Shortly before Bloody Sunday, I'd seen them confronting a crowd of angry Protestants just off the Shankill Road. The "Prods" had blocked the street, set fire to some tyres; they were protesting at the lack of security. So the local British battalion in the Ardoyne called up the reserves and the first thing we saw was an Army "Pig" – a big armored vehicle with a wide-bodied snout over the engine – come roaring round the corner, knocking a youth clean off the road on to the pavement. It drove straight into the burning tyres and the paratroopers jumped out of the back with wooden cudgels and got to work on the street lads.

"There were howls of rage and curses from the Brits and eventually the Prods cleared off and the soldiers of 1 Para stood in the street looking bored. Then a door opened and out came a man in his fifties. A Belfast Protestant, hair greying, he sort of hobbled on to the street as if he'd been hurt badly years ago and he walked right up to a group of Paras and plunged his hand into his pocket. He brought out an old Army red beret with a metal badge of parachute wings fixed to it and a tatty old regimental tie.

"The soldiers watched him, bemused. Then he began to tear the beret to pieces, right there in front of the soldiers, and ripped up the tie. The man was shouting 'Bastards, bastards," over and over again at them and he dropped the ruined beret and tie at his feet and stomped on them. The soldiers laughed. And the man kept shouting "bastards" and he was crying and then he shouted at the soldiers: "I was at Arnhem.""


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...y-the-guilty-innocent-2001678.html

Me, I'll wait for the NEXT enquiry - after the fifty-year-rule expires and we get access to the documents that will (in my view) prove that Edward Heath and some of his ministers actually ordered the Army to use the Paras to put the boot in and 'force the Provos into the open.'

But none of that will excuse the deliberate policy of the Provisional IRA, over decades - which was to make indiscriminate war on innocent civilians, on what amounted to 'religious grounds.'

All same Al Queda nowadays.......

[Edited 2010-06-22 08:00:04]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:17 pm

One major difference between the IRA and AQ, the former were not inclined to suicide bombing, indeed they had a tendency towards self preservation. (There was at least one case when they forced a civilian to drive a car they had packed with explosives at an army checkpoint).
Hence the move to more and more attacks against pure civilian targets and off duty RUC/UDR personnel.

Only having a limited pool of 'volunteers' may have been a factor, aside from the nature of what was done with both internment and Bloody Sunday, both of this did increase that pool, not surprisingly.
Truly Ted Heath's government was the worst in post war UK history, in all ways, clumsy, ill focused policies towards N.I. being just another factor.

However, Sinn Fein should pause before campaigning too much for prosecutions of the 1 PARA personnel, since the Saville inquiry did point at the activities of one Martin McGuinness that day - known locally then as the 'Butcher of Derry'.
Again, this is not to excuse 1 PARA, but such things would inevitably come out.
And to what end?
Whatever we may think of McGuinness, he DID, with Adams, eventually conclude that their 'war,' and it was theirs, was going nowhere.
Hence Adams statement to the UK government in 1992 that the war is over, but we need your help to bring it about.
I also cannot see anyone big in AQ (even if it even now exists in such a form at all), ever saying that.

All UK regiments had to take their turn on N.I. tours, though one exception was made, the Gurkha's - however most were based in Hong Kong through the Troubles.
When things were at their roughest, the early 70's, it was common for other arms such as Gunners, Armoured Vehicle Regiments, to train and operate as light counter insurgency infantry too.
Most of the Troubles were during the Cold War, so only so many infantry could be spared.
(Sinn Fein propaganda likes to claim that the IRA 'fought the British army to a standstill', but the peak of regular army presence in N.I. was during that terrible year of 1972, 22,000, out of a regular army of some 170,000 in this era, for the most part the regular army numbers were more like 10-12,000 especially after the RUC was effectively re-built from the mid 70's).

The Army always knew there was no pure military solution to the troubles, seeing themselves as holding the line until a political solution acceptable to most was found.

So the Para's may have been more suited to holding a bridge against an armoured SS regiment for a week, or taking Goose Green from the Argentines despite being outnumbered 3-1, or indeed recreating 'Rourkes Drift' several times in Afghanistan in 2006.
The Royal Marines, another very highly trained, somewhat specialised outfit, seemed not to get the same reputation in N.I. as the Paras despite not dissimilar training and ethos and many RM's having done the Para traing course themselves.
 
