Mandela (disturbing images)

[rjj04]

Yesterday I visited the link at the beginning of this thread, and watched some youtube vid. Since then youtube keeps "suggesting" white supremist websites to me... so now I am classified as a racist.. thanks

[ronan01]

A difficult topic - one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. As for causing terror amongst the population - was it terrorism when british troops machine gunned unarmed indian civilians, or when british troops shot Irish attending a football match, or when marching for civil rights. Is that terrorism too?

[Macca]

or when british troops shot Irish attending a football match?

Completely off topic, but the shooting and killings were the actions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and NOT British troops.
British troops did fire there weapons but shots were fired over the heads of the fleeing crowd, reacting to the initial shooting by the police, in attempt to stop them and take control of the situation.

The British were very critical of the RIC actions and this event, along with the 13 British agents killed the same morning, destroyed years of intel gathering.

[ronan01]

or when british troops shot Irish attending a football match?

Completely off topic, but the shooting and killings were the actions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and NOT British troops.
British troops did fire there weapons but shots were fired over the heads of the fleeing crowd, reacting to the initial shooting by the police, in attempt to stop them and take control of the situation.

The British were very critical of the RIC actions and this event, along with the 13 British agents killed the same morning, destroyed years of intel gathering.

Not off topic.

So were they RIC shooting unarmed indians also?

What has the death of 13 british agents / spys got to do with things?

Am I mistaken, or did british paratroopers open fire on unarmed civilians in Ireland? Or were they RIC too?

[Macca]

or when british troops shot Irish attending a football match?

Completely off topic, but the shooting and killings were the actions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and NOT British troops.
British troops did fire there weapons but shots were fired over the heads of the fleeing crowd, reacting to the initial shooting by the police, in attempt to stop them and take control of the situation.

The British were very critical of the RIC actions and this event, along with the 13 British agents killed the same morning, destroyed years of intel gathering.

Not off topic.

So were they RIC shooting unarmed indians also?

What has the death of 13 british agents / spys got to do with things?

Everything and if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be asking the question.
The shootings at the football stadium, you referred to,took place a few hours after the killing of the 13 agents and in the same area, one event lead to another. Tensions would have been very high and some believed those responsible for the mornings massacre would have been present.

Am I mistaken, or did british paratroopers open fire on unarmed civilians in Ireland? Or were they RIC too?

Yes you are mistaken and obviously very confused.
You are talking about two completely different events over 50 years apart and in different countries (neither with Indians), though both are referred to as Bloody Sunday.
The massacres of British intelligence and the civilians at the football stadium took place in 1920 in Dublin

The event you are now talking about took place in Londonderry, Northern Ireland 52 years later.
There are those who believe that the IRA fired 1st but the majority, backed up by Saville report, believe the Paras opened fire on unarmed civilians.

[ronan01]

or when british troops shot Irish attending a football match?

Completely off topic, but the shooting and killings were the actions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and NOT British troops.
British troops did fire there weapons but shots were fired over the heads of the fleeing crowd, reacting to the initial shooting by the police, in attempt to stop them and take control of the situation.

The British were very critical of the RIC actions and this event, along with the 13 British agents killed the same morning, destroyed years of intel gathering.

Not off topic.

So were they RIC shooting unarmed indians also?

What has the death of 13 british agents / spys got to do with things?

Everything and if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be asking the question.
The shootings at the football stadium, you referred to,took place a few hours after the killing of the 13 agents and in the same area, one event lead to another. Tensions would have been very high and some believed those responsible for the mornings massacre would have been present.

Am I mistaken, or did british paratroopers open fire on unarmed civilians in Ireland? Or were they RIC too?

Yes you are mistaken and obviously very confused.
You are talking about two completely different events over 50 years apart and in different countries (neither with Indians), though both are referred to as Bloody Sunday.
The massacres of British intelligence and the civilians at the football stadium took place in 1920 in Dublin

The event you are now talking about took place in Londonderry, Northern Ireland 52 years later.
There are those who believe that the IRA fired 1st but the majority, backed up by Saville report, believe the Paras opened fire on unarmed civilians.

Why the execution of british spy's excuses british forces to shoot civilians is beyond me - to me that is generating terror amongst the population. "High tension" is no reason to shoot unarmed civilians!!!

