News1 min ago
Bloody Sunday 1972
84 Answers
Criminal Investigation in doubt due to cutbacks in police funding.
Should the British Army Paras face a full investigation over the 1972 incident?
http://
Should the British Army Paras face a full investigation over the 1972 incident?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Excellent, patronising and predictable were exactly what I was after.... your posts in a topic that came to a close 16 years ago make people question a 16yo having that level of argument. You cannot blame people for reacting like that.
Your vehement disagreement comes from an ideology of "Rightness" that the younger generation seem to have adapted in our lefty, softy, softy PC world. The real world is a harsh nasty place, if you want to debate with adults with years of real life behind them, you need to accept you won't get polite all the time. Ideology is a great thing, so great that Alex Salmond gave the vote to 16/17 year olds, a group of people who don't know what they want from MacDonalds half the time, he relied on that to carry the day, unfortunately there's no such thing as an ideal world.
Maybe my background, training and knowledge impacts on my views, difficult if it didn't but that training, education life experiences and knowledge are what I am. I'm not about to apologise for it. I know you've had disagreements with others and as I said, if you want to play in the big world you are in for some disappointments. Maybe if your dad has opinions then this would be the place for him to post, tell him to come online here and debate, I would value insight from his perspective.
Your choice Kvali, however in reatreating, citing the reasons you do, makes you equally "as bad" as my not wanting to comment, but that'll probably be be okay from your perspective.
AG, please accept my apologies for the hijacking of your thread, it was not my intention to drop into a personal debate of any sort. Like many incidents/accidents/atrocities throughout history, innocence always suffers.
Your vehement disagreement comes from an ideology of "Rightness" that the younger generation seem to have adapted in our lefty, softy, softy PC world. The real world is a harsh nasty place, if you want to debate with adults with years of real life behind them, you need to accept you won't get polite all the time. Ideology is a great thing, so great that Alex Salmond gave the vote to 16/17 year olds, a group of people who don't know what they want from MacDonalds half the time, he relied on that to carry the day, unfortunately there's no such thing as an ideal world.
Maybe my background, training and knowledge impacts on my views, difficult if it didn't but that training, education life experiences and knowledge are what I am. I'm not about to apologise for it. I know you've had disagreements with others and as I said, if you want to play in the big world you are in for some disappointments. Maybe if your dad has opinions then this would be the place for him to post, tell him to come online here and debate, I would value insight from his perspective.
Your choice Kvali, however in reatreating, citing the reasons you do, makes you equally "as bad" as my not wanting to comment, but that'll probably be be okay from your perspective.
AG, please accept my apologies for the hijacking of your thread, it was not my intention to drop into a personal debate of any sort. Like many incidents/accidents/atrocities throughout history, innocence always suffers.
//Excellent, patronising and predictable were exactly what I was after.... your posts in a topic that came to a close 16 years ago make people question a 16yo having that level of argument. You cannot blame people for reacting like that. //
Slapshot, if you were only after a rise from me then sad fail I'm afraid and slightly creepy and weird to be honest.
Working on your theory no-one born on or after any occurrence is entitled to an opinion on it so you might want to dedicate the rest of your life to burning most of the history books you encounter and slagging off historians in general.
This has got bloody weird to be honest and shouldn't have ended on a personal note but hey in the 'big' world I have found already that older people frequently disappoint me with personal attacks instead of objective debate, but that is their cross to bear not mine.
My father.That would be an 'interesting' debate in any theatre, but without going into an exact quote he declined your kind offer.
Slapshot, if you were only after a rise from me then sad fail I'm afraid and slightly creepy and weird to be honest.
Working on your theory no-one born on or after any occurrence is entitled to an opinion on it so you might want to dedicate the rest of your life to burning most of the history books you encounter and slagging off historians in general.
This has got bloody weird to be honest and shouldn't have ended on a personal note but hey in the 'big' world I have found already that older people frequently disappoint me with personal attacks instead of objective debate, but that is their cross to bear not mine.
My father.That would be an 'interesting' debate in any theatre, but without going into an exact quote he declined your kind offer.