EISHN
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:31 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:43 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 34):
Sorry, EISHN, but that seems to confirm, rather than deny, my impression that politics in Ireland in those days were based on religion, not 'policies

How many people do you think joined the IRA because because the Protestants were all about divorce, contraception, and just being a heathen in general? NONE.
You are looking at it from the mindset of someone who was trained to fight the IRA, deal with terrorists and warfare. I'm going back before that.
In NI the police for was the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), who were utterly biased towards the NI government ruled by hardline Unionists. Sinn Fein abstained from elections to the Northern Assembly because they didn't recognise its existence. This hurt them more than helped really. The NI government had no one to fight against the obvious and determined discrimination against the Catholic community. Whilst not necessarily indoctrinated in law, government agencies were biased towards the Protestants.

So, if you're going to quote Wikipedia, so will I.

Quote:
From a unionist perspective, Northern Ireland's nationalists were inherently disloyal and determined to force Protestants and unionists into a united Ireland
Quote:
In the 1970s, for instance, during the period when the British government was unsuccessfully attempting to implement the Sunningdale Agreement, then-Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) councillor Hugh Logue described the agreement as the means by which unionists "will be trundled into a united Ireland". This threat was seen as justifying preferential treatment of unionists in housing, employment and other fields. The prevalence of large families and a more rapid population growth among Catholics was also seen as a threat.
Quote:
From a nationalist perspective, continued discrimination against Catholics only proved that Northern Ireland was an inherently corrupt, British-imposed state
Quote:
The Unionist government ignored Edward Carson's warning in 1921 that alienating Catholics would make Northern Ireland inherently unstable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Quote:
The Sunningdale Agreement was an attempt to end the Troubles in Northern Ireland by forcing unionists to share power with nationalists.[citation needed] The Agreement led to the establishment of a power-sharing cross-community Northern Ireland Executive and a cross-border Council of Ireland. The Agreement was signed at the Civil Service College (now the National School of Government) in Sunningdale Park located in Sunningdale, Berkshire, on 9 December 1973. Unionist opposition, violence and a loyalist general strike caused the collapse of the Agreement in May 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunningdale_Agreement

The IRA only really got off the ground at the end of the sixties, start of the sevetines. Events like the Battle of the Bogside, and Bloody Sunday only drove more members towards them.
Internment without trial turned many innocent non IRA members into fully fledged IRA members.
With their supposed "Government" so against them, the Catholics sought solice in the protection of the IRA.

I don't buy that you were "there" because you received some training as how not to combat the IRA. I'm talking about the people of West Belfast, and Derry who were really there, and really felt the oppression of the Unionists.
Remember, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and while they were terrorists in your eyes, they fought for the freedom of the Catholics. Our current President, Mary MacAleese, comes from Belfast where she was forced from her home by Loyalists as a child.

There's no doubt in my mind that many more people than the paras had blood on their hands, but at the moment you need to accept that they were wrong, and at the very moment, they were no better than what the IRA went on to become.

Both sides have blood on their hands. But like the vast majority of Muslims who claim Al' Queda do not speak for them, the IRA does not speak for us, and did not speak for us in the 90's when things just got way too out of hand.
St. Flannan/ Fhlanain- She took off to find the footlights, And I took off for the sky
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:52 pm

Analysis: Saville's Bloody Sunday legacy

"1 Para arrived in Londonderry on the morning of Sunday 30th January 1972."

And from one simple, opening sentence, the Saville inquiry explains how a tragedy unfolded.

It has taken him 12 years, 10 volumes and almost £200m - but Lord Saville and his Bloody Sunday inquiry team have doggedly achieved a near blow-by-blow account of how 13 people were shot dead in a single day by the Parachute Regiment - all of them killed without justification.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10324754.stm

-----

And whilst remembering Bloody Sunday we must also remember Bloody Friday which was a response by the IRA to the British Armys attack on civillians in Derry.


Bloody Friday: What happened

There have been many terrible events in the history of Northern Ireland's conflict, but few have seared the collective consciousness of its people as those on Friday, 21 July 1972, a day that became known as Bloody Friday.
By the end of the day, the IRA's Belfast brigade had detonated at least 20 bombs across the city.

