ChatterBank9 mins 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.
No, they were there to do their jobs.
This is a real soapbox issue for me. The military enforce a political agenda however we've become so PC that we must investigate everything our troops do. The troubles in Ireland was a conflict therefore our troops go out to do a job based on the inetlligence reports they receive and the decisions of senior officers on how to tackle a situation. The junior officers carry this out and each of them are highly trained and some of the very best people our country has to offer. There are poor ones but eventually they are weeded out.
You do not punish the individuals you send out to do a job then waive personal responsibility and blame them.
Where there are proven issues that's different, violence against prisoners beyond what the Geneva Convention allows should be punished, this incident DOES NOT fit into that category
This is a real soapbox issue for me. The military enforce a political agenda however we've become so PC that we must investigate everything our troops do. The troubles in Ireland was a conflict therefore our troops go out to do a job based on the inetlligence reports they receive and the decisions of senior officers on how to tackle a situation. The junior officers carry this out and each of them are highly trained and some of the very best people our country has to offer. There are poor ones but eventually they are weeded out.
You do not punish the individuals you send out to do a job then waive personal responsibility and blame them.
Where there are proven issues that's different, violence against prisoners beyond what the Geneva Convention allows should be punished, this incident DOES NOT fit into that category
In total 18 people died as a result of the security forces opening fire on a civil rights march. It has already been established that this was completely unacceptable, there is now the question of legality and personal culpability. I would humbly suggest that people's personal opinions on this will depend on which side of the loyalist / republican/ ex-British soldier / divide you might be on and also I would suggest if one of the dead was a family member of yours you would be very keen on this investigation taking place, so I think in the interests of justice and fairness the investigation actually must take place.
I certainly think lack of funding is being used as an excuse- it would be very convenient for a lot of people still living if this investigation never took place, and with the best will in the world offers such as the £50k in compensation for your illegally murdered relative is going to do nothing to encourage the relatives of those murdered to drop this. I think it's a convenient excuse in short but not one likely to be accepted and thus this will drag on and on and on.
AG, yes it did. Politicians speak on whatever suits and whatever angle they feel like at any one time.
I would have liked to pinpoint responsibility in the politicians and intelligence people who issued the orders to react like that because NO commander on the ground would issue an instruction to open fire like that, Ted Loden would have had his orders too. It was a very bad situation that got out of hand, however please remember that soldiers, the privates and other junior ranks will only jump when instructed to, they should not be punsihed.
I not going to get into any real political discussion about this because I refuse to get into any sectarian debate.
I would have liked to pinpoint responsibility in the politicians and intelligence people who issued the orders to react like that because NO commander on the ground would issue an instruction to open fire like that, Ted Loden would have had his orders too. It was a very bad situation that got out of hand, however please remember that soldiers, the privates and other junior ranks will only jump when instructed to, they should not be punsihed.
I not going to get into any real political discussion about this because I refuse to get into any sectarian debate.
Thanks Slapshot, I understand what you are saying and I too am really only interested to read about the principles of holding a criminal investigation or not rather than any political debate.
Despite politicians or Intelligence orders, is there any leeway for Commanding Officers who may have to deviate from instructions due to a certain spontaneity in events?
Sometimes, things go wrong and then the question arises, who ultimately is to blame? The man who pulls the trigger, the CO or the senior politicians/Intelligence Officers?
Despite politicians or Intelligence orders, is there any leeway for Commanding Officers who may have to deviate from instructions due to a certain spontaneity in events?
Sometimes, things go wrong and then the question arises, who ultimately is to blame? The man who pulls the trigger, the CO or the senior politicians/Intelligence Officers?
There is very little scope once a situation changes from policing work as it started out and shots being fired, you go on instincts and fall back on training. The Para's and Marines are two of the best trained units on the plantet and other countries send their officers to train and Sandhurst, RAF Staff College and HMS Dartmouth for a reason, our officer training is the best there is.
//Sometimes, things go wrong and then the question arises, who ultimately is to blame? The man who pulls the trigger, the CO or the senior politicians/Intelligence Officers?//
The people that put the soldiers in that situation are to blame, always!
The Prussian, Carl von Clausewitz said in "On War"
"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means"
Key word is policy, which is the element an old thesis of mine focussed on. In simple terms it means that policy dictates both strategy and tactics. Policy at the time sought to quell the violence in Ulster therefore those who dictated the policy are ultimately responsible.
//Sometimes, things go wrong and then the question arises, who ultimately is to blame? The man who pulls the trigger, the CO or the senior politicians/Intelligence Officers?//
The people that put the soldiers in that situation are to blame, always!
The Prussian, Carl von Clausewitz said in "On War"
"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means"
Key word is policy, which is the element an old thesis of mine focussed on. In simple terms it means that policy dictates both strategy and tactics. Policy at the time sought to quell the violence in Ulster therefore those who dictated the policy are ultimately responsible.
