Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did the Great Experiment Fail? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (345)	2/3/2013 10:48:04 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 926

John, the soldiers had guns. That's what they were given with which to defend themselves. They were presumably told to stop people going somewhere. The mob arrived and started attacking them. Yes, they could have had more troops or different equipment such as 1000 dogs or rubber bullets [which were not invented then as I recall] or water cannon [which I think was but I guess there was not a lot of of it though I think I recall one unit they had there from the video]. Maybe the British soldiers had been trained to do it like the Americans, such as at My Lai or Kent State or Hiroshima. Perhaps it was badly handled, but it didn't look all that bad to me. A mob of males throwing rocks is a dangerous thing, especially when the likes of Martin McGuinness are lurking with guns. It was subsequently shown how bad the IRA were. They were not as bad as Islamic Jihad, hacking off live heads. The IRA even on occasion gave warnings of bombs, though not much of one at Omagh for example, or in the Tower of London. If somebody attacks a soldier or policeman and the soldier or policeman is armed, they should not be surprised when the person defends themselves with a gun. crime.co.nz That's a case in NZ. One angry young man and one lone policeman. Some said the policeman should have done judo or run away or done something else. Maybe he should have got rubber bullets or a water cannon or something. Or maybe the angry criminal should refrain from attacking him with a weapon which can easily kill. Anyway, it's all history now. My theory is that the Americans supported the IRA terrorism because they celebrate 4 July about beating the evil-doing British and backing the IRA was part of the celebrations. When 911 showed them what it's like, they decided maybe backing Gerry Adams and such horror was not such a great idea after all. Fortunately, some IRA supporters were killed in the collapse. Gadaffi a few years later [RIP Yvonne Fletcher]. For some reason, the Catholic Crusade in Northern Ireland has run out of steam. I suppose the nasty people like Adams and McGuinness got old. The British are amazing with their forgiveness. Imagine if it was almost any other country. Putin would have fed them polonium 210. China would have got them early on - no messing about in Tiananmen Square. It used to fascinate me how the British would get IRA terrorists to surrender from a house. In the USA they would just have a big turkey shoot and blow up or burn down the whole house. The USA goes nuts with total attack. The British say "Come on, be reasonable". Mqurice

To: John Carragher who wrote (345)	2/3/2013 5:29:09 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 926

Nail bombs.... not exactly unarmed. Lord Saville concluded that shortly after the first two civilians were shot, members of the Official IRA - the group from which the Provos split - 'fired a rifle at soldiers' near where the march was taking place.The report rejects Republican claims that they opened fire 'as a reprisal' for the first deaths. It says: 'In our view these two Official IRA members had gone to a prearranged sniping position in order to fire at the soldiers.'The Paras were then sent into the Bogside area, a hotbed of Republicanism, where people 'were throwing stones and similar missiles at the soldiers'. One of those killed in the Abbey Park area of the Bogside was 17-year-old Gerald Donaghey. He was killed by a bullet that first shot and killed Gerard McKinney. The inquiry found the shot was not justified.But the potential threat he represented was revealed after his body was recovered. 'Four nail bombs were found in his pockets,' the report says.The Saville report categorically rejects claims that they were planted on him. 'We have concluded that the nail bombs were probably on Gerald Donaghey when he was shot.'He 'was a member of the Provisional IRA's youth wing, the Fianna'.Certainly, the fear of petrol and nail bombs being thrown at them was used by many soldiers to justify their actions.Read more: dailymail.co.uk Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter \| DailyMail on Facebook Mqurice