In just 75 minutes of violence, nine people were dead and some 130 more were mutilated, injured and mentally scarred by what they had witnessed.

You could hear people screaming, crying and moaning. The first thing that caught my eye was a torso of a human being in the middle of the street

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2132219.stm
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:19 pm

Quoting bjcc (Reply 26):
On the subject of the Birmingham 6, and Guilford 4, it should be remembered that at the time, forensic science was a lot less advanced, and that evidence also pointed very much to the guilt of the people concerned. That evidence becoming, unreliable, was the main reason why they were eventually cleared. Of course, that does not mean they didn't do it, just that there is insufficient evidence to justify the conviction. I do have to contrast the UK's legal process though with that of the IRA, where once your knee cap is removed by gunshot, there is no room for appeal, on the basis of evidence becoming available.

You say that Like the IRA represents the people of Ireland - they dont, they are a terror group. We cant "unelect" the IRA because they arent legitimate. You lot, on the other hand, could have made Ireland an election issue, turfed out governments through the political process because of failure to act, but you didnt. It isnt the same thing.

THE IRA DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND!!!!!

Quoting bjcc (Reply 26):
What does strike me as strange though, is that Eire, is very much more pro the EU than the UK. Are you not exchanging one 'master' Nationality and identity for another, hardly independence.

"Master"? Its only the UK that sees Europe in that all or nothing light. Nothing will ever change national identities, even the British one, which you all seem so insecure about that many of you cannot bear to even mention the word "Europe"

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
In my opinion a helluva lot of the 'troubles' of the Irish people over the last hundred years or so have been self-inflicted. As far as I'm concerned, all those tragedies just proved what anybody with any sense knew already.

Im sorry, but its time to call that out as the innacuracy that it is. You just dont seem to get it. We are not British. Not ethnically, not any way. You speak as if we were renagade, something dirty trying to leave the master race. So let me make it clear for you:

Irish people had their lands stolen, and were forced to pay crippling rents for those same lands pushing them into abject poverty and making them reliant on one crop - the Potato. Ireland's Fault?

Ireland was planted by British Nationals in order to create the exact division that exists in Ireland today, and create a majority of people that would always be loyal to the Crown. This was achieved by theft of lands as mentioned above and murder, which was resisted everywhere, and was completely unsuccesful except in Ulster.

Irish People had their culture, language and Customs forcibly forbidden, often punishable by death. Ireland's Fault?

Irish people were villified as stupid, backward and evil. Ireland's Fault?

The Irish people were starved to death when the one crop they had been reduced to, was subject of disease, at a time when there was plenty of food in the country that was being exported to the UK. 1/4 of the population was wiped out or had to flee. IS THAT OUR FAULT???

Would you dare question what happened the Jews under Hitler? No. So why question what happened us?

I suggest you accept what is common knowledge seemingly everywhere else except it seems in the British forces. I suggest you also note what other of its former colonial possesions that the UK has damaged beyond repair. There are plenty of examples.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:25 pm

Quoting EISHN (Reply 36):
In NI the police for was the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), who were utterly biased towards the NI government ruled by hardline Unionists.

The RUC did have this element, however, at the start of the Troubles it had some 20% Catholics in it's ranks, after a sustained IRA campaign of intimidation - often against families, murder, that had shrunk to some 5%
More than just a self fulfilling prophecy, one brought about with menaces.

It was all too often the case that many on the Nationalist side were more scared of the IRA than of the security forces, kneecapping, tar and feathering's, extortion and 'nutting' (bullet in the head after torture).

While the Potato Famine was appalling, the lack of response and outright indifference of the government through their Laissez Faire policies towards the situation in the Irish countryside was matched by a similar attitude to privations in Britain too.
This was the era of dark satanic mills, kids up chimneys, terrible squalor, industrial injuries and disease, the governments then shit on by it's lack of action, on Britons at the bottom of the heap just as much as in Ireland.

As stated before, look around the world, plenty of examples of similar 'imported nationalities', land grabbing and the like, by many nations and predecessors of today's nations/peoples.

