Bloody Sunday

I’ve recently been learning about this at school, and I’d like to hear people’s views on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

For those of you who don’t know much about it, during a Nothern Irish civil rights march, 27 people were shot by the British paratroopers. 13 of these people died, 7 of those who were killed were teenagers.

I was having a conversation with my dad about it, and he didn’t seem particularly sympathetic to those who were killed. His argument was twofold.

Firstly, that in the overall context of the conflict up to this point, 6 soldiers had been killed in Derry by December 1971, and that the British armed forces had been on the recieving end of 211 explosions and 180 nail bombs, and had fired 364 rounds in return. The soldiers in the paratroop regiment were told there would be armed IRA men at the march and were told by an officer that ‘’we want some kills’’, so you cannot blame the incident solely on the soldiers involved.

Secondly, that it was a common tactic for the IRA to use crowds as cover, and that many of the members of the crowd were conscious of this, and were happy to go on the march anyway, and essentially help the IRA.

Do you think these are valid arguments, why or why not.

(P.S., don’t feel constrained by the OP feel free to add your own thoughts and opinions on the incident in general.)

shooting people is bad. especially when these people are not armed/dangerous or a combination of those.

The first argument I think is deeply flawed because it ignores a lot of important precedent; namely that “I was just following orders” is not recognized as a valid defense anymore for good reasons.

The second argument is even weaker; “let’s kill innocents preemptively because the enemy might use innocents as shields.” That sounds horrific.

Secondly, that it was a common tactic for the IRA to use crowds as cover, and that many of the members of the crowd were conscious of this, and were happy to go on the march anyway, and essentially help the IRA.

Source?

British armed forces had been on the recieving end of 211 explosions and 180 nail bombs, and had fired 364 rounds in return

At the rally?

That was someone else’s argument. He was asking if you thought that any of these are valid points. And it is a common tactic for terrorists to hide in crowds and shoot out at soldiers who couldn’t shoot back without hitting a civilian.

If they knew this, and expected this, they could have brought devices to disperse the crowds.

Woody, understand your dads point of view but totally disagree regarding the outcome. To that point It was always the paramilitaries that were dictating when, where and how they would engage the Army or RUC.
It would normally be with an ambush attack near the border or in a populated areas where it was easy to disappear quickly. At the same time it was never considered (in a political sense) a war, so engagement was always limited to response when attacked.

The soldiers were then put in a situation where they were primed to fight, yet at the same time had this ‘terms of engagement’ thing to deal with.
To say on the one hand those people probably deserved to die, or on the other, that the individual soldiers were to blame for precipitating it is to not credit the actual architects of the situation, namely the British government and the IRA leadership.

I suppose it’s the one thing that we eventually learned from the 30 odd years of NI, you don’t use brute force to deal with terrorists as the casualties tend to be the innocent.

All of the people shot were unarmed, and five of them were shot in the back.

How can anyone think this was justified?

Soldiers are not total robots ( yet ).

The emotions got the better of them,.

Allowing your emotions to get the better of you generally isn’t a good excuse when it comes to war ‘crimes’.

Originally posted by Aaron_:

All of the people shot were unarmed, and five of them were shot in the back.

How can anyone think this was justified?

Reading the thing again, I cant see anyone who has tried to justify it

I’d like to see some proof of the things stated in the OP. As of right now, I can’t see the OP as anything but incredibly illogical, trolling, and bigoted.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

If they knew this, and expected this, they could have brought devices to disperse the crowds.

I get what you’re saying, Saint, but effecive crowd-control “devices” of the early-seventies were primarily billy-clubs and fire hoses, right? Seems like it would be pretty hard to disperse a crowd with these means while at the same time taking pop shots from hostiles embedded in the crowd.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying the loss of life, just saying that it looks like the troops were between a rock and a hard place. It’s a lot easier to make the correct decisions in a situation like this when you have all the time in the world to think about it. I doubt these soldiers were in a position that would grant them time to think about what their every possible reaction should be.

Seems like it would be pretty hard to disperse a crowd

Consider why they are even attempting to disperse a civil rights march.

hostiles embedded in the crowd.

What hostiles? There is zero evidence of this.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying the loss of life, just saying that it looks like the troops were between a rock and a hard place.

I disagree. They went out with the intent to kill, and killed.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

Seems like it would be pretty hard to disperse a crowd

Consider why they are even attempting to disperse a civil rights march.

hostiles embedded in the crowd.

