Bloody Sunday 30 January 1972 40th Anniversary Today

CDfm

Lots of people were surprised in 1985 when U2 who had yet to be really famous opened their set with this - a stadium rocker about peace.

The opening lines say it all "I can't believe the news today"

There was incredulity that it happened.

Here is an introduction from a University of Ulster resource so just follow the link

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/index.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]CAIN Web Service - Conflict and Politics in Northern Ireland[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The CAIN (Conflict Archive on the INternet) Web site contains information and source material on 'the Troubles' and politics in Northern Ireland from 1968 to the present. There is also some material on society in the region. CAIN is located in the University of Ulster and is part of INCORE and ARK.[/FONT]

So I am posting this for those who know very little about it and would prefer to avoid a political discussion as the events speak for themselves.

dave2pvd

Remarkable isn't it? In Wembley Stadium of all places. Poignant stuff.

As an Irishman living in the US, it still amazes me how Irish independence is barely acknowledged. By Ireland. Perhaps that's another thread.....

CDfm

dave2pvd wrote: »

As an Irishman living in the US, it still amazes me how Irish independence is barely acknowledged. By Ireland. Perhaps that's another thread.....

The 1916 centenary is just 4 years away and we still have problems talking about it. It would make for an interesting thread alright.

dave2pvd

CDfm wrote: »

The 1916 centenary is just 4 years away and we still have problems talking about it. It would make for an interesting thread alright.

Speaking of separate threads, surely Bono's high-heeled boots and superbly coiffed mullet count as worthy?

MarchDub

dave2pvd wrote: »

Remarkable isn't it? In Wembley Stadium of all places. Poignant stuff.

As an Irishman living in the US, it still amazes me how Irish independence is barely acknowledged. By Ireland. .

Not only not acknowledged but what is even more egregious for the spirit of a nation, it is frequently thrashed.

CDfm

dave2pvd wrote: »

Speaking of separate threads, surely Bono's high-heeled boots and superbly coiffed mullet count as worthy?

From Cuban heels to Cuban lookalike



Fidel Castro



U2 Publicity Shot

Fenian Army

Whats truly astounding is that there has not been one prosecution over it, not have the commanding officers been stripped of their medals etc. Fair enough if no one is getting prosecuted over stuff from the troubles, but republicans and to a lesser extent loyalists are. Thats why many of the family members are still marching, they want actions to back up words.

Its often portrayed as an aberration, but they got up to the same murderous craic in Ballymurphy and Springhill, you don't hear about those massacres as much but those families should have justice too.

The actions don't speak for themselves I'm afraid. Many loyalists and Unionists still maintain that the army were justified and that those killed were involved with the IRA, the Brit line at the time. The root of this persistent claim is that so many IRA men cite Bloody Sunday as the reason they joined the organization. In many peoples minds the admission that Bloody Sunday was a barbarous illegal event is saying that these IRA men and women were justified in joining.

Just on that song, I have a unionist friend, he is quite a moderate guy, we get on great despite me being quite the republican, but he regards that U2 song as a "rebel song" and won't listen to it.

R.Dub.Fusilier

just in regard to the U2 song , i think bono is given too much credit for the song. the main reason he did that song was to mirror john lennons song "Bloody Sunday" which had much better lyrics. i have never heard the JL version but have the Eire Og one and its well worth a listen. sorry slightly off topic.

Fenian Army

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

just in regard to the U2 song , i think bono is given too much credit for the song. the main reason he did that song was to mirror john lennons song "Bloody Sunday" which had much better lyrics. i have never heard the JL version but have the Eire Og one and its well worth a listen. sorry slightly off topic.

