Bloody Sunday deaths to be ruled unlawful at last

[Laila]

Not in mine. You dont get to gun down 13 unarmed people and just shrug your shoulders after 30 years of inaction.

They will get away with it after 30 years unless of course the British prosecution decides to pursue them (highly unlikely but could happen theoretically)

Yes, we've been pissed off since 1800 for ONE incident of straight up, cold blooded, bare-assed murder.

And you got an answer and the truth.

"Im sorry I shot 13 innocent people"

We send people to the ****ing chair for less.

We do not have death penalty in UK and it will never be reintroduced

Strength of your army to shoot down unarmed kids and old men.

I see it as a strength of my Army to have the ability to own up to mistakes it did on our behalf.

Perhaps you misread.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

And the IRA have killed more than their fair share of civilians through the years, as the norm, yet I've still to see constant socialist whining about that. We don't even get a whimper, so bitching about Bloody Sunday more than is needed rings a touch hollow.



It was certainly a tragedy if even one innocent was killed on that Sunday in 1972, but let's now hear equal outrage over things like these:

BBC News | UK | Patrick Magee: The IRA Brighton bomber

BBC ON THIS DAY | 10 | 1996: Docklands bomb ends IRA ceasefire

BBC ON THIS DAY | 17 | 1983: Harrods bomb blast kills six

Times Daily - Google News Archive Search

Stores in London Firebombed, Raising Fears of I.R.A. Christmas Campaign - NYTimes.com

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...among-civilians-damaged-its-cause-648593.html

http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/enniskillen.htm




Even just a few of that versus this: http://www.scotsman.com/news/Bloody-Sunday-Civilians-killed-by.6363481.jp


In terms of proportion, the Lefties should be giving themselves heart attacks over Sinn Fein's people, not inviting them to tea in London!!!

 

[Tucker Case]

Its fine for the Irish to use terrorist tactics and kill innocent civilians but if anyone supports those Islamic terrorists who do the exact same thing, they are evil :roll:

I pointed it out earlier, and it's pretty easy to verify through CAIN the IRA had a lower ration of civilian to combatant casualties than even the British army did.

I disagree with the classification of people who primarily target combatant targets as "terrorists". This includes the asinine American use of the term to describe those who attack American soldiers (think of how the Ft. Hood attack was called a terrorist attack).

I do, however, believe any organization, group, and even country can engage in terror tactics (purposefully targeting civilians in order to exact a political change through fear tactics).

I deplore all terrorist attacks, such as the Dresden firebombing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manchester Bombing, and even Bloody Sunday, regardless of who carried out the attacks.

But I will always challenge labeling a group that primarily targeted legitimate military targets as a "terrorist" organization.

Unlawful combatants? Sure, works for me.

Illegal paramilitary? Perfect.

Scumbag criminals? Sure, if that's what you consider them.

But labeling them as terrorists is factually incorrect. It's more than just the occasional use of terrorist tactics that makes an organization a terrorist organization. If it wasn't, there's no way to label any country anything other than a bunch of terrorists.

Britain? Terrorists.
America? Terrorists.

that makes no sense. The standard should be that they specifically target civilians as a rule, not as an exception. A simple glance at the pIRA numbers shows that they were not a terrorist organization any more than the British Army was a terrorist organization.

Like I said, you can call them a slew of derogatory terms that would have merit, but calling them a terrorist organization only degrades the meaning of the word to the point that it no longer has any real meaning.


P.S. To give some idea of what I mean, the following attack, while deplorable, was not terrorism, IMO, because it was a legitimate military target: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, while I don't want American Soldiers to be killed by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one's who are attacking American soldiers aren't terrorists and I don't need to call them such in order to not want them to kill American soldiers.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

If the IRA's campaign against soldiers was legitimate because it hit squaddies then, by the same logic, was Adolf Hitler's invasion of Europe. That's probably why the leader of the Republic of Ireland sent his condolences to the German Embassy when the Fuhrer died and why so many Irish fought for the Nazi state:

german embassy condolences hitler - Google Search




ALL deaths caused by the IRA were illegitimate because mandate after mandate showed the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

E.g. http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/fref70s.htm

Any attempt to change that by unauthorised force is inexcusable on any grounds.



