Comments by "Taint ABird" (@taintabird23) on "Bloody Sunday soldier faces murder charges" video.

Yes, and there are ZERO convicted British soldiers. Not one Para who was in Derry that day was in ever convicted. That is why the prosecution must take place.
13
Just a reminder - you claim has long since been disproven. The nail bombs were planted, even some of the soldiers claimed he did not have nail bombs when he was taken into their custody, they were planted later. Furthermore, Widgery claimed that the 'nail bomber' had not intended using them in any case. Murder is murder Mat.
10
Well, of course not. One is an arm of the state and the other is against the state; the Paras went into restore law and order and broke the law doing it. Any moral equivalence with the IRA makes no sense.
6
@ louisgunn No you fuckwit. Soldiers who kill unarmed men, women and children should be held accountable because they are not above the law any more than terrorists. To do otherwise is to undermine the legitimacy of existing establishment. What happened in Derry that day was just as much an act of terror as anything the IRA ever did.
6
It is not a matter of numbers, you morally vacuous buffoon. It is law. it is decency. Killing innocent civilians is wrong whether you are British soldier or a member of a banned terrorist organisation. It does not come down to 'think you find that two out of your three categories relate more to terrorists than military'. Imagine trying to defend the indefensible. The fact is, once the military start killing innocent civilians, they become terrorists - for it is an act of terror. I 'think you might find' you have not the beginnings of an argument, but you have provided an interesting insight into your morality. And you remain a fuckwit.
5
@ Kojii Naz I am a historian by profession and have an understanding as to the current thinking in relation to Historiography. I have a number of points for you to consider, some of which may be difficult. First of all Brexit has highlighted the widespread ignorance of Ireland in the UK. This has come as a great shock as, while Irish nationalism has evolved and matured, no national self-examination has ever taken place in the UK - specifically among the English. In Ireland we somehow assumed that there was a genuine shift in attitudes as Ireland, Irish culture and Irish people were increasingly portrayed in positive terms. It appears this was just a veneer. Secondly, Brexit has also exposed the extent to which there is a crisis of identity in the UK, or should I say, among the English. The English have never come to terms with their place in the world post-empire, have never come to terms with the legacy of their empire in any truly balanced way. Thirdly, the way history is studied has changed. In the past, history was written by the winner from their own point of view. Ulster Unionists, for example believe that there was nothing in Ulster until their colony was established and they brought modernity to the place; these days it is understood that there is another perspective, that of the person who experienced the colonisation and those of a native Irish identity would be aware of a different experience of the same events. Many English people, are unprepared and too insecure in their 'national skin' to come face to face with an alternative perspective. Such attitudes reveal a lack of understanding of the nature and effects of colonial conquest and rule. There is insufficient education,about the realities of empire. Historical analysis of empire has also tended to evaluate the British empire either “neutrally”, or offer a triumphalist narrative that pointing out the benefits of empire for the British while ignoring its devastating impact on the peoples whose lands were taken, cultures transformed, and economic well-being was decimated. Does this narrative sound familiar?: while the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Belgians and Germans exploited and abused, the British empire brought ideas of protection for lesser races and fostered their incremental development. With British tutelage colonised peoples could become, eventually, as competent, as knowledgeable, as “civilised” as Britain itself. These platitudes have been repeated time and again – they are still at the heart of most popular representations of the British Empire in my experience. And don't get me started on romanticism around the Second World War!
3
You feel terrorists and soldiers are the same?
3
Rubbish. The soldiers who were 'just following orders' to be aggressive should be held to account. The soldier who shot James Wray, shot him a second time while he lay on the ground - he intended to kill him. No British soldier is claiming that they were 'not equipped to deal with a situation like that'. The officers in command on the day are accountable.They intended to set down a marker that day and they did. The politicians in Stormont who were denying a section of the people they ruled from basic Civil Rights available to all other UK citizens based on their religion, are also responsible. The British Establishment are guilty after the fact for the cover up.
3
Only one?
1
@ Top Secret If these prosecutions were against the Good Friday Agreement, it wouldn't be happening.
1
@TheSpiritOfTheTimes No more killings, you are hopelessly out of touch if that is what you wish for.
1
@ Mat Broomfield HE DIDN'T HAVE NAIL BOMBS, THEY WERE PLANTED! Are you hard of reading?? Widgery invented a narrative explaining them, perhaps because the victim, it was discovered, was a member of the IRA youth wing, used to transport weapons for the IRA, rather than USE them.
1
@ Koji Naz As an Irish nationalist, I concur. Many Irish online do indeed exaggerate the role of the British in Ireland. Comparisons with the Nazis are stupid. I don't think this is a result of any pathological hatred of the British, more a frustration of the sheer ignorance of many of them as to their country's history in Ireland. I don't know any Irish people who think the Irish never did any harm to anyone.
1
I've a feeling you sent your lengthy post to the wrong person.
1
Of course I don't make the laws - but the laws exist. Murder is murder. The soldiers did not come under fire from those they killed. You are not allowed to kill civilians, as those held to account at Nuremberg discovered to their cost. There is no justification for stooping to the level of irregulars, though you seem to be determined to equate the two. You are a morally vacuous fuckwit of the highest order,
1
Imperial countries frequently implemented terror under the guise of 'law and order'. Imperial regimes are often obsessed with 'law and order' in their colonies, in order to protect their interests.
1
Why would I have to look that far? I live in Ireland where I could list a litany of examples of state terror ordered by the British establishment. You can be sure none of it showed up in your history books. But the accusation equally applies to any Imperial power.
1
@ Jackie Hill 'no...terrorist are murdering cowardly scumbags & soldiers are sent in to iron them out...get a life moron' I totally agree. Where are on the moral compass when it comes to soldiers shooting innocent civilians in the streets? That's the topic...
1
@ jackie hill 'he clearly hasn't got a clue of what his argument is because he bangs on about soldiers killing innocents when every killing carried out by the i.r.a. was murder pure & simple.' So soldiers can kill innocent people because terrorists did it? That's what you are saying here... Why are soldiers not held to the same standard as terrorists then and pursued through the courts? Why does the British state exonerate so many of them?
1