Sign Of Peace: Queen Elizabeth Shakes Hand Of Former IRA Commander

Sure, Bubba, whatever you say.

Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of the support company who went into the Bogside did so as a result of an order which should not have been given by their commander.

He finds that, on balance, the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army.

He finds that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of support company was armed with a firearm.

He finds that there was some firing by Republican paramilitaries but none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties.

And he finds that, in no case, was any warning given by soldiers before opening fire.

He also finds that the support company reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and with a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline.

He finds that despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers, none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers.

And he finds that many of the soldiers - and I quote knowingly - put forward false accounts to seek to justify their firing.

'Crawling away'

Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying.

The report refers to one person who was shot while crawling away from the soldiers. Another was shot in all probability when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground.

The report refers to the father who was hit and injured by army gunfire after going to attend to his son.

For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says that the immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of support company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries.

Crucially, that, and I quote, none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury or indeed was doing anything else that could, on any view, justified in shooting.

For those people who are looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal or politicians to determine.

Mr Speaker, these are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say. But Mr Speaker, you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible.

We do not honour all those who have served with such distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.

There is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal's authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.

'Deeply sorry'

I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, [if] a prime minister needs to issue an apology.

For someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something we feel we have learnt about rather than lived through.

But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and the hurt of that day and with a lifetime of loss.

Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces and for that, on behalf of the government, indeed, on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry.

In Britain and Ireland there has been a lot of work put in to bring about peace which was kickstarted by The Good Friday Agreement. We're trying to put the past behind us and look to the future.

Re: Setanta (Post 5026951)

Setanta wrote:

Sure, Bubba, whatever you say.

I understand that this word is a corruption of the word: "brother".
It seems odd that he chooses to employ the corruption.

I love how they threw that line in, but didn't give the queen the same consideration.

"The queen, a senior member of the British Royalty, the group the killed, tortured, starved, and sent the Irish packing for over 800 hundred years..."

Come on.. fair's fair.

Still, any peaceful day is a good day. Good on him.

My complaint is with the British News bringing up the past and not being fair and that they look backward with a slanted view. You put that article on this site, you chose to use it.

"McGuinness used to be a senior member of the IRA, the group that killed the queen's cousin, Lord Louis Mountbatten in 1979. ... The handshake signals times have greatly changed since the end of the conflict, which claimed more than 3,500 lives, though some tensions remain."

McGuinness is now a deputy first minister in Northern Ireland's government. The queen is on a visit to Northern Ireland. McGuinness told the BBC it was "very nice" to meet her. And the BBC adds that according to a spokesman for McGuinness' Irish nationalist party, Sinn Fein, McGuinness told the queen that their meeting was a "powerful signal that peace-building requires leadership."

Re: Setanta (Post 5026951)

Setanta wrote:

Sure, Bubba, whatever you say.

I understand that this word is a corruption of the word: "brother".
It seems odd that he chooses to employ the corruption.

But "Bubba" is a term of affection. Being a Texan, I ought to know.

WHAT is the huge difference ?

WHAT is the huge difference ?

Basically, Britain is nearby and the people are pretty much like they are at home,
whereas America is 3,000 miles away and full of ******* dicks.

It's always about the horrors done by the IRA, never a mention of WHY!!!

I didn't reply directly to your post either, I waited until Foofie made his ridiculous remark about the 'reds and tans.' My post was general, and you decided it was aimed specifically at you.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

WHAT is the huge difference ?

Basically, Britain is nearby and the people are pretty much like they are at home, whereas America is 3,000 miles away and full of ******* dicks. Sorry to be blunt, but I can't think of a nice way of saying it.