Well it was Sunday bloody Sunday
When they shot the people there
The cries of thirteen martyrs
Filled the Free Derry air
Is there any one amongst you
Dare to blame it on the kids?
Not a soldier boy was bleeding
When they nailed the coffin lids!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

You claim to be majority
Well you know that it's a lie
You're really a minority
On this sweet emerald isle
When Stormont bans our marches
They've got a lot to learn
Internment is no answer
It's those mothers' turn to burn!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

You anglo pigs and scotties
Sent to colonize the North
You wave your bloody Union Jack
And you know what it's worth!
How dare you hold to ransom
A people proud and free
Keep Ireland for the Irish
Put the English back to sea!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Well, it's always bloody Sunday
In the concentration camps
Keep Falls Road free forever
From the bloody English hands
Repatriate to Britain
All of you who call it home
Leave Ireland to the Irish
Not for London or for Rome!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!




Would be much better without Yoko Ono.

dave2pvd

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

just in regard to the U2 song , i think bono is given too much credit for the song. the main reason he did that song was to mirror john lennons song "Bloody Sunday" which had much better lyrics. i have never heard the JL version but have the Eire Og one and its well worth a listen. sorry slightly off topic.

U2 lyrics have never really made it to legendary status. What is remarkable about the song, and IMO could stand up against any Beatles song is what Adam, Larry and Dave are doing with their instruments.

CDfm

dave2pvd wrote: »

U2 lyrics have never really made it to legendary status. What is remarkable about the song, and IMO could stand up against any Beatles song is what Adam, Larry and Dave are doing with their instruments.

And their intro was "this is not a Rebel song ".

At that time, 3 of them were born again christians and they also did a homage to Martin Luther King.

3 of the 4 Beatles were of Irish extraction and McCartney did "Give Ireland back to the Irish".

I imagine the U2 song is relative to how it looked to an idealistic young christian who bought into peace as opposed to the oft cynical Lennon and Liverpool Irish McCartney who grew up post WWII.

Its a question of perspectives and Lennon did pipe down once his US Visa was in the balance.

The Scientician

I've read a bit about the reaction to the massacre in the Republic. Both Eamon McCann writing in the Irish Times (I think) and Brian Hanley in History Ireland magazine. What fascinates me is just how much this country has changed in the intervening years.

MarchDub

The Scientician wrote: »

I've read a bit about the reaction to the massacre in the Republic. Both Eamon McCann writing in the Irish Times (I think) and Brian Hanley in History Ireland magazine. What fascinates me is just how much this country has changed in the intervening years.

Not much mystery about that IMO - having lived through the times [I remember Bloody Sunday very well and the reaction in Ireland] it's easy to see how that 'change' came about when you have in the intervening years the press, the educational system, politicians, etc all spouting the same anti-nationalist rhetoric. That's my opinion anyway.

Although I do feel that much of the 'change' may in fact be on the surface.

The Scientician

It's not even anti-nationalism I'm talking about. I think it's the general communitarianism of what happened. Work-centred union groups all converged on various spots. Sure the unions still exist but if something outrageous happened tonight that I wanted to protest about tomorrow I wouldn't be looking to a union for organisation and I'm not sure you'd ever see the same numbers of people here protesting over something like that now as happened in '72. I think as a society, north and south, we're just a bit more atomised now.

Edited to add: Here's a link to McCann's comments http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310867377.html

eire4

Fenian Army wrote: »

Whats truly astounding is that there has not been one prosecution over it, not have the commanding officers been stripped of their medals etc. Fair enough if no one is getting prosecuted over stuff from the troubles, but republicans and to a lesser extent loyalists are. Thats why many of the family members are still marching, they want actions to back up words.

Its often portrayed as an aberration, but they got up to the same murderous craic in Ballymurphy and Springhill, you don't hear about those massacres as much but those families should have justice too.

The actions don't speak for themselves I'm afraid. Many loyalists and Unionists still maintain that the army were justified and that those killed were involved with the IRA, the Brit line at the time. The root of this persistent claim is that so many IRA men cite Bloody Sunday as the reason they joined the organization. In many peoples minds the admission that Bloody Sunday was a barbarous illegal event is saying that these IRA men and women were justified in joining.

