Wednesday, March 19, 2008
McGuinness thought apology would suffice instead of Inquiry…
Phillip Johnston raises an interesting question upon reading, in Jonathan Powell’s book on the Peace Process™, that Martin McGuinness never understood why the British ever initiated the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday: ie, what on earth was it for if the current Deputy First Minister believes an apology would have sufficed. So who’s big (£181.2m) idea was it? Answer: the Irish Government. Powell:
“The inquiry ... has failed to give satisfaction to either side. The nadir for me was when Martin McGuinness said to me in a private conversation some years later that he didn’t know why we had done it: he thought an apology would have been quite sufficient.”
Yet, it is hardly surprising that McGuinness (who had been an IRA commander in the city at the time) was no enthusiast of this particular inquiry, since he refused to give detailed answer surrounding a number of accusations himself.
Mick Fealty @ 10:39 AM
McGuinness knew that at some stage the IRA, which he commanded, would come under pressure about why they were prepared to kill their own people and blame it on the Brits.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:47 AMThat’s all well and good, but surely it would first be necessary to establish if there was anything to apologise for.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 12:08 PMThat’s all well and good, but surely it would first be necessary to establish if there was anything to apologise for.
14 murders? (I accept your confusion over whether or not the 14 deserved to be gunned down like dogs arises from the fact they weren’t unionists)
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 12:54 PMAccept what you like Dec. Your stunning ability to make up bullshit to suit your own prejudices strongly suggests it’s not worth responding to your bait.
Nevertheless I’m feeling charitable today so will explain it for you in short, simple sentences.
1) I didn’t say I was confused.
2) I didn’t say there was nothing to apologise for.
3) I didn’t say there was something to apologise for
4) I don’t know what the people who were shot were doing. It would appear the witnesses can’t even agree.
5) I would guess you don’t know either (even though the term murder implies you’ve made your mind up).“gunned down like dogs”
Fond of your hyperbole, aren’t you?Anyway while you’re digesting that I’ll address the big boys in the class again. The point I was trying to make was that it clearly wasn’t accepted (by the government at the very least) that the government did anything wrong, otherwise they wouldn’t have ordered the enquiry. Before apologising for something they’d need to work that out. If not by an enquiry, then how?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with Martin McGuinness - the enquiry is a huge waste of time and money. I just think that, since events were clearly disputed, an apology could not be practical or meaningful without establishing what actually happened.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 01:06 PMthe problem with establishing what exactly happened, Beano, is that the British Government has actively obstructed its own enquiry - particularly the MOD with its destruction of rifles etc. That indicates to me, if no-one else, that the British Government knew that they had done wrong that day, giving the order for the British Army to open fire on its own unarmed citizenry and that all efforts since then have been aimed at covering up that fact.
The only reason the enquiry was ordered was to muddy the water - it hasn’t achieved anything and it won’t.Perhaps you’d like to go back to the little infants’ class again....
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 01:11 PMthe reason no inquiry was needed is that the facts are undisputed (except by people like Beano). The british army murdered 14 unarmed civil rights marchers!!
All it would have taked was for the Honest Tony to order the MOD to tell the truth. The inquiry is to pretend there is something to find out
an analogy I have made before is appropriate. Those who deny what happened are no different that holocaust deniers.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 01:21 PMYour stunning ability to make up bullshit to suit your own prejudices strongly suggests it’s not worth responding to your bait.
Sure Beano.
Post number 1: The IRA killed them
Post number 2: <That’s all well and good, but surely it would first be necessary to establish if there was anything to apologise for.
But, sure I’m the bullshitter here.
“gunned down like dogs”
Fond of your hyperbole, aren’t you?Sorry, I tend to get emotional when armed soldiers shoot civilians in the back.
Anyway while you’re digesting that I’ll address the big boys in the class again.