You chucked out the patronising line... so I went with it, if you're going to set them up, I'll knock em out the park. Learning where a bit of humour is needed is good. Debate has a tendency to become Noxious if humour isn't a part of it.
I don't know how my theory means that every history book needs to be shredded, odd and peculiar..... my phrase was //your posts in a topic that came to a close 16 years ago make people question a 16yo having that level of argument.// It was about the structure of an argument, naff all to do with history. thinking back to being 16 I can't think of anyone in my peer group that could have structured any kind of argument despite being in a very bright group... I'm grateful my dad or grandpa could help me with things when necessary.
Anyway.... though you'd had enough of debating with me...
Declined my offer, thats a shame, I know it would have been "interesting"
I don't know how my theory means that every history book needs to be shredded, odd and peculiar..... my phrase was //your posts in a topic that came to a close 16 years ago make people question a 16yo having that level of argument.// It was about the structure of an argument, naff all to do with history. thinking back to being 16 I can't think of anyone in my peer group that could have structured any kind of argument despite being in a very bright group... I'm grateful my dad or grandpa could help me with things when necessary.
Anyway.... though you'd had enough of debating with me...
Declined my offer, thats a shame, I know it would have been "interesting"
Slapshot, bear in mind you are already debating with two of them,
///My father, who was born and raised in West Belfast and saw internment first hand and I thought it might be pertinent to the alleged 'debate' going on here if we had a discourse which covered all points of view from all sides of the political divide///
kval - "slightly creepy and weird" doesn't wash with most of us, apart from hinting of being a tad derogratory, you have used that one before. Slappy is fine and has a rich logic, sometimes couched in humour (and doesn't AB need that at times - however, he has a strong view on this and other related matter and you have one.
By definition of your time on this planet, yours is based on hearsay and ideology (which is natural for teenagers/1st degree students, perhaps yoiu have some hand-me-down accounts from relatives who were involved but it is largely 'second hand.'
Slappy brings practical experience in this to the table - so if I was you, I would look for things that you agree on with him (or others), probe questions on areas that you would like to hear more about re others explanations, history and perceptions at the time, then start to draw conclusions - you'll be a better debater for it and even more independent of mind to your peer group.
By definition of your time on this planet, yours is based on hearsay and ideology (which is natural for teenagers/1st degree students, perhaps yoiu have some hand-me-down accounts from relatives who were involved but it is largely 'second hand.'
Slappy brings practical experience in this to the table - so if I was you, I would look for things that you agree on with him (or others), probe questions on areas that you would like to hear more about re others explanations, history and perceptions at the time, then start to draw conclusions - you'll be a better debater for it and even more independent of mind to your peer group.
DTC- Despite your protestations to the contrary, I do find it slightly creepy and weird when someone posts something purely to try to push another member's buttons- it happens frequently on here not just to me, and it's odd and dysfunctional behaviour in anyone.
You might consider Slapshot to be 'fine and have rich logic'- on this subject I find him to be dogmatic, over defensive and to have set himself up to withdraw whenever the fancy takes him or he is challenged because it suits him- which is no debate at all by anyone's standards, he has an utter desperation to be 'right' in a situation where no-one ever possible can be because it is a subjective matter as I said in my first post dependant upon experience and cultural origin. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine if you will.
If you read back through the thread I was listening politely to his points and taking on board anything relevant until he made the matter personal.
His information is as 'second hand' to me a any of my relatives recollections, so why should they hold more weight? I will listen, but not automatically afford them greater importance simply because he was there and someone on the internet tells me I should. What sort of thinking person would do that? Again this idea that no-one who was not personally present should hold strong views on the matter. That is a nonsense, and adhering to ideas like that breeds generations of morons who will blindly wander down the lane of their life taking no notice of how they got there as humankind or indeed what they can learn from their journey to make everyone's future better.
Your last paragraph is precisely what I try to do in any debate anywhere, not just here, but it is a pointless thing to continue with once someone has rubbished your opinions because they do not conform with their own, and degraded the debate by trying to get a response to a goad.
I'm not playing that game with him, you, or anyone else. If people's points are put politely their opinions ought to be respected and not brought into questions purely because of their age, otherwise it'd be very easy for me to say at every opportunity ' silly old duffer' every time someone said something I don't personally like. and we all know how rude and wrong that would be don't we?