And as for this death toll axis, a link would be nice. Failing that, I've some of my own:


They're ordinary people too, but putting themselves on the line to fight the people who put bombs in litter bins, hotels, cars and shops:
British Army fatal casualties--Ulster troubles, 1969-1998. | Goliath Business News


Death toll roughly equal on both sides. I couldn't care less if the IRA 'legitimately' killed soldiers or not because if it wasn't for the IRA they'd be no squaddies there, plus the IRA were the only group to actually plan deaths of civilians in advance and in accord:

a) The Troubles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign_1969–1997#Casualties


The needless deaths on Bloody Sunday were a travesty and I suppose it's inevitable that facing up to such an episode will come in the end. But it's not inevitable for Leftists and other hypocrites to make any kind of excuse for the IRA on any ground, particularly when it comes to being quick off the mark to label circumstancially discordant wartime bombing campaigns as 'terrorist' as the IRA bomb plots!

 

[alexa]

I pointed it out earlier, and it's pretty easy to verify through CAIN the IRA had a lower ration of civilian to combatant casualties than even the British army did.

I disagree with the classification of people who primarily target combatant targets as "terrorists". This includes the asinine American use of the term to describe those who attack American soldiers (think of how the Ft. Hood attack was called a terrorist attack).

I do, however, believe any organization, group, and even country can engage in terror tactics (purposefully targeting civilians in order to exact a political change through fear tactics).

I deplore all terrorist attacks, such as the Dresden firebombing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manchester Bombing, and even Bloody Sunday, regardless of who carried out the attacks.

But I will always challenge labeling a group that primarily targeted legitimate military targets as a "terrorist" organization.

Unlawful combatants? Sure, works for me.

Illegal paramilitary? Perfect.

Scumbag criminals? Sure, if that's what you consider them.

But labeling them as terrorists is factually incorrect. It's more than just the occasional use of terrorist tactics that makes an organization a terrorist organization. If it wasn't, there's no way to label any country anything other than a bunch of terrorists.

Britain? Terrorists.
America? Terrorists.

that makes no sense. The standard should be that they specifically target civilians as a rule, not as an exception. A simple glance at the pIRA numbers shows that they were not a terrorist organization any more than the British Army was a terrorist organization.

Like I said, you can call them a slew of derogatory terms that would have merit, but calling them a terrorist organization only degrades the meaning of the word to the point that it no longer has any real meaning.


P.S. To give some idea of what I mean, the following attack, while deplorable, was not terrorism, IMO, because it was a legitimate military target: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, while I don't want American Soldiers to be killed by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one's who are attacking American soldiers aren't terrorists and I don't need to call them such in order to not want them to kill American soldiers.

Thank you for clarifying why your country collected money which could very easily have been used to kill me. One day I was shopping, the next day that shop was blown up.

It should also be bourn in mind that the IRA used torture and that their methods of punishment, shooting people's knee caps were somewhat less than we would expect. John Simpson last night was discussing both the Bloody Sunday murders and Martin McGuinness who was known as 'The Butcher'.

As you will know there is no Internationally recognised description for terrorism.

At one time in the UK it was said terrorism was not accepted where people had the right to vote. That of course allowed all the Palestinians who had been Stateless the right to terrorism. It also allowed the people in N I the right to terrorism until they got the vote.

Terrorists are generally people without the amount of money needed to attack an army. They therfore have to use sneaky means to do it.

I saw bloody Sunday on the tv. Like most of the British Public including John Simpson who knew the people killed and their families it was a total disgrace. It has been something which all those who saw it have continued to support pushing on to get to the truth because basically we saw the truth on our tv's.

The IRA had some support not least because it, unlike several other groups, did it's best to give a warning, so it's terror on mainland Europe was more to terrorise and cause disruption - I had to be evacuated from work on two occasions because of a bomb threat.

The IRA had money and who did they get that money from - yourselves. That money killed both British and Irish people and harmed many more. There are many people who joined the IRA and did nasty deeds who now feel bad about what they did and are having to work through all that.