Don’t make me laugh, you’ve the intellectual prowess of a water-spaniel. Themuuns - bad. Usun’s -good. Aad nauseum…
Before apologising for something they’d need to work that out. If not by an enquiry, then how?
Look at the relevant MOD files?
The point I was trying to make was that it clearly wasn’t accepted (by the government at the very least) that the government did anything wrong, otherwise they wouldn’t have ordered the enquiry.
I’ll not even attempt to address your ‘35 years past it’s sell-by date spinning of the Widgery report’, because life’s just too short.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 01:26 PMA few guys from 1 Para seem to have went a bit over the top. Bif f88king deal.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 01:43 PMCan we cut the personal stuff? There’s been a lot of it recently and all it ever does is obscure the underlying issues in hand, whatever they be.
The general problem with all of these inquiries is that that they look like courts but they have none of the power or teeth that you would normally associate with courts.
What we know is that both the British government and the IRA have messed around with Saville. I suspect it is in the interest of neither to have the full truth of the events of that day to be fully exposed to scrutiny. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they have fully co-operated.
What we can be fairly sure of is that 14 innocent people died as a result of army actions that day. But we do not know the full story of why. In such a case, a unilateral apology could be seen as pre-emptive of knowing the wider truth.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 01:45 PMAll it would have taked was for the Honest Tony to order the MOD to tell the truth.
That assumes that the MOD would accept and act on such an order.
There are elements of the British Establishment, like MI5, who are a law unto themselves and, if they don’t like a particular P.M. are not adverse to starting whispering campaigns against him, like in Harold Wilson’s case.Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 01:55 PM“Post number 1: The IRA killed them”
Well, they did kill a young woman in l’derry and try to blame it on the Brits, such is their hatred and total lack of morality.
Monica Barr is one witness who seen a gunman get shot, he wasn’t innocent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1564483.stm
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:06 PMMcGuinness is moving the goalposts. The idea to have an independent enquiry was a long-time requirement coming from nationalists; and now when they get one, they say they didn’t really need it anyway ?!?
McGuinness’s reticience to answer questions shows how, to me, the request for an enquiry wasn’t made very seriously to start with. They didn’t anticipate that they’d have their own questions to answer for.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:19 PM‘What we can be fairly sure of is that 14 innocent people died as a result of army actions that day. But we do not know the full story of why.’
To teach the Bog-Wogs a lesson? I assumed that’s what Paisley got wind of and cancelled his own counter-demo.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:28 PMI’m inclined to agree somewhat with McGuiness. Others here have said that the facts had to be established first.
But the “facts” as known prior to the enquiry should have allowed the British Government to put out a statement such as :
All of the people killed and injured on Bloody Sunday were innocent victims and were unlawfully killed or wounded. (they probably would balk at the word “murdered").
For that action by our armed forces, we are truly sorry.Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:35 PMWhat is it you think soldiers should do, joe? When confronted by armed gunmen.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:50 PMThe idea to have an independent enquiry was a long-time requirement coming from nationalists; and now when they get one, they say they didn’t really need it anyway ?!?
CS
Martin McGuiness may not have been in favour of one but as far as I am aware the people that really count in this, the victim’s families, were fully in support of an inquiry.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:53 PMMonica Barr is one witness who seen a gunman get shot, he wasn’t innocent.
Clearly you can’t read your own links.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:57 PMDec, I was ignoring the first comment. My “That’s all well and good” was directed at the OP/McGuinness’s statement. I’d have thought that was obvious given the context of the rest of my (rather simply put) single-sentence comment. Perhaps the fact that we had crossed wires at this point explains your subsequent attempt to put words in my mouth that don’t belong there. Sadly I fear it doesn’t.
While your imagination is entertaining, you’ve still failed to answer the question of how Tony Blair can be expected to issue and/or order an apology for something he doesn’t know the full facts about.
Let me try and make this plain as day for you. I don’t have a particular agenda when it comes to Bloody Sunday other than an abject failure to get that worked up over it. I haven’t studied the details to know enough to be convinced of any single truth, nor am I likely to in the immediate future.