Not to excuse, just to put into some kind of context.
The slow, inadequate response to the Irish famine was matched all across the islands, reforms came but slowly, incrementally.
We look back at those times often with incredulity.
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20991
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:49 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
The RUC did have this element, however,

In fairness the RUC were rife with Loyalist supporters and turned a blind eye to many a Catholic being killed or beaten. I lived in the North whilst the RUC were still operating. I was there when the whole Drumcree thing kicked off and David Trimble was inciting the Orange Men to break the law backed by the RUC.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:44 am

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 38):
Irish people had their lands stolen, and were forced to pay crippling rents for those same lands pushing them into abject poverty and making them reliant on one crop - the Potato. Ireland's Fault?
Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
This was the era of dark satanic mills, kids up chimneys, terrible squalor, industrial injuries and disease, the governments then shit on by it's lack of action, on Britons at the bottom of the heap just as much as in Ireland.

Shamrock604, as GDB accurately points out, that sort of thing was happening all over Europe. It had it's roots in policies of 'enclosure'; people (not entirely, or even usually, particularly rich people) fencing off and assuming rights of ownership over land previously 'held in common' and setting up farms. Exactly the same thing happened all over Britain; in England and Wales the process is usually referred to as 'the enclosure movement,' and in Scotland it is still called 'the Highland Clearances.'

It was originally encouraged by governments everywhere since it opened up the possibility of large-scale food production - what we would now call industrialised farming. Unfortunately, though, it turned out that one of the most profitable forms of farming at the time was sheep-rearing - 'low costs and high returns,' and in particular very low requirements in terms of labour. As GDB implies, this led to the unemployed rural population crowding into the cities. In time the availability of those concentrated workforces led to the establishment of factories - what we now call the Industrial Revolution.

Like most things in history it is over-simplifying things to say that such events were entirely good or entirely bad. One can really only say that they ''happened' - the immediate consequences were undoubtedly dire but the process eventually led to the establishment of what we now call 'modern industrial societies' in place of the - literally feudal - subsistence farming that was previously the rule.

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 38):
Would you dare question what happened the Jews under Hitler? No. So why question what happened us?

Totally different issue IMO. The Jews of Europe were singled out and discriminated against purely on the basis of their religion - on purely political grounds. The people who suffered the consequences of the 'enclosure movement' were the rural poor not just in Ireland, but all over Europe, professing just about any religion you care to name. And they were essentially the victims not of religious or political persecution but of 'economic change.'
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:43 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 34):
But none of that will excuse the deliberate policy of the Provisional IRA, over decades - which was to make indiscriminate war on innocent civilians, on what amounted to 'religious grounds.'

For a pre-troubles view of the IRA (intended to be humorous and satirical against the English)

"The Irishman now our contempt is beneath
He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth
He blows up policemen or so I have heard
And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third "

http://www.englandsportal.com/englishinsong.html

The quote is from Flanders of Flanders and Swann.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5853
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:52 am

The difference between wheat was happening "in Britain and all over Europe" and here was that in the British we had a clearly defined enemy, a foreigner who spoke a diffeent language and foisted his language, religion and customs on the country (not all of it bad, I hasten to add).

And don't forget that while we have a lot of chips on our shoulder about that, God help the person who tries to take them away from us . . . 
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:45 am

The other issue for the Nationalistic elements of the Ireland if they follow some of the Irish lines of thought, what would be their reaction if all the countries to which the Irish have emigrated were now to decide that country X was for those from country X and would the Irish kindly go home? Not a great deal of difference. There have been periods when Australia has largely been ruled by the Irish slightly disguised as the ALP and we still get a strongly Irish slant on our view of current affairs if we should chance to listen to the ABC.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 43):
a foreigner who spoke a diffeent language and foisted his language, religion and customs on the country

Just the religion alone should see the Irish banished from this continent and when you get down to Irish based religious schools, well ......... See if you are going to want a perfect history, it just might invite other groups to pick and chose. Archbishop Mannix anyone?????

From Wiki
Irish-born Australian Catholic clergyman, and the Archbishop of Melbourne for 46 years, was one of the most influential public figures in 20th century Australia. Mannix was the son of a tenant farmer near Charleville, in County Cork, and was educated at Irish Christian Brothers schools and at St Patrick's College, Maynooth seminary, where he was ordained as a priest in 1890
.....
Mannix opposed the Easter Rising in 1916 and always condemned the use of force by Irish nationalists [citation needed], and he counselled Australians of Irish Catholic extraction to stay out of Irish politics. [citation needed] However he became increasingly radicalised, and in October 1920 he led an Irish republican funeral cortège through the streets of London following the death of hunger striker Terence MacSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork City in Mannix's native county.