Just on that song, I have a unionist friend, he is quite a moderate guy, we get on great despite me being quite the republican, but he regards that U2 song as a "rebel song" and won't listen to it.

I would suggest that maybe the reason nobody has been prosecuted is because the English cannot afford to have any trials for fears they would expose how far up the tree the orders and knowledge of this atrocity go.

HavingCrack

CDfm wrote: »

The 1916 centenary is just 4 years away and we still have problems talking about it. It would make for an interesting thread alright.

You have to remember in terms of human history even 1916 is still very close.

I always think a good comparison is the French Revolution which was ignored or not spoken of in much of France right through the 1800s, especially by conservatives.

There were similar hangovers in the US from the Civil War right up until the Civil Rights Movement, in fact you could argue looking at the US political and cultural landscape today that the hangover has never really gone away.

Indeed if we're talking of a simialr time frame we're really only starting to 'get to grips' with WW1 in the last decade or so. I suspect we'll begin to see 1916 and indeed the Civil War more talked about as the centenary approaches. Bloody Sunday and the Troubles in general are still very much in living memory so I suspect it could be another 20 or 30 years before real 'discussion' on it begins.

Apologies to everyone if my post is a bit hard to follow, I'm finding it quite hard to express myself in words.

snafuk35

Now you know and I know that there is a high probability that a group of men within Support Company, 1 Para actually wanted to get 'kills' and were prepared to gun down innocents to show the IRA operating in the Rossville area who was boss but it would be very very hard to prove that intention in court.

The reason there were no convictions so far is because the defense council would point out that Northern Ireland was in the middle of an insurrection against British rule and the troops going into the Rossville area were going into an area where IRA gunmen and bombers operated on a regular basis.

The Saville Report says that the whole thing kicked off when a Lieutenant was making an arrest and fired three shots in the air which set off a chain reaction among the rest of the troops who acted out of quote 'fear and panic' as the report puts it.

Most of shootings are understood in this way - the actions of stone throwers could have been misinterpreted as that of people throwing bombs or a person stepping out in the open to reach someone lying on the ground could be interpreted as a person stepping out to fire a shot.

Four of the soldiers broke free from the main body of soldiers and followed some of the crowd into Glenfada Park. No doubt the defense would argue they believed they were pursuing gunmen and bombers mixed up with stone throwers and protesters and because the 'contact' had kicked off (fooled by the shots of their own guys) they took no chances and fired at 'targets' that they took to be in a life or death situation to be enemy IRA.

One of the troops shot one of the victims on the ground as he lay wounded - a normal occurance when a soldier has shot an 'enemy' and makes sure he is not playing dead or concealing a weapon. His defense counsel would argue that he wasn't to know he was actually shooting an innocent person.

So a civilian jury could very well be swayed - not that the Paras were really innocent but that they couldn't be sure and they couldn't safely convict.

The Paras would claim that they were front line combat troops trained to be dropped behind enemy lines so their training would have kicked in when they perceived a contact had begun. They would shoot and ask questions later.

CDfm

HavingCrack wrote: »

Apologies to everyone if my post is a bit hard to follow, I'm finding it quite hard to express myself in words.

You are in good company, lots of people find it hard to discuss.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

You are in good company, lots of people find it hard to discuss.

It is very difficult to write about and think about, especially for those of us who lived through it all. Memories of TV reports, people screaming in terror, bodies lying on the ground, the British press denying any wrong doing; the frustration and anger of Irish people [some older people with memories of the Black and Tans] who recognised this as business as usual.

Speaking personally I will never see it as ‘troops dropped behind enemy lines’ who, because of their particular training somehow ‘got out of control’. Might as well say that about any massacre of innocent civilians. It was a civil rights march by people looking for constitutional rights that they ought to have had in any modern free society - and the victims were unarmed, many of them shot in the back as they were actually fleeing the scene.

snafuk35

MarchDub wrote: »

It is very difficult to write about and think about, especially for those of us who lived through it all. Memories of TV reports, people screaming in terror, bodies lying on the ground, the British press denying any wrong doing; the frustration and anger of Irish people [some older people with memories of the Black and Tans] who recognised this as business as usual.