By your definition I think most European terrorist groups are 'freedom fighters' but most middle east are 'terrorists'

In reality peace came when you (US) stopped funding the IRA who had long since got the vote.

I believe you are choosing to call terrorists those who you politically oppose. You are choosing to call terrorists those who your country declares war on and thereby harms the whole country for the actions of a few. Indeed you even make up stories of a country being full of terrorists just because you want to attack it.

No doubt you would have attacked the UK in it's time had you not realised the long term problems this would have caused you.

The situation in Northern Ireland was wrong. It took a lot of trying with civil rights marches and so on before the IRA got started but to choose to fund one group of freedom fighters who killed many British and Irish people and to call another group who do not have your funding 'terrorists' because they target civilians, just shows bias to the nenth degree. There is no question, no question at all that if they had the money and ability they would first and foremost attack an army and Public figures.

Obviously Osama Bin Laden and the 9.11 attacks and Al Qaeda are something different. They fall outside any definition of freedom fighter and are just criminals and that is accepted by just about everyone.

 

[Hoplite]

I believe you are choosing to call terrorists those who you politically oppose.

There you have, in one, the entire point of the word.

"Terrorist" is an absolutely meaningless label, as is "freedom fighter". They are labels applied to the people we disagree and agree with.

If we use the strict definition of the word, the people who rebelled against the British in the not-yet United States could be called terrorists. If we use a strict definition of the word, the Afghani insurgents could be called freedom fighters. Although ironically enough, whatever label we choose for either group, the opposite label is also true.

 

[Tucker Case]

If the IRA's campaign against soldiers was legitimate because it hit squaddies then, by the same logic, was Adolf Hitler's invasion of Europe.

Aside from teh Godwin fail that this is, are you saying that Germany's military actions in WWII weren't military actions?

 

[Tucker Case]

I believe you are choosing to call terrorists those who you politically oppose. You are choosing to call terrorists those who your country declares war on and thereby harms the whole country for the actions of a few. Indeed you even make up stories of a country being full of terrorists just because you want to attack it.

I actually said the exact opposite in the post you quoted. I'm not just calling those I politically oppose terrorists. I have a very clear definition.

 

[Apocalypse]

I pointed it out earlier, and it's pretty easy to verify through CAIN the IRA had a lower ration of civilian to combatant casualties than even the British army did.

The IRA did commit terrorism however, while the British army has not.
Terrorism is not about the civilian-combatant ration but is purely about the intention of the perpetrators.
The same reason why manslaughter is not murder.

I disagree with the classification of people who primarily target combatant targets as "terrorists". This includes the asinine American use of the term to describe those who attack American soldiers (think of how the Ft. Hood attack was called a terrorist attack).

Yes there is a problem there, because terrorism is usually applied to anti-civilian violence, not anti-military. That's guerilla warfare.
Nevertheless, being guerilla warfare doesn't make it okay, it's still very wrong to kill your fellow soldiers from ideological motivations.

I do, however, believe any organization, group, and even country can engage in terror tactics (purposefully targeting civilians in order to exact a political change through fear tactics).

I deplore all terrorist attacks, such as the Dresden firebombing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manchester Bombing, and even Bloody Sunday, regardless of who carried out the attacks.

But I will always challenge labeling a group that primarily targeted legitimate military targets as a "terrorist" organization.

It is true that the IRA has mainly targeted military personnel, but there were some occasions when they've committed attacks that fit the definition of terrorism.

Unlawful combatants? Sure, works for me.

Illegal paramilitary? Perfect.

Scumbag criminals? Sure, if that's what you consider them.

But labeling them as terrorists is factually incorrect. It's more than just the occasional use of terrorist tactics that makes an organization a terrorist organization. If it wasn't, there's no way to label any country anything other than a bunch of terrorists.

Britain? Terrorists.
America? Terrorists.

that makes no sense. The standard should be that they specifically target civilians as a rule, not as an exception. A simple glance at the pIRA numbers shows that they were not a terrorist organization any more than the British Army was a terrorist organization.

The British army at that time did not give any order to shoot or kill individuals they've known to be innocent civilians. For example, the bloody sunday incident was the decision of British soldiers, as individuals, not as an army.