It’s clearly tragic for the families of those who died, but an enquiry is obviously not going to bring them back and in all likelihood, as Mick has hinted, it won’t even get to the truth. If the army were in the wrong I’d be angry at the soldiers responsible, if not, I’d be angry at (though unsurprised by) the Sinners for stirring (and I could probably just about find a new depth of contempt for Marty McG if it comes out that he was indeed up to his neck in the trouble). I’m not going to get too excited though, because I don’t think either conclusion will ever be proven and people, like yourself and those who ‘know’ that the army would only have shot if they were under threat, who have made up their minds already will continue to believe what they’ve always believed. And the lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank with a pay-cheque of hundreds of millions of pounds.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 03:07 PMFolks try and keep it civil. Ball not player.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 03:11 PMMonica Barr is one witness who seen a gunman get shot, he wasn’t innocent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1564483.stm
Posted by Ulsters my homeland on Mar 19, 2008 @ 02:06 PM
Where, even in the link you provided, did anyone state they “seen a gunman get shot”?
It seems you are prepared to make stuff up to satisfy your own perception which is about as pathetic as the conspiracy you propose in post #1.
Is it so unpalatable to form even a remotely fair opinion of what happened?
And back to the subject, for the British government to offer an apology at all, with or without first going through an inquiry would imply guilt. I’m quite certain McGuinness would be delighted if the British government had admitted guilt, any guilt at all in fact. That I am afraid is about the extent of the discovery in Powells book, riveting stuff!
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 03:15 PMI’m not going to get too excited though, because I don’t think either conclusion will ever be proven and people, like yourself and those who ‘know’ that the army would only have shot if they were under threat, who have made up their minds already will continue to believe what they’ve always believed.
Whilst there is the understandable temptation, to view the opposing views as both sides of the same coin, it coveniently ignores the available facts eg the palnting of nail bombs on Gerald Donaghy’s corpse, the wounds received by the victims, photographic evidence of those who’d just been shot (proving they were unarmed). The contrasting view is purely based on the official British Army and Establishment position (despite all the evidence to the contrary) and is really no more sophisticated than the troll inhabiting this thread. Apples and Oranges, really.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 03:33 PMMD
‘What is it you think soldiers should do, joe? When confronted by armed gunmen.’
Or was it the other way round? What would be your reaction if your area was invaded by gun-toting squaddies and you had a gun to hand. Give ‘em both barrels? I’m sure the thought would at least cross your mind.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 03:46 PM“Where, even in the link you provided, did anyone state they “seen a gunman get shot”?
It seems you are prepared to make stuff up to satisfy your own perception which is about as pathetic as the conspiracy you propose in post #1.
wind yer neck in McGrath. I meant to say “seen a gunman get shot at
as for post 1. Isn’t it true that the IRA shot an innocent women in l’derry and placed the blame on the soldiers in order to create more hatred? This was not the only time the IRA denied murder and the planting of bombs so they could blame the Brits. So what makes the opening statement so outrageous?
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 04:19 PMDec, do you have a (preferably reputable) link or source for the “available facts” you mentioned?
I suppose if I’m coming from this at any angle, it’s that I don’t trust republican allegations against the state forces (see the other thread about ‘heavy handedness’) so evidence would need to be bloody convincing.
For me that means answering questions like (specifically in regard to ‘facts’ you mentioned).
“who took the pictures?”
“isn’t it within the realms of possibility that witnesses lie?”
“Would the army or RUC have been quite so organised as to pre-meditate the day’s events to the extent required to bring their own nail bombs?”I’ve accepted that it’s possible, at times I’ve wondered whether it was even probably, but I don’t believe any conclusion will ever come close to passing the test of reasonable doubt.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 04:23 PMprobablyprobablePosted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 04:23 PM
