Bloody Sunday

[Monkeys Fist 41318]

What purpose would be served by publishing a list of the names of the Paras involved, Kevin?

 

 

Other than providing a hit list to the few muppets left who believe in the "armed struggle", I can think of no good reason.

 

Enlighten me .......

 

 

 

.... Vuvuzela.

[Kevin 1]

What purpose would be served by publishing a list of the names of the Paras involved, Kevin?

 

 

Other than providing a hit list to the few muppets left who believe in the "armed struggle", I can think of no good reason.

 

Enlighten me .......

 

 

 

.... Vuvuzela.

To name and shame them.

[Tom 14000]

You are seriously dumb.

[Rob W 0]

Two wrongs never made a right

 

tho' quite why it took 38 years to admit what was blindingly obvious at the time beats me

 

you take the most aggressive troops in the British Army, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons, officered by someone who had already stated that shooting a few teenagers was a good idea and send them into "arrest" some demonstrators................... a perfect recipe for a disaster

 

then you try and cover it up even if half the dead have been shot in the back

 

it always was criminal and everyone knew it

[Acid 0]

What purpose would be served by publishing a list of the names of the Paras involved, Kevin?

 

 

Other than providing a hit list to the few muppets left who believe in the "armed struggle", I can think of no good reason.

 

Enlighten me .......

 

 

 

.... Vuvuzela.

To name and shame them.

 

To cause unnecessary shit for soldiers who must be in their sixties and onwards now? Plus the simple fact that they were simply following orders.

[Rob W 0]

"simple fact that they were simply following orders. "

 

ah yes - now I've heard that excuse somewhere else ...................... now where was it ................ :)

[LeazesMag 0]

"simple fact that they were simply following orders. "

 

ah yes - now I've heard that excuse somewhere else ...................... now where was it ................ :)

 

seriously. Are you an older version of Kevin ?

[Acid 0]

"simple fact that they were simply following orders. "

 

ah yes - now I've heard that excuse somewhere else ...................... now where was it ................ :)

 

So they engaged without an order? Whatever happened to chain of command.

[Tom 14000]

He's certainly an older version of something.

[Kevin 1]

Why do most of you insist in still trying to cover it up and back them?

[Monkeys Fist 41318]

"simple fact that they were simply following orders. "

 

ah yes - now I've heard that excuse somewhere else ...................... now where was it ................ :)

KFC ?

[Tom 14000]

I think it was KFC aye. Deffo rings a bell.

[ewerk 29479]

"simple fact that they were simply following orders. "

 

ah yes - now I've heard that excuse somewhere else ...................... now where was it ................ :)

 

So they engaged without an order? Whatever happened to chain of command.

 

They were told to shoot 'targets'. Quite what their definition of a target was isn't clear. They were trigger happy and certainly deserve part of the blame, however, naming them at this point would serve no purpose and would more than likely mean them being given round the clock protection and the tax payer would foot the bill for that.

 

Time to put it all to bed.

[Renton 20414]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

From experience I know that I don't want to get into a 'discussion' about this on here, but either I have misheard the news or I'm quite surprised at some of the attitudes shown on this thread.

[Kevin 1]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

From experience I know that I don't want to get into a 'discussion' about this on here, but either I have misheard the news or I'm quite surprised at some of the attitudes shown on this thread.

Correct. I was shocked aswell, basically trying to cover up murders.

[ewerk 29479]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

[NJS 4252]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

[Renton 20414]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

Fair enough if that happens then.

[Guest alex]

"simple fact that they were simply following orders. "

 

ah yes - now I've heard that excuse somewhere else ...................... now where was it ................

KFC ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

[Kevin 1]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

Fuck off you old twat. real scumbags? if by scumbag you refer to murderers and killers of the innocent then you must mean the British army.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Kevin

[NJS 4252]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

 

McGuinness has been in jail in the past - Adams has always been on the political side and uninvolved in any terrorism.

 

As Cameron said in answer to your question, the rule of law applies to the state's actions.

[ewerk 29479]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

Fair enough if that happens then.

 

Just looked it up and their evidence to the tribunal can't be used to prosecute them, except in the case of perjury, and I think it's likely that a few of them may have told porkies.

[Renton 20414]

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt?

 

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words.

 

IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report.

 

lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though.

 

Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ?

 

Just out of interest have you read, watched, or heard the results of the enquiry?

[LeazesMag 0]

I think the worst thing - much like the De Menenzes thing - is the lies that were told at the time and have been repeated ever since - including to a previous inquiry. Even basics like the first shot fired and whether the killed were armed have been the subject of those lies.

 

Things like someone being shot in the back from 50 yards and then again in the head from 12 inches suggest murder to me - that isn't soldiers fighting in combat conditions or even losing control.

 

The irony is of course is that it was the best recruitment drive possible and certainly escalated the troubles so any idea of putting people down or nipping rebellion in the bud was a spectacular failure.

 

question for you, and others like you, as you mention the Brazilian.

 

What would your response have been if Derrick Bird had been shot before shooting any of those civilians 13 days ago, before being given a "chance to surrender" or "allowed to put his hands up [ie wait until he shoots first]". Would you be complaining they had shot "an innocent man".

 

Apologies to anyone offended by this question, but seriously, some people have their heads so far up their arse its unbelievable.