You might consider Slapshot to be 'fine and have rich logic'- on this subject I find him to be dogmatic, over defensive and to have set himself up to withdraw whenever the fancy takes him or he is challenged because it suits him- which is no debate at all by anyone's standards, he has an utter desperation to be 'right' in a situation where no-one ever possible can be because it is a subjective matter as I said in my first post dependant upon experience and cultural origin. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine if you will.
If you read back through the thread I was listening politely to his points and taking on board anything relevant until he made the matter personal.
His information is as 'second hand' to me a any of my relatives recollections, so why should they hold more weight? I will listen, but not automatically afford them greater importance simply because he was there and someone on the internet tells me I should. What sort of thinking person would do that? Again this idea that no-one who was not personally present should hold strong views on the matter. That is a nonsense, and adhering to ideas like that breeds generations of morons who will blindly wander down the lane of their life taking no notice of how they got there as humankind or indeed what they can learn from their journey to make everyone's future better.
Your last paragraph is precisely what I try to do in any debate anywhere, not just here, but it is a pointless thing to continue with once someone has rubbished your opinions because they do not conform with their own, and degraded the debate by trying to get a response to a goad.
I'm not playing that game with him, you, or anyone else. If people's points are put politely their opinions ought to be respected and not brought into questions purely because of their age, otherwise it'd be very easy for me to say at every opportunity ' silly old duffer' every time someone said something I don't personally like. and we all know how rude and wrong that would be don't we?
I haven't been following this thread closely. But a few thoughts on the Paras in NI in the 70s. Just before they went on to gain notoriety in Derry they did a bit of killing in Ballymurphy at the time internment started. They killed 11 people over three days in West Belfast. They weren't all gunmen, one was a priest who put himself in the firing line to administer extreme unction,the last rites, to a man who'd been shot.
My encounter with them sits on a lower level of violence. I know that a lot of people reading this won't believe that it actually happened, but it did.
I was walking home from work and had to pass a group of Paras. Without cause or warning one of them hit me in the mouth with his rifle butt. I lost 6 teeth and still have a scar on my upper lip. Bad as that was, I was arrested, charged, convicted on perjured evidence, and served 6 months in prison for riotous behaviour.
So, I know from personal experience that some of them were violent thugs. I've no doubt that some were murderers, too.
What they did is history now. They've escaped justice.
My encounter with them sits on a lower level of violence. I know that a lot of people reading this won't believe that it actually happened, but it did.
I was walking home from work and had to pass a group of Paras. Without cause or warning one of them hit me in the mouth with his rifle butt. I lost 6 teeth and still have a scar on my upper lip. Bad as that was, I was arrested, charged, convicted on perjured evidence, and served 6 months in prison for riotous behaviour.
So, I know from personal experience that some of them were violent thugs. I've no doubt that some were murderers, too.
What they did is history now. They've escaped justice.
I wouldn't deny that what happened to you was wrong sandy and yes, the early 70's was the most horrendous time in the Province.
As for the 'escaped justice' part, so did so many others from both sides. During 3 tours of Northern Ireland in the 80's I lost colleagues, the killers of whom were either never caught or were released ridiculously early under the Good Friday Agreeement. Yes it rankled but such was the way it had to go in order to reach stability.
As I said in my previous post, the slate was wiped clean as a result of the GFA so why this matter is being pursued is beyond me, otherwise we need to re-open every unsolved case where a soldier from the British Army/UDR and every Police Officer from the RUC was murdered, don't we?
As for the 'escaped justice' part, so did so many others from both sides. During 3 tours of Northern Ireland in the 80's I lost colleagues, the killers of whom were either never caught or were released ridiculously early under the Good Friday Agreeement. Yes it rankled but such was the way it had to go in order to reach stability.
As I said in my previous post, the slate was wiped clean as a result of the GFA so why this matter is being pursued is beyond me, otherwise we need to re-open every unsolved case where a soldier from the British Army/UDR and every Police Officer from the RUC was murdered, don't we?
