Soldier F.

[IT Minion]

On balance the Paras saved more lives than they took.
If the mob had overrun the Para lines, then the a lot of soldiers and civilians could have died.

You do know the killings happened after the rioters had disengaged and were fleeing right?

The Paras were ordered to capture the rioters but not pursue them. Their colonel violated his orders and they pursued them.

 

[Highway Man]

You do know the killings happened after the rioters had disengaged and were fleeing right?

The Paras were ordered to capture the rioters but not pursue them. Their colonel violated his orders and they pursued them.

They did what was right at the time. Used enough force to control a baying mob.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Yes you call IRA and Hamas “freedom fighters”

Indefensible

They're both resisting occupation of their country.

Freedom Fighters - Freedom fighters are people who fought to free their country from an oppressor. They often face hardships in the process of securing the freedom of their country and people.

The label of terrorist is applied by a government to justify the attempts at eliminating that group.
Would you describe Mahatma Gandhi as a terrorist?

The British government did:

Mahatma Gandhi was once called a terrorist by the British parliament in 1932. However, this was a label applied by the government, while Gandhi himself was a leader of a movement that advocated for non-violent resistance and civil disobedience against injustices. He engaged in debates with revolutionaries who used violent tactics and rejected their methods, championing non-violence as the more courageous path.
Despite the 1932 label, Gandhi is now globally recognized as a leader of peace movements, with his statues featured in places of honor around the world.

What about Nelson Mandela, would you consider him to be a terrorist?
The British government did:

• 1980s: Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and other Conservative politicians publicly described the ANC as a "terrorist organization" and referred to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

 

[IT Minion]

All deaths by the security forces were investigated at the time.
Most of the deaths were of IRA terrorists who were in the act of trying to kill innocent people.

Not all investigations are fit for purpose. The Widgery report was a whitewash.

I'd be interested in seeing where you get your stats on the breakdown of deaths by the security forces. The Paras killed 24 innocent civilians and zero PIRA during the Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy incidents for example.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

They did what was right at the time. Used enough force to control a baying mob.

Personal views compared to legal obligations

 

[Knave of Hearts]

You need to stop trying to put this on the British military


They were there because of the IRA causing trouble.

If the IRA hadn’t caused trouble they wouldn’t have been there

If the British weren't occupying Ireland, there wouldn't be a need for freedom fighters.
If the British didn't occupy India, there wouldn't be a need for freedom fighters.
If there wasn't Apartheid in South Africa, there wouldn't be a need for Nelson Mandela and the ANC.
If there wasn't Germans occupying the Channel Islands, etc, there wouldn't be a need for resistance.
If there wasn't Israel occupying PAlestine there wouldn't be a need for armed struggle.
If there wasn't an invasion of Ukraine there wouldn't be a need for resistance.

Freedom fighters don't mysteriously appear from nowhere, and for no reason.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

That is true, but the British army in Ulster is not an army of occupation.

Ulster operated almost an Apartheid system. It is well known and documented.

Self-segregation in Northern Ireland: The conflict in Northern Ireland involved discrimination against the Catholic minority, but the segregation that developed between the Protestant and Catholic communities was largely the result of decades of self-segregation driven by political, religious, and social differences. This situation has been described by some as "self-imposed apartheid" due to the de facto separation of communities,

This 'self-segregation' created an unequal society.

Protestants were given preferential treatment in Ulster, particularly from the partition of Northern Ireland in 1921 until the late 1960s. This preferential treatment was seen in areas like public service jobs, housing, political power, and the justice system, where discrimination against Catholics was common and often institutionalized.

Because this unequal society was evident in local administration, it could be described as a government implemented policy of Apartheid, even if it wasn't an official policy of the British government.

So there was very much a perception of occupation and domination by the British.

The British army was perceived as supporting the RUC who were carrying out that unofficial Apartheid.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

All deaths by the security forces were investigated at the time.

You're welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong.

1 Human rights violations by state actors and abuses by armed groups were perpetrated by all sides,

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/time_to_deal_with_the_past_0.pdf

... the state was directly responsible for approximately 360 deaths, with the army being responsible for approximately 300 of these. ...
... 63% of those killed were undisputedly unarmed at the time of death, 12% (24 people) were confirmed as having been in possession of a weapon and a further 14 deaths were listed as being ‘possibly armed’. As the official Operation Banner review notes, only a dozen or so serious cases involving Army personnel killing or injuring others came to court during the 30 years of the Troubles. ...
Of the 350 deaths by the security forces, there were only 6 investigations.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/78677/html/

Most of the deaths were of IRA terrorists who were in the act of trying to kill innocent people.

More civilian deaths were attributed to Loyalist forces:

Loyalists were responsible for 48% of all civilian deaths, however, followed by republicans at 39% and security forces at 10%

So which side was killing innocent civilians?

 

[Knave of Hearts]

On balance the Paras saved more lives than they took.
If the mob had overrun the Para lines, then the a lot of soldiers and civilians could have died.
If you look at the footage at the time , the rioters outnumbered the security forces and were closing in.

Another point is why did the riot start.
A popular fiction is that the Army opened fire on peaceful 'Civil rights' protesters.
The truth is that the Civil rights march had been rerouted because the original route would have taken them through a Protestant minority enclave in the City.

The organisers of the Civil rights march acceded to the Army request to take a different route but a section of the marchers broke away and tried to force their way through the army barricades , that's when the rioting started.

The Saville enquiry concluded that there was no threat to the security forces.
You can pump out your personal opinion as much as you like, but it won't affect the official verdict.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

It's not an opinion, it's a matter of fact.
N.Ireland or Ulster, which ever you prefer, is part of the UK, and as such the deployment of the army to support the civil authorities was a legal obligation under UK law.

UK law, the law enacted by the occupying force?
Israel has enacted laws to legalise their occupation of Palestine.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

They did what was right at the time. Used enough force to control a baying mob.

Still defending the indefensible. You're getting quite the reputation or such behaviour.

 

[Notch7]

They're both resisting occupation of their country.

do you consider that justifies rape, murder, blowing limbs off people, torture?

 

[Highway Man]

Still defending the indefensible. You're getting quite the reputation or such behaviour.

So long as I don’t catch you up, I am happy with that.

 

[Highway Man]

Personal views compared to legal obligations

Yes of course they are my personal views. I only give them because I can’t speak for anyone else.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Yes of course they are my personal views. I only give them because I can’t speak for anyone else.

Moved the goalposts then.

You were claiming it was the legal position