.... hmmm this brings us into the scope of the specifics of what happened that day, I'm sorry but I'm not really willing to get into that conversation.
All I'll say is this, in a situation like this who is and who isn't involved, if you were there you we're involved; you could really throw that question at ANY of the incidents that happened over the troubles. The only people that suffer in conflict are the innocents
All I'll say is this, in a situation like this who is and who isn't involved, if you were there you we're involved; you could really throw that question at ANY of the incidents that happened over the troubles. The only people that suffer in conflict are the innocents
Hi AG, thank you.
There are a number of reasons I won't debate the events, mostly becasue you get into a he said/she said thing which is of no value.
On your question, I commented in my first post and I'll expand a little.
In Vietnam there was an incident at a place called My Lai where a young commander and his troops massacered the village of My Lai or Son My whatever you want to call it. This was an occurance that tested the American psyche. The perpetrators especially the boss Lt William J Calley was prosecuted and served time only to be released by Tricky Dicky Nixon. On the other hand some of the soldiers in the troop were lambasted as traitors by America for 30 years for trying to shield and protect some of the Vietnamese people during the massacre.
Now then, where's the relevance; back in the 60s and 70s the planet was still largely in the after effects of WW2, rebuilding, creating prosperity and fighting a cold war. Back then the soldiers were generally still revered for the job they did on behalf of their political masters when those who did not follow orders were criminalised.
Point is that the time was a wholly different age to now and the concept of making soldiers specifically responsible for following orders in a military conflict situations just didn't exist, they were doing a job. Our military were able to do their jobs without watching their collective backs for the random PC warriors. 1972 was such a time for troops all over the world.
Military service is hard. You are trained to kill people on the orders of your superiors. Young soldiers are taught to follow orders not to think, that's what officers are for, simplistic but true. You should not be prosecuted for following orders, you prosecute those who gave out the orders, in this case the politicians who's strategy created the environment for this to happen.
My last comment.
There are a number of reasons I won't debate the events, mostly becasue you get into a he said/she said thing which is of no value.
On your question, I commented in my first post and I'll expand a little.
In Vietnam there was an incident at a place called My Lai where a young commander and his troops massacered the village of My Lai or Son My whatever you want to call it. This was an occurance that tested the American psyche. The perpetrators especially the boss Lt William J Calley was prosecuted and served time only to be released by Tricky Dicky Nixon. On the other hand some of the soldiers in the troop were lambasted as traitors by America for 30 years for trying to shield and protect some of the Vietnamese people during the massacre.
Now then, where's the relevance; back in the 60s and 70s the planet was still largely in the after effects of WW2, rebuilding, creating prosperity and fighting a cold war. Back then the soldiers were generally still revered for the job they did on behalf of their political masters when those who did not follow orders were criminalised.
Point is that the time was a wholly different age to now and the concept of making soldiers specifically responsible for following orders in a military conflict situations just didn't exist, they were doing a job. Our military were able to do their jobs without watching their collective backs for the random PC warriors. 1972 was such a time for troops all over the world.
Military service is hard. You are trained to kill people on the orders of your superiors. Young soldiers are taught to follow orders not to think, that's what officers are for, simplistic but true. You should not be prosecuted for following orders, you prosecute those who gave out the orders, in this case the politicians who's strategy created the environment for this to happen.
My last comment.
I do understand what you are trying to say slapshot- I presume you are ex military? What I also would say is that although you do have a point that social collective consciousness was not what it is now in the 60's and 70's, the age old get out of jail free card ' only obeying orders' did not seem to ring true for the British military when they presided over the Neuremburg trials when many Germans claimed to be ' only obeying orders' and the allies thought they shouldn't have and hanged them.
It really can't be selective, and although I'm sure a solder is trained to 'only obey orders' he ought also not be without moral compass entirely and ought not to fire upon civilians and children taking part in a civil rights demonstration. I have some sympathy for those at the bottom of the UK military but they do still need to be held to account.
It really can't be selective, and although I'm sure a solder is trained to 'only obey orders' he ought also not be without moral compass entirely and ought not to fire upon civilians and children taking part in a civil rights demonstration. I have some sympathy for those at the bottom of the UK military but they do still need to be held to account.
No Slapshot they were not here to shoot innocent unarmed people but they did and should have been held accountable at the time.
Having said that it is now time to move on, whats the sense of another trial, sadly its not going back those loved ones that sadly died that day. R.I.P.
Remember to forgive is divine.
Having said that it is now time to move on, whats the sense of another trial, sadly its not going back those loved ones that sadly died that day. R.I.P.
Remember to forgive is divine.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles82 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles97 mins ago
Crosswords102 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles133 mins ago
