1. at least they did acknowledge and take over the responsibility. it won't change anything that has happened back then, but it is still very important for those who stayed behind, who lost friends, family members, who still live with the vivid memories of that day and what followed after that. Those of us who do not live there, who have not seen and felt it all can hardly imagine what Britain's acknowledgement means to them. I think it is important they did it, no matter how long ago it happened. Difficult topic, my thoughts, stated carefully as a real insight is hard when you depend on books and media on that event.
  2. Originally posted by MacStripey:at least they did acknowledge and take over the responsibility. it won't change anything that has happened back then, but it is still very important for those who stayed behind, who lost friends, family members, who still live with the vivid memories of that day and what followed after that. Those of us who do not live there, who have not seen and felt it all can hardly imagine what Britain's acknowledgement means to them. I think it is important they did it, no matter how long ago it happened. Difficult topic, my thoughts, stated carefully as a real insight is hard when you depend on books and media on that event.


    Of course, you are completely right. But it took too long. Must admit I dont know much about it, but I am sure that a similar investigation 30 years ago should've concluded the same as now.
  3. Its pathetic to take this long and to spend this much money to come out with a conclusion that seems obvious anyway. Its not the current governments fault or the fault of 99.9% of people in England/Britain.
  4. yeah, right. but you know how those things work, when politicians and/or the army and/or the government are involved. Reports of what happened are closed for investigation and held back from the public. People in the responsible positions always know much more than they officially tell. It's the course of history that the facts of truth get disclosed only many years, even decades later. I don't like that, really, but it happens most of the times.

    Gerard, what's the talk among the Irish about this British acknowledgement?


  5. then perform your duties to the best of your ability. You cannot take matters into your own hands


  6. So go Charles Bronson on the IRA?
  7. Originally posted by MacStripey:yeah, right. but you know how those things work, when politicians and/or the army and/or the government are involved. Reports of what happened are closed for investigation and held back from the public. People in the responsible positions always know much more than they officially tell. It's the course of history that the facts of truth get disclosed only many years, even decades later. I don't like that, really, but it happens most of the times.

    Gerard, what's the talk among the Irish about this British acknowledgement?


    It's all mostly positive reaction. It couldn't be anything but. I do feel a certain sense of the British seeing this as 'we will admit it was wrong, we said sorry and let's all be done with it'. Fair play for the apology though.

    It does leave the British open to now follow through with more actions though. How can they say they were wrong and the killings were unlawful without now seeking prosecutions. I don't think they will which could mean even more criticism. Tricky one. . .


  8. The British used the SAS here to tackle the IRA more directly. The army were for peace keeping, not revenge.
  9. yah i agree, entirely different. extremists are one thing. state assasinations another. i dont know about prosecutions, you'd think if laws are broken then it be right to. but taking the catholic church for example, nowadays apologies are apparently just as good. complete BS if you ask me. i say let the people decide. then perhaps justice will be served.
  10. The jist I get re. prosecutions is that there are concerns about how far up it all goes and also the general application of it, i.e. if it's going to be applied to British soldiers in this instance or other instances (be there any), does the justice system then go and do the same to members of the old IRA and suchlike? Where does the line be drawn, if at all? The fact it's taken 12 years for the Saville report to be carried out and published is to my mind ridiculous, but that seems to be how the judicial system works and I'm no expert on law. However, if justice is to be enacted, it should be to all who it applies, not just a few. Indeed, I remember an interview on the BBC yesterday with one of the Bloody Sunday victims' family members, who said that he didn't wish for any prosecution to the soldiers themselves - what the family members (as he saw it) had been looking to achieve was clearing the name of those killed of any wrongdoing and the claims of them being armed etc. The feeling I get is that it is those who ordered the army to open fire who are the main targets, but the likelihood of them ever being revealed etc.? Unlikely. We can but wait and see.
  11. both sides committed atrocities, and despite who is right or wrong, this is a long awaited step to actually achieving peace. now if the Rira and the orange would quit, this could bea bright spot in an endless fight. yes im irish american, second gen. i have family involved, though of course thats where i end that little insight. we could go on all night and day about who did what, hell, we could talk about the british throwing the irish on the front lines of WW1 (which played a huge part in the creation of the ira, then not terrorist, but freedom fighters.

    point is i truly hope this a huge step towards peace.
  12. Fair dos Harry. I highly doubt legal action. This has all gone on long enough. "Sorry it was wrong" is a very light sentence though.