Old cases are never closed. There was an IRA man convicted recently of the killing of a UDR soldier many years ago. Under the terms of the GFA he will be released after serving 2 years. There have also been a number of Loyalist killers convicted in recent times. One shot a teenage girl in a taxi he shared with her, another killed the proprietor of a chip shop. Both got two years.
There's no chance that any old soldier will ever face trial for what he did here years ago.
There's no chance that any old soldier will ever face trial for what he did here years ago.
There's no chance that any old soldier will ever face trial for what he did here years ago.
-----------------
There's very little chance they'd get justice nor a fair trial either though.
As for the 16 Para's and 2 Highlanders at Warrenpoint, they never got justice either, well, not in the conventional sense. They got that when Brendan Burns scored his spectacular 'own goal' some years later.
As I said, there were heinous acts on all sides but re-opening old sores some 40 years on is IMHO detrimental, particularly as the Deputy First Minister couldn't tell the truth about his part on that fateful day.
-----------------
There's very little chance they'd get justice nor a fair trial either though.
As for the 16 Para's and 2 Highlanders at Warrenpoint, they never got justice either, well, not in the conventional sense. They got that when Brendan Burns scored his spectacular 'own goal' some years later.
As I said, there were heinous acts on all sides but re-opening old sores some 40 years on is IMHO detrimental, particularly as the Deputy First Minister couldn't tell the truth about his part on that fateful day.
Old cases are never closed. There was an IRA man convicted recently of the killing of a UDR soldier many years ago. Under the terms of the GFA he will be released after serving 2 years.
-------------------
2 years? For that? Let's have justice then or simply not bother. If that is how the sentencing is going, the Para's ought to get community service, surely?
Or would they be in for special attention, given their reputation and in some cases infamy?
Where would they find an impartial jury in NI to try every one, 12 jurors each of whom have no particular connection to The Troubles?
As I said, many former murderers got off extremely lightly and in light of the grovelling apology by Cameron we need to move on after 4 decades.
-------------------
2 years? For that? Let's have justice then or simply not bother. If that is how the sentencing is going, the Para's ought to get community service, surely?
Or would they be in for special attention, given their reputation and in some cases infamy?
Where would they find an impartial jury in NI to try every one, 12 jurors each of whom have no particular connection to The Troubles?
As I said, many former murderers got off extremely lightly and in light of the grovelling apology by Cameron we need to move on after 4 decades.
ChillDoubt, I take it from your posts that you were a soldier serving here. I wasn't anything but a civilian caught up in the middle of it.
But as a soldier surely you take incidents like the Narrow Waters one as something that happen in war.
Even after that the Paras showed how trigger happy they could be. There was an Englishman working with a travelling fair close by who heard the explosions and walked into the open to see what had happened. One of the surviving soldiers shot him dead.
Later there was talk of a gun battle to explain his death. But there was no such thing. The IRA had achieved their aim with the bombs. They wouldn't have stayed around to exchange fire.
But as a soldier surely you take incidents like the Narrow Waters one as something that happen in war.
Even after that the Paras showed how trigger happy they could be. There was an Englishman working with a travelling fair close by who heard the explosions and walked into the open to see what had happened. One of the surviving soldiers shot him dead.
Later there was talk of a gun battle to explain his death. But there was no such thing. The IRA had achieved their aim with the bombs. They wouldn't have stayed around to exchange fire.
Even after that the Paras showed how trigger happy they could be. There was an Englishman working with a travelling fair close by who heard the explosions and walked into the open to see what had happened. One of the surviving soldiers shot him dead.
Later there was talk of a gun battle to explain his death.
----------------------
sandy, that was as a result of some of the ammunition 'cooking off'
http://
and the surviving Para's believing they were coming under fire from across the Lough i.e. from what is the Republic. The unfortunate victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time, just as Burns was years later.
I still have the photographs of farm buildings where that 'own goal' occured.
Later there was talk of a gun battle to explain his death.
----------------------
sandy, that was as a result of some of the ammunition 'cooking off'
http://
and the surviving Para's believing they were coming under fire from across the Lough i.e. from what is the Republic. The unfortunate victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time, just as Burns was years later.
I still have the photographs of farm buildings where that 'own goal' occured.
Latest Posts
Local Election News So Far ....
News1 min ago
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