By the end of the war Mannix was the recognised leader of the Irish community in Australia, idolised by Catholics but detested by most Protestants, including those in power federally and in Victoria. For many years he was ostracised and not invited to the official functions his position would have entitled him to attend.


Not only Ireland suffered from pesky immigrants. But most folk do not go around blowing them up. And long may it remain so.
 
overlander
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:57 am

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:06 am

The Saville Enquiry white washed the most shocking part of Bloody Sunday.

My Father was an NCO in the Dental Corp based in Palace Barracks, Hollywood, Belfast where 1 Para where based.

Starting on the Wednesday before the atrocity took place he heard while on duty as the 'Canteen Cowboy' that they were going to Derry to get some revenge.

He wrote to the Saville Enquiry offering his evidence as some one who was on the Barracks before the Battalion moved out to Derry.

They refused his evidence as he was not in Derry 'on that day'.

This was a premeditated attack on people asking for equality and I hope the people in charge that day are held responsible for their actions.

Atb

Overlander
It is better to travel hopefully.............but, always be prepared for the worst!
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:51 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 34):
Sorry, EISHN, but that seems to confirm, rather than deny, my impression that politics in Ireland in those days were based on religion

NAV20, I continue to support EISHN. The Unionists just happened to be Protestants (as we know Britain is a predominantly protestant nation) while the Nationalists just happened to be Roman Catholics (as we know Ireland is a predominantly catholic nation).

This was NOT a struggle between religions, this was a struggle between two different people/nationalities.

I will agree with you when you say "your impression that politics in Ireland in those days were based on religion"... yes the Catholic church had huge power over Irish politics (i.e. politics in the Republic of Ireland), but the "troubles" were not based on religions, it's simply that the two opposing sides just happened to be of different religious beliefs.

If you look back over Irish history, going back centuries to what is the root cause of the troubles, the problem was the invasion of one nation (Ireland) by another nation (Britain). It was not because two very different religions lived side-by-side. The British came (invaded)... both the Spanish and French made huge efforts to prevent this, but the British arrived, and repressed (as so often happened in those colonial type battles) the local people, as in the Irish (who just happened to be Catholics). The "contemporary troubles" we talk about, yes had their roots in this past history, but was mainly due to problems arising from the 1916 Easter rising and subsequent agreement on the declaration of independence of 26 out of 32 counties of the island of Ireland thus leading to the Free State (The Republic of Ireland), leading to the geo-political division of Ireland into two separate nations (Northern Ireland, as part of GB, and the Republic of Ireland, once again regaining it former independence as an independent nation from GB to which it had no prior political attachments), the Civil War of 1921/1922 and disagreement within the island of Ireland of the agreement to divide the island. These are the facts. We can also romanticise them, but they are the facts. Was this "division" the best solution? Hard to say. There was a strong concentration of people of British origin in Northern Ireland who had been settled there for a long time, and had their rights to remain part of the nation they felt was their nation, i.e. UK. And then the dire conditions the majority of people of 100% Irish origin (Catholics) had under local British (Protestant) rule and their lack of good working conditions, housing conditions, civil rights etc.

I firmly believe that anyone who believes the "troubles" of Northern Ireland was religious based has a deep lack of understanding of the actual problems there.
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:20 pm

Quoting overlander (Reply 45):
Starting on the Wednesday before the atrocity took place he heard while on duty as the 'Canteen Cowboy' that they were going to Derry to get some revenge.

That sort of thing has happened before, and will happen again, overlander. See my post above:-

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 34):
Me, I'll wait for the NEXT enquiry - after the fifty-year-rule expires and we get access to the documents that will (in my view) prove that Edward Heath and some of his ministers actually ordered the Army to use the Paras to put the boot in and 'force the Provos into the open.'

However, I really can't blame the investigators for not putting your father 'on the stand.' I would expect that the very first thing they asked him was, "Were there any other witnesses to what you heard?"

The reason being that ANY lawyers that heard and entertained mere 'hearsay' evidence from single individuals would finish up like George Bernard Shaw's economists - "If they were all laid end to end, they would never reach a conclusion."