What hostiles? There is zero evidence of this.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying the loss of life, just saying that it looks like the troops were between a rock and a hard place.

I disagree. They went out with the intent to kill, and killed.

I’ve seen just as much concrete “evidence” supporting your view of this tragedy as I’ve seen to the contrary.

I reiterate: I’m neither justifying nor condemning anyone’s action regarding this horrible event, as I, like everyone else here, am not privvy to all of the facts. I was simply replying to Saint’s comment about crowd control devices.

BTW, I grew up in Birmingham, AL so don’t get me started on civil rights marches.

I’ve seen just as much concrete “evidence” supporting your view of this tragedy as I’ve seen to the contrary.

Really now? That would be news to me, seeing as I haven’t seen a scrap of evidence. Can you cite some?

BTW, I grew up in Birmingham, AL so don’t get me started on civil rights marches.

Okay. I grew up in Belfast.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I’d like to see some proof of the things stated in the OP. As of right now, I can’t see the OP as anything but incredibly illogical, trolling, and bigoted.

If you’d even care to read the OP as opposed to skimming over it, you’d see that the only thing Woody referred to as factual was the occurrence itself. As he so clearly stated, he is questioning the opinions/arguments that were provided by someone else (his father, in this case).

Originally posted by CapnShep:

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I’d like to see some proof of the things stated in the OP. As of right now, I can’t see the OP as anything but incredibly illogical, trolling, and bigoted.

If you’d even care to read the OP as opposed to skimming over it, you’d see that the only thing Woody referred to as factual was the occurrence itself. As he so clearly stated, he is questioning the opinions/arguments that were provided by someone else (his father, in this case).

Just because he chooses to use a framing device, does not mean he gets to state things without proof.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I’ve seen just as much concrete “evidence” supporting your view of this tragedy as I’ve seen to the contrary.

Really now? That would be news to me, seeing as I haven’t seen a scrap of evidence. Can you cite some?

BTW, I grew up in Birmingham, AL so don’t get me started on civil rights marches.

Okay. I grew up in Belfast.

That’s the point! I’ve seen no evidence of either side to be considered factual. Were there hostile IRA in the crowd? I don’t know that there were. You don’t know that there weren’t. Were the British soldiers present to kill the protestors? Probably not to kill, though there were probably a few of them who were gleeful while they pulled the trigger. I think there could have been a more fair agency present to maintain control, just as there could have been less biased people controlling the crowds of 1962 Birmingham than white Alabama police officers. Thing is, we don’t know for sure what happened. That is one of the reasons that Bloody Sunday is such a hot button, even 3 1/2 decades later, that and the fact that there is still a stifling amount of tension in your part of the world due to the reasons behind the tragedy.

With all due respect, though, You have a much larger stake in this discussion than I, so I apologize if I’ve stepped on your toes with any of my arguments. I’m just trying to look at the picture with a little different perspective. Although looking back at my original post in this thread, it does look as though I support the soldiers’ position, which I do not.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

Originally posted by CapnShep:

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I’d like to see some proof of the things stated in the OP. As of right now, I can’t see the OP as anything but incredibly illogical, trolling, and bigoted.

If you’d even care to read the OP as opposed to skimming over it, you’d see that the only thing Woody referred to as factual was the occurrence itself. As he so clearly stated, he is questioning the opinions/arguments that were provided by someone else (his father, in this case).

Just because he chooses to use a framing device, does not mean he gets to state things without proof.

That was his question, though, right? Do we agree with his father’s arguments? I, for one, mirror Saint’s reply:

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

The first argument I think is deeply flawed because it ignores a lot of important precedent; namely that “I was just following orders” is not recognized as a valid defense anymore for good reasons.

The second argument is even weaker; “let’s kill innocents preemptively because the enemy might use innocents as shields.” That sounds horrific.

You don’t know that there weren’t.

The fact that none of people shot were armed, coupled with the fact that no guns were ever found in the crowd highly suggests that there weren’t any. Despite all the photographs of the crowd, not a one shows anybody armed but the BA. Most of those shot, were shot in the back. Even supposing that there was a legitimate reason to be firing in the first place, it still does not excuse shooting unarmed civilians, who were running away. More so, the fact that the British government cleared those involved of all guilt shows even more the unfitness of the British institution in Ireland.

As to why the military was present in the first place, the only reason is to harass and disrupt the marchers. Which is why the barricades were placed across the planned route. The march was a direct protest against a policy of the british state, I don’t anybody is naive enough to actually believe a tool of the british state was present with any positive motives. This, combined with the shoot to kill policy and the attitudes involved with internment policy, leave almost no doubt. If you were to take the situation out of context and present it as a purely academic model, it would be clear what the end result would be to anybody studying it.

