Ballymurphy Massacre Inquest

[Neil Down]

So glad it was nothing to do with gang style turf wars revolving around drugs and protection racketeering.

 

[Freggyragh]

4 hours ago, Maire said:

I've given you the reason several times...

 

The reasons are from a Northern Irish Catholic who now lives here.

You were correct. The unionists called in the British Army to back up the RUC. The RUC had murdered more civilians than anyone else.

During the brutal Falls Road curfew of July 1970 the British Army killed three civilian residents and a photo-journalist from England.

The Provos first offensive action against the security forces didn’t happen until August, when they killed two RUC officers in a car bomb - they were too busy establishing control over nationalist areas - terrorising their own communities (such as Ballamurphy) in the same way the UVF and UDA ruled over their territories. 

The sectarian politicians of Northern Ireland created the mess, and unlike the federal government in the US which enacted civil rights legislation and reigned in the KKK and the state troopers of the Deep South, in the Six Counties the British Army put themselves at the service of the statelet’s security forces. 

Does anyone else remember the Orange marches in Douglas? The Orange bigots used to come over from Belfast in mid-July, bang big drums, get pissed and chant about the Pope. The Steam Packet sailors refused to take them and so they stopped coming. Utter low-life they were. 

[Freggyragh]

16 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

So glad it was nothing to do with gang style turf wars revolving around drugs and protection racketeering.

 

That’s not in the past. It’s still like that. 

[Max Power]

With the decision to prosecute Soldier 'F' and no others it looks like this and the ongoing Ballymurphy killings enquiry could rake up more trouble.

What were the government of the day thinking in deploying a regiment of highly trained and motivated killers to an area of the United Kingdom? 

[Rushen Spy]

The pr!ck who caused the Amritsar Massacre in India in 1919 received his training in urban terrorism against civilian populations in British-occupied Ireland. This is how the British state has always operated: violence to suppress dissent and keep the population in line. It's not a topic you'll find taught in high school history classes but state violence in Britain was horrific, especially in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. That's why Britain never had a revolution like France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy, etc.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Rushen Spy

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

With the decision to prosecute Soldier 'F' and no others it looks like this and the ongoing Ballymurphy killings enquiry could rake up more trouble.

What were the government of the day thinking in deploying a regiment of highly trained and motivated killers to an area of the United Kingdom? 

Because the civilian rule of law normally enforced by the police had completely broken down? And we are talking about a colonial power that still clung to the ways that it had ruled empire. You have to remember that it was 47yrs ago.

Think back to the thinking and attitudes of the time. Britain was still getting over, if not hungover from WW2 and the loss of empire. Timewise, 1972 was closer to the last  world war than it is to today.

I watched a news article on the subject this afternoon. Britain had more troops in NI (21k) than they campaigned latterly in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Non-Believer
Extra bit

[RIchard Britten]

8 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Because the civilian rule of law normally enforced by the police had completely broken down? And we are talking about a colonial power that still clung to the ways that it had ruled empire. You have to remember that it was 47yrs ago.

Think back to the thinking and attitudes of the time. Britain was still getting over, if not hungover from WW2 and the loss of empire. Timewise, 1972 was closer to the last  world war than it is to today.

I watched a news article on the subject this afternoon. Britain had more troops in NI (21k) than they campaigned latterly in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Don't remember British forces having access to airstrikes, artillery, drones and Tomahawk missiles in NI...

[Shake me up Judy]

This was probably the right decision yesterday but that's where it should stop. There'll never be justice for the things that happened in the Troubles and many unarmed soldiers and policemen were murdered in cold blood too. It was war and now there is peace - we hope. That's justice enough.

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, Shake me up Judy said:

This was probably the right decision yesterday but that's where it should stop. There'll never be justice for the things that happened in the Troubles and many unarmed soldiers and policemen were murdered in cold blood too. It was war and now there is peace - we hope. That's justice enough.

Actually it was an occupation.

[Shake me up Judy]

My memory might be deceiving me but Northern Ireland was and still is British. How can you occupy your own country ? You muppet.

[RIchard Britten]

13 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

My memory might be deceiving me but Northern Ireland was and still is British. How can you occupy your own country ? You muppet.

Yes, your memory must be deceiving you.  There was this little thing called the Troubles, where the People of Ireland took issue with armed forces from another country (Britain) where occupying.

And then there is the issue of the uprising of 1920s, you know when the official split happened after "colonists" decided that they wanted to be part of Britain. 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by RIchard Britten

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, RIchard Britten said:

Don't remember British forces having access to airstrikes, artillery, drones and Tomahawk missiles in NI...

Weaponry wasn't discussed - the article referred to troop numbers.

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

Weaponry wasn't discussed - the article referred to troop numbers.

Exactly.  You don't need as many troops where you can remotely destroy things.

[Freggyragh]

56 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

Yes, your memory must be deceiving you.  There was this little thing called the Troubles, where the People of Ireland took issue with armed forces from another country (Britain) where occupying.

And then there is the issue of the uprising of 1920s, you know when the official split happened after "colonists" decided that they wanted to be part of Britain. 

 

Rubbish. Calling the unionists ‘colonists’ is fascist. You can’t predict allegiances in the North of Ireland by surname. You could more accurately predict allegiances in the 1920s by religion and industry. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Freggyragh

[RIchard Britten]

3 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

Rubbish. Calling the unionists ‘colonists’ is fascist. You can’t predict allegiances in the North of Ireland by surname. You could more accurately predict allegiances in the 1920s by religion and industry. 

Ireland during the period 1536–1691 saw the first full conquest of the island by England and its colonisation with Protestant settlers from Great Britain. ... While the English, the Welsh and, later, the Scots accepted Protestantism, the Irish remained Catholic.