P.S. To give some idea of what I mean, the following attack, while deplorable, was not terrorism, IMO, because it was a legitimate military target: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That specifically is guerilla warfare.

Also, while I don't want American Soldiers to be killed by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one's who are attacking American soldiers aren't terrorists and I don't need to call them such in order to not want them to kill American soldiers.

Some of them are terrorists, some are not.
Terrorism has many definitions to it, and if they are part of a terrorist organization a la al-Qaeda, then yes they are most defintley terrorists.

 

[Tucker Case]

The IRA did commit terrorism however, while the British army has not.
Terrorism is not about the civilian-combatant ration but is purely about the intention of the perpetrators.
The same reason why manslaughter is not murder.
Yes there is a problem there, because terrorism is usually applied to anti-civilian violence, not anti-military. That's guerilla warfare.
Nevertheless, being guerilla warfare doesn't make it okay, it's still very wrong to kill your fellow soldiers from ideological motivations.
It is true that the IRA has mainly targeted military personnel, but there were some occasions when they've committed attacks that fit the definition of terrorism.
The British army at that time did not give any order to shoot or kill individuals they've known to be innocent civilians. For example, the bloody sunday incident was the decision of British soldiers, as individuals, not as an army.
That specifically is guerilla warfare.
Some of them are terrorists, some are not.
Terrorism has many definitions to it, and if they are part of a terrorist organization a la al-Qaeda, then yes they are most defintley terrorists.

I agree with everything you said. Excellent post.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

..are you saying that Germany's military actions in WWII weren't military actions?

No. I'm saying that Germany's military actions were also unwarranted and done on nobody's behalf other than the perpetrators. Though even the Nazi armies were one rung above the IRA because at least they were sanctioned by at least one government!!

 

[Tucker Case]

No. I'm saying that Germany's military actions were also unwarranted and done on nobody's behalf other than the perpetrators. Though even the Nazi armies were one rung above the IRA because at least they were sanctioned by at least one government!!

I'm not discussing the moral value of these actions. I'm arguing against the use of the word "terrorism" simply because one finds the actions commited by a group to be immoral.

An action is either terrorism or it isn't. There's no in between.

The IRA did engage in acts of terrorism, but in order to be called a terrorist orginization, I believe that terrorism has to be the primary action taken by the orginization, not the exception to their normal tactics.

I would say that the IRA would be more accurately can be labeled as a criminal paramilitary group that has, at times, committed acts of terrorism.

The alteration of the label doesn't make their actions any more or less immoral, IMO.

I think conventional warfare can be just as immoral as terrorism, especially when it involves actions I would deem as terrorist actions, such as the atom bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I wasn't saying the IRA was correct in their campaign. I was saying that they attacked legitimate targets as their primary tactic in their campaign.

But I would also say the IRA was morally wrong to do what they did, even when the targets were legitmate military targets.

 

[PeteEU]

I wasn't saying the IRA was correct in their campaign. I was saying that they attacked legitimate targets as their primary tactic in their campaign.

But I would also say the IRA was morally wrong to do what they did, even when the targets were legitmate military targets.

LOL yea right.. What exactly was there legit about bombing Omagh? Or the many bombs at train stations that went off during the 1970s. what exactly is legit about those targets? The IRA was behind about 1800 deaths during the troubles and of those about 1100 were of security forces.. that leaves 700 civilians.. and you claim they are legit targets?

 

[Tucker Case]

LOL yea right.. What exactly was there legit about bombing Omagh? Or the many bombs at train stations that went off during the 1970s. what exactly is legit about those targets? The IRA was behind about 1800 deaths during the troubles and of those about 1100 were of security forces.. that leaves 700 civilians.. and you claim they are legit targets?

A good proportion of the civilian casualties were not specifically targetted civilians, which makes a difference on whether an action was terrorism or not.

And as you can see in the portion of my quote that you edited out, I clearly stated that that they did commit acts of terrorism.