Speaking personally I will never see it as ‘troops dropped behind enemy lines’ who, because of their particular training somehow ‘got out of control’. Might as well say that about any massacre of innocent civilians. It was a civil rights march by people looking for constitutional rights that they ought to have had in any modern free society - and the victims were unarmed, many of them shot in the back as they were actually fleeing the scene.

The troops wouldn't have known what the Irish wanted or known anything about the civil rights struggle or Irish history.
These guys went into the army straight out of school. All they would ever know is the Paras and it would be their family.
1 Para were told that Derry was a warzone and they were told to expect to be shot at. That's all they would want to know or need to know.
Most of them went in with safeties off and one soldier fired more than than the single 20 round magazine they were issued with before the off. He probably nicked an extra one and brought it with him because they were expecting trouble.
10 years later on the Falklands 2 Para were in the Battle of Goose Green and later the Battle of Wireless Ridge and 3 Para were in the Battle of Mount Longdon. An eye witness to the battle saw his fellow paras shooting dead surrendering Argentinians or finishing off wounded men. That's because aggression is pounded into the paratroopers from day one when they join up.
So a unit like 1 Para simply should not have been used to police the demonstration. They were trained for frontline combat against Soviet forces if WW3 broke out. In Derry they only did what they were trained to do - kill. Sadly innocent people paid the price.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

So a unit like 1 Para simply should not have been used to police the demonstration. They were trained for frontline combat against Soviet forces if WW3 broke out. In Derry they only did what they were trained to do - kill. Sadly innocent people paid the price.

But they were and it is not the victims fault.

snafuk35

CDfm wrote: »

But they were and it is not the victims fault.

Nobody said it was the victims fault.
I am merely pointing out that what the paratroopers did is understandable considering the situation in Derry in 1972 and what happens when gunfire - the three shots fired by a junior officer - erupts in a built up area when soldiers are alert for possible gun or bomb attacks.
The Saville Report exonerates most the soldiers who acted out of fear and panic.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

Nobody said it was the victims fault.
The Saville Report exonerates most the soldiers who acted out of fear and panic.

Ah sure, that's fine so .

MMMMMMmmmmm.

But then didn't a huge number of people join the Provos and the whole thing escalated. Nobodies fault. A misunderstanding.

snafuk35

CDfm wrote: »

Ah sure, that's fine so .

MMMMMMmmmmm.

But then didn't a huge number of people join the Provos and the whole thing escalated. Nobodies fault. A misunderstanding.

The Provos only used that as an excuse - their aim wasn't to right any wrongs. They sought to bring about a united Ireland through terrorism. Most the victims of Bloody Sunday did not support republican violence and there were pleas for the violence to stop for years by the victims' families.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Provos only used that as an excuse - their aim wasn't to right any wrongs.

Can you see how the event's and the aftermath fostered the conditions for it to happen.

A cursory glance of Dublin 1916 which no doubt is taught to the military and politicians would have made them well aware would have told them how this would play out.

It wasn't rocket science.

snafuk35

CDfm wrote: »

Can you see how the event's and the aftermath fostered the conditions for it to happen.

A cursory glance of Dublin 1916 which no doubt is taught to the military and politicians would have made them well aware would have told them how this would play out.

It wasn't rocket science.

The Bloody Sunday deaths do not legitimise 30 years of barbarity and murder by the Provisional IRA.
That's not rocket science.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Bloody Sunday deaths do not legitimise 30 years of barbarity and murder by the Provisional IRA.
That's not rocket science.

I am not pro the Provisional IRA & have posted about that.