Personally (having heard exactly the same rumours as your father, from people who were in the army at the time) I'm morally convinced that the British government of the time (arguably, Heath and Whitelaw themselves), on the advice of the Chiefs of Staff, deliberately 'organised' the transfer of 1 Para (which, when I was in the Army in Germany, and met them years before, had a surprisingly-high proportion of Glasgow 'Prods' in its ranks, particularly among the NCOs) to Londonderry at that time. Specifically with a VIEW to them 'making an example' of the Provisional IRA.....

It's the same sort of reasoning that led to things like 'Shock and Awe' - armies are organised to attack 'formed enemies,' and are basically unable to attack any that AREN'T formed - they're just not organised to do things like that. So if they can't find any 'formed enemies,' they tend to invent them.....or, at the least, assume that they're there.........

And Heath and Co. fell for it........and the likes of Martin McGuinness did too......

I hope my position is clear. I'm a (now largely-irreligious) Anglo-Irish-Australian, 'C of E' on my father's side, and 'Irish Catholic' on my mother's. As an oddity, my father (due to a stuffup, his boss did his very best to keep him out of the infantry) found himself serving in the front line with the 'London Irish Rifles' in the first couple of days of the German 1918 offensive on the Somme (he's the only guy I ever knew whose 'life was saved' by Spanish 'flu, he woke up with a temperature of 102 degrees on the second day and got stretchered out of the line and shipped home safe).

I've lived my life so far as best I can; brought up my kids, helped less fortunate people whenever I can, and generally 'accepted things as they are.' The only religious principles I've ever been taught (even by Jesuits  ) that have ever 'stuck' with me are 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' and 'Faith, Hope, and Charity.'

Hope it doesn't sound too sanctimonious. But, just for myself, I could absolutely NEVER justify killing some other guy for the sole reason that he (or she) belonged to a different religion to me. NOR could I kill them because I fancied that their great-great-grandparents had belonged to a different religion to my OWN great-great-grandparents, and (on historical evidence) had POSSIBLY persecuted them......

Life is for living. In the present day, not for the purpose of somehow seeking to 'right wrongs' that were largely committed about two centuries ago - and largely caused by mistakes on both sides anyway. Ireland (the WHOLE of Ireland) - like many other parts of the world - should finally start looking at the future, not the past........

[Edited 2010-06-24 10:48:49]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:02 pm

Quoting overlander (Reply 45):
This was a premeditated attack on people asking for equality and I hope the people in charge that day are held responsible for their actions.

if it had been a premeditated attack, a lot more than 108 rounds would have been fired (bad enough), a lot more than 14 dead too.
Face it, some over-pumped up Paras, inappropriately used that day, lost it and a highly embarrassed government did a shabby cover up, which only made the effects of that day worse.

Want trials, then we'll see Minister McGuinness, 'the Butcher Of Derry' in the dock too, then the relatives of all those who got the sharp end of 'Republican Justice' go after those perpetrators too.
Those who were tortured and shot by sadists, those who were fried when the IRA set off a home made napalm bomb in that bastion of of the Crown Forces, the La Mon restaurant to give one example.

Note what the father of a young boy whose son was killed by a nail from an IRA bomb detonated in a shopping centre in Warrington did, he forgave those responsible.
As did the father of that nurse killed with 10 others at of all things, a WW1/WW2 remembrance service in N.I.
(And be happy that the IRA, due to the security forces presence, had to abort installing a second Provo bomb aimed at another remembrance service that day was aborted, as admitted by ex Provos, the death toll would have included a large number of children).

If you want to go further back, fine, just also recall that if you go back far enough, invasions across the Irish sea were not always one way.
Was it really a good idea to be the launchpad for attempts to unseat the English crown by forces acting for the Church Of Rome from continental Europe and not expect a response, however over the top and brutal by today's standards?
But remember, Cromwell is seen as an oppressor who was far worse than the King he replaced over here too.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5853
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Bloody Sunday An Important Day In Irish History

Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:10 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 47):
Ireland (the WHOLE of Ireland) - like many other parts of the world - should finally start looking at the future, not the past........

For someone who believes in putting the past behind, you retain a remarkable amount of detail of past events, NAV20.

Quoting GDB (Reply 48):
, invasions across the Irish sea were not always one way.

Pray tell?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Braybuddy, LittleFokker and 12 guests