 

[FinnMacCool]

LOL yea right.. What exactly was there legit about bombing Omagh? Or the many bombs at train stations that went off during the 1970s. what exactly is legit about those targets? The IRA was behind about 1800 deaths during the troubles and of those about 1100 were of security forces.. that leaves 700 civilians.. and you claim they are legit targets?

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the Omagh bombing was done by a splinter group the, ironically called, "Real" IRA

I wouldn't consider the IRA terrorists because they killed civilians. By that logic, you would have to consider all governments of the world terrorists. If your gonna call a group "terrorist" you might as well be consistent about it, right?

 

[Andalublue]

LOL yea right.. What exactly was there legit about bombing Omagh? Or the many bombs at train stations that went off during the 1970s. what exactly is legit about those targets? The IRA was behind about 1800 deaths during the troubles and of those about 1100 were of security forces.. that leaves 700 civilians.. and you claim they are legit targets?

I don't think that is what Tucker is saying. He's saying that the IRA DID attack SOME legitimate targets, i.e. British military and Loyalist paramilitary forces. I don't think he is excusing the deaths of civilians that were either targeted (as in Omagh, Warrington, Enniskillen etc) or were caught in the crossfire. The IRA did have some legitimate aims and was not solely involved in terrorist activities. I think both the British and Irish governments accepted that fact in the Good Friday Peace Accords. That they carried out acts of terrorism is not in any doubt, but they are hardly comparable with the Nazi regime (that's as stupid an assertion as most of RoP's ad Hitlerum statements) and nor are they comparable with AQ. They are comparable with ETA and the FARC, however, and show a lot of similarities with both.

 

[Tucker Case]

I don't think that is what Tucker is saying. He's saying that the IRA DID attack SOME legitimate targets, i.e. British military and Loyalist paramilitary forces. I don't think he is excusing the deaths of civilians that were either targeted (as in Omagh, Warrington, Enniskillen etc) or were caught in the crossfire. The IRA did have some legitimate aims and was not solely involved in terrorist activities. I think both the British and Irish governments accepted that fact in the Good Friday Peace Accords. That they carried out acts of terrorism is not in any doubt, but they are hardly comparable with the Nazi regime (that's as stupid an assertion as most of RoP's ad Hitlerum statements) and nor are they comparable with AQ. They are comparable with ETA and the FARC, however, and show a lot of similarities with both.

Pretty much sums it up, but I'd go a small step further than just saying that they attacked "some" legitimate targets. I'd say that the IRA (and I've only been refering to the provisional IRA when I've been saying IRA) was more focussed on attacking legitimate targets than they were on terrorist actions.

That neither excuses their terrorist attacks, nor denies that they did in fact commit terrorist acts.

But the numbers quoted by PeteEU tell the tale. If the pIRA were focussed on terrorism more legitimate targets, there's no way that 60% of the fatalities that they caused would be classified as "combatant".

It just can't add up that way if a group is primarily using terrorism as their tactic.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

The IRA aren't terrorists because attacks on civilians were only periphery.

Rubbish.

As I say, The IRA's targets were all illegitimate because they were at least illegal paramilitaries rather than the agency of a warring power. Most of the people in the Northern Ireland they wanted to 'free' voted to remain part of the UK and they are purely a terrorist organisation because they planned to kill civilians as much as soldiers.

 

[Tucker Case]

The IRA aren't terrorists because attacks on civilians were only periphery.

Rubbish.

As I say, The IRA's targets were all illegitimate because they were at least illegal paramilitaries rather than the agency of a warring power.

A legitimate military target is a legitimate military target, regardless of whether the orginization that carries it out is legal or not.

Most of the people in the Northern Ireland they wanted to 'free' voted to remain part of the UK and...

That's irrelevent to whether or not they are a terrorist orginization, though.

...they are purely a terrorist organisation because they planned to kill civilians as much as soldiers.

The math says that's impossible. If they had planned to kill civilians as much as soldiers, they'd have a lot more deaths that were civilians than combatant because many of the deaths were unintentional civilian casualties that occurred while attacking military targets. The reverse does not happen, though. It is rare to accidentally kill military personnel while targeting civilians.

Do you have some proof of this mathematical impossibility being the reality?