Do we agree with his father’s arguments?

I can’t see the OP as anything but incredibly illogical, trolling, and bigoted.

No really, his “father’s” arguments are utter bullshit. Woody’s stated his own bias in previous threads about this topic.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

You don’t know that there weren’t.

The fact that none of people shot were armed, coupled with the fact that no guns were ever found in the crowd highly suggests that there weren’t any. Despite all the photographs of the crowd, not a one shows anybody armed but the BA. Most of those shot, were shot in the back. Even supposing that there was a legitimate reason to be firing in the first place, it still does not excuse shooting unarmed civilians, who were running away. More so, the fact that the British government cleared those involved of all guilt shows even more the unfitness of the British institution in Ireland.

As to why the military was present in the first place, the only reason is to harass and disrupt the marchers. Which is why the barricades were placed across the planned route. The march was a direct protest against a policy of the british state, I don’t anybody is naive enough to actually believe a tool of the british state was present with any positive motives. This, combined with the shoot to kill policy and the attitudes involved with internment policy, leave almost no doubt. If you were to take the situation out of context and present it as a purely academic model, it would be clear what the end result would be to anybody studying it.

I think that this is exactly the kind of answer the OP was asking for. I appreciate your views on the matter, as well, since the only information I had on the subject was clearly biased towards the British side of things. As we were taught in school here in the states, the attack was initiated by the IRA. I guess it’s just easier to teach assumptions as truth than to spend days or weeks analyzing every aspect of every encounter in history. I’ve noticed more and more frequently that there is usually more to historical hallmarks than I was taught in school.

Sorry. Nothing was ever brought up about Woody’s previous biased remarks in other threads on this subject, so I was only arguing what was presented here.

I appreciate your views on the matter, as well, since the only information I had on the subject was clearly biased towards the British side of things

Considering the british control the local media, and international media pulls from local media on foreign issues… that’s unsurprising.

As we were taught in school here in the states, the attack was initiated by the IRA.

That’s also how it’s taught in British schools.

I’ve noticed more and more frequently that there is usually more to historical hallmarks than I was taught in school.

When I was in Chiapas, I realized something about american textbooks. The one I was looking at spent a single paragraph on the Mexican-American war. The biggest land grab in US history. And it’s covered in a single paragraph. Mostly because the entire war is a giant embarrassment to the US even though they won.

Sorry. Nothing was ever brought up about Woody’s previous biased remarks in other threads on this subject, so I was only arguing what was presented here.

Don’t be. Considering I can’t even find the thread anymore. It was quite some time ago.

No really, his “father’s” arguments are utter bullshit. Woody’s stated his own bias in previous threads about this topic.

For your informaton these really weren’t my arguments. My father served in Northern Ireland and so has very strong views on the issue. I had quite a long argument against him on the subject and thought I’d put it on the forums as it seemed to be such a good topic for discussion. I didn’t mean for them to be inflammatory, I wanted them to provoke discussion.

As for other threads, I don’t remember me stating my views on it. I do remember talking to you in chat a while about Northern Ireland in general, but I remember that I was mainly arguing that the IRA were unjustfied in using bombs on civilian targets, so why would I be okay with the paratroopers killing civilians either?

I can’t see the OP as anything but incredibly illogical, trolling, and bigoted.

I don’t really see how it is trolling. The only person who has taken any offence is you.

At the rally?

No not at the rally, in Derry up to that point I believe.

Consider why they are even attempting to disperse a civil rights march.

They didn’t disperse the march. It was meant to go to the city centre. The army made a barricade redirecting the route. A few of the crowd started stone throwing, while most of the crowd went in another direction. The paratroopers then got sent in to arrest the stone throwers, who by that time were running away. It was then that they started killing innocents. Just wanted to say that they weren’t breakng up the whole rally, but were meant to arrest those who were throwing stones.

What hostiles? There is zero evidence of this.

There was army intelligence of an IRA sniper and the stone throwers. Those were the two man reasons the paratroopers were sent in. Of course that doesn’t mean the evidence was solid, definitely not solid enough to justify the distribution of live rounds. The retrospective evdence does however clearly show that even if there were stone throwers, none of them were armed, and so shouldn’t have been killed. I guess it would depend on whether you would call a stone thrower a hostile, or if hostile means IRA. Of course, it doesn’t excuse it though.