My point here is different. A little context on 1916 is that the Rising was not popular and became popular as a result of civilian casualties which at over 220 exceeded the combined total of the military & rebel casualties.

http://irishmedals.org/gpage47.html

The reaction in 1916 was that the civilians felt they were targeted by the authorities.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72158599&postcount=1

And here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056252706&page=10

So my point is & it is not original that in 1972 because the authorities reacted in the way they did -the killings and cover up - sections of the population abandoned parliamentary/peaceful politics for extremist politics and methods.

An awareness of 1916 would have shown the authorities that the use of deadly force on civilians causes that reaction and that a rise in support for paramilitarism and terrorism was predictable and inevitable.

The Civil Rights Movement ended that day and while there was a peace movement for a few years afterwards, the momentum was gone.

HavingCrack

CDfm wrote: »

An awareness of 1916 would have shown the authorities that the use of deadly force on civilians causes that reaction and that a rise in support for paramilitarism and terrorism was predictable and inevitable.

Interestingly the use of deadly force on civilians can neutralise or at least sideline support for terrorism or paramilitarism if it is brutal enough and the regime is immune to outside criticism. Look at modern day Iran or China or Franco's regime in Spain etc. Obviously the UK considered itself a civilised state so wasn't capable of fully implementing such a regime. In the end they chose the worst of all options (from their persepctive) a violent campaign which had no hopes of victory through fear alone.

CDfm

HavingCrack wrote: »

Interestingly the use of deadly force on civilians can neutralise or at least sideline support for terrorism or paramilitarism if it is brutal enough and the regime is immune to outside criticism.Look at modern day Iran or China or Franco's regime in Spain etc

But the system was that of a modern democratic state and its citizens had the same rights as other citizens in the United Kingdom.

. Obviously the UK considered itself a civilised state so wasn't capable of fully implementing such a regime. In the end they chose the worst of all options (from their persepctive) a violent campaign which had no hopes of victory through fear alone.

It was a mad situation that Ulster Unionist Premier Terrence O'Neill found himself in between 1963 & his resignation in 1969.

I am always amazed at the British Labour Party's policies under Harold Wilson UK Premier 1964 to 70 -like they were the socialists and trade unionists.

Politically, citizens were trying to enforce their rights and like it or not citizens like the blacks in Uganda and the coloured folk in the Southern American states were doing the same.

I don't mean to be judgmental,but I can't understand why peace walls should be needed in Belfast either but the leaders of both communities agree that they are needed.

MarchDub

The violence of Bloody Sunday sidelined the real issue of Catholic disenfranchisement in the Northern Ireland state. From there on the narrative became just about all the violent incidents, the violent reactions [were they justified etc] and so on in circles forever - until we got to arguments about who committed the 'worst' deeds etc. Cleverly, the real issues got blindsided by this development.

I personally hate violence which is why Bloody Sunday will forever be burned into my memory as an atrocious deed - and the using of troops against a civilian civil rights parade is egregious to me.

And like I said - the real tragedy was the sidelining of the REAL issue of how Catholics were treated in the Norther Ireland state and how their voices of protest were ignored for decades prior to the 1960s.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I don't mean to be judgmental,but I can't understand why peace walls should be needed in Belfast either but the leaders of both communities agree that they are needed.

They may have agreed to them but I think the up to date views are that they should be removed where possible.

A new £2m fund (€2.4m) has been announced aimed at bringing down so-called peace walls which separate Protestant and Catholic neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland.

The money, being put forward by the International Fund for Ireland, is to be spent on projects that build confidence between divided communities.

The number of separation barriers in the North has grown since the 1994 ceasefire and some 88 peace walls are in place across Northern Ireland, with 40 in Belfast.

Their purpose is to minimise violence at interfaces where Catholic and Protestant communities meet.

Put side-by-side the barriers would stretch to over 21km.

The Peace Walls Programme has been put together following consultation with the North's Department of Justice and the Office of First and Deputy First Minister among others.

The programme will fund a range of relationship building initiatives within and between interface communities to help them arrive at a point where residents feel it is safe and appropriate for the walls to come down.

It is hoped that programme activity will start in June. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0118/north.html