 

[Andalublue]

The IRA aren't terrorists because attacks on civilians were only periphery.

Rubbish.

As I say, The IRA's targets were all illegitimate because they were at least illegal paramilitaries rather than the agency of a warring power. Most of the people in the Northern Ireland they wanted to 'free' voted to remain part of the UK and they are purely a terrorist organisation because they planned to kill civilians as much as soldiers.

A few posts back you were calling for credit to be given to the Major government for the Good Friday accord. Now you are saying that the IRA were (they no longer exist, of course) nothing but terrorists. Are you praising the Tory Major administration of doing deals with terrorists? I think you are. Good for you!

 

[gunner]

I pointed it out earlier, and it's pretty easy to verify through CAIN the IRA had a lower ration of civilian to combatant casualties than even the British army did.

Tucker i respect your position with regards to the PIRA and accept you have researched your position rather coming to that position in an arbitrary manner.

In saying that, i have quoted this one sentence because you do use it often. The ratio was indeed lower, but not as you may think, by conscious decision making on part of the PIRA leadership. The many terrorist atrocities it carried out could well have resulted in many more civilian casualties.
Using the bombing of Manchester, which pretty much met their aims [bombing infrastructure] it also injured 212 people. This could have been so much different and the ratio would have been turned on its head.
I do accept, on the whole, the PIRA did not go about in as 'fanatical' a way as other terrorist orgs that has much to do with religious and cultural beliefs as anything else. For one, Irish Catholics do not believe in being sent to heaven with the guarantee of a "gardens full of virgins" but they were terrorists all the same.

Paul

 

[Tucker Case]

Tucker i respect your position with regards to the PIRA and accept you have researched your position rather coming to that position in an arbitrary manner.

In saying that, i have quoted this one sentence because you do use it often. The ratio was indeed lower, but not as you may think, by conscious decision making on part of the PIRA leadership. The many terrorist atrocities it carried out could well have resulted in many more civilian casualties.
Using the bombing of Manchester, which pretty much met their aims [bombing infrastructure] it also injured 212 people. This could have been so much different and the ratio would have been turned on its head.

Very true. And it's also true that if that warning wasn't issued and the hour evac time given, it surely would have turned that ratio on it's head.

But that warning is something that separates them from true terrorists, IMO. They actively tried to minimize civilian casualties, even in this attack, which I would definitely consider a terrorist attack.

If the plan really was, as Republic_Of_Public said above, "to kill civilians as much as soldiers", then they would never have issued that warning and those ratios would be more comparble to Al Qaeda's ratios.

That absolutely doesn't condone any of their attacks nor dioes it make them any less criminal in their actions.

 

[scooby-doo]

This was an act of state terrorism,the people who were killed that day were branded terrorists,the soldiers invlolved lied in statements about their actions,they shot innocent civilians in the back,they even shot people lying wounded on the ground just to make sure they finished the job.

All the people killed that day were innocent !

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

A few posts back you were calling for credit to be given to the Major government for the Good Friday accord.

No, I was saying how Leftists accorded Blair with the credit for starting the peace process. John Major reacted to Sinn Fein calling for a 'cease fire' which started the chain of events culminating in the Good Friday Agreement.

The GFA was, in my mind, brought about as much to sop to terrorists as to serve the people.

It left a rotten taste in my mouth but thought it would be an oppertunity for any bluffs to be called. But the Good Friday also served to legitimise Sinn Fein and elevate them to the status of other decent politicians at the conference table. Indeed, if they considered themselves 'soldiers' then I'm sure indictments for war crimes could easily have been compiled. Many of their bombers were released unrepentant from jail and the RUC was disbanded, which went far too far for an agreement apparently designed to deliver reforms for the ordinary Irish.

Yes, the bombs stopped and saved the lives of many but I'll never give Sinn Fein or the IRA credit for that because they should never have started such campaigns in the first place.

 

[alexa]

I actually said the exact opposite in the post you quoted. I'm not just calling those I politically oppose terrorists. I have a very clear definition.

You decared a new criteria for who is a terrorist, like it or not one which I have seen from your other posts supports your views in world issues. Again, there is no agreement worldwide on what is terrorism.