As for Bloody Sunday - the para's opened fire on unarmed civilians, and sustained that fire over a protracted period. The myth the IRA opened fire was laid to rest recently - but only after allowing the fiction to be maintained for 5o years. There was no "high tension" excuse in the 20's, there ceratinly was none in the 70's.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe british forces opened fire on unarmed civilians in India - recall that from the fiolm Gandhi.

Are these forms of state santioned terrorism?

As per the opeing line - one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

But it seems to me you think it ok for "authorities" to open fire on unarmed civilians provided there is sufficient "high tension" - yeah, yeah yeah - "cry havoc, let slip the dogs of war"

[Macca]

Why the execution of british spy's excuses british forces to shoot civilians is beyond me - to me that is generating terror amongst the population. "High tension" is no reason to shoot unarmed civilians!!!

Yep it's beyond me too. The Royal Irish Constabulary opened fire and not the British troops.
As I said you are confusing 2 very different events.

As for Bloody Sunday - the para's opened fire on unarmed civilians, and sustained that fire over a protracted period. The myth the IRA opened fire was laid to rest recently - but only after allowing the fiction to be maintained for 5o years

Agreed and thats why I said "the majority, backed up by Saville report, believe the Paras opened fire on unarmed civilians"
38 years. The Saville report was published in 2010.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe british forces opened fire on unarmed civilians in India - recall that from the fiolm Gandhi.

Correct me if I am wrong but you added that in a later post and I have made no comment on those events on the basis I have no knowledge on it

But it seems to me you think it ok for "authorities" to open fire on unarmed civilians provided there is sufficient "high tension" - yeah, yeah yeah - "cry havoc, let slip the dogs of war"

Now how do you come to that conclusion? Please highlight where I have expressed my opinion.
Open your other eye and read what I wrote. At no stage did I try to justify the actions of either side nor did I express any opinion. In fact the only comments I made was that "The British were very critical of the RIC actions" & that the conclusion of the Saville report blamed the British army.

[ronan01]

Why the execution of british spy's excuses british forces to shoot civilians is beyond me - to me that is generating terror amongst the population. "High tension" is no reason to shoot unarmed civilians!!!

Yep it's beyond me too. The Royal Irish Constabulary opened fire and not the British troops.
As I said you are confusing 2 very different events.

As for Bloody Sunday - the para's opened fire on unarmed civilians, and sustained that fire over a protracted period. The myth the IRA opened fire was laid to rest recently - but only after allowing the fiction to be maintained for 5o years

Agreed and thats why I said "the majority, backed up by Saville report, believe the Paras opened fire on unarmed civilians"
38 years. The Saville report was published in 2010.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe british forces opened fire on unarmed civilians in India - recall that from the fiolm Gandhi.

Correct me if I am wrong but you added that in a later post and I have made no comment on those events on the basis I have no knowledge on it

But it seems to me you think it ok for "authorities" to open fire on unarmed civilians provided there is sufficient "high tension" - yeah, yeah yeah - "cry havoc, let slip the dogs of war"

Now how do you come to that conclusion? Please highlight where I have expressed my opinion.
Open your other eye and read what I wrote. At no stage did I try to justify the actions of either side nor did I express any opinion. In fact the only comments I made was that "The British were very critical of the RIC actions" & that the conclusion of the Saville report blamed the British army.

Bloody Sunday 1920: new evidence
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-cent ... -evidence/

The evidence of two of the three spectators who gave evidence to the inquiry, one of whom is easily identified (see below), is of interest, since it too is in conflict with the bulk of the evidence from the RIC, auxiliaries and military. Witness 9, who appears to have accompanied to the game Jeremiah O’Leary (killed), stated that the first shooting came from the canal bridge, and that it came from auxiliaries (‘men in RIC caps and khaki trousers’). According to this witness, the officer in charge at the bridge (probably from the first lorry to reach the bridge) also wore this uniform and had a bonnet, i.e. a Glengarry cap, peculiar to the ‘Auxies’.

An Eyewitness Account, Croke Park, 1920
http://www.gaelicweb.com/irishampost/ye ... red06.html

Referee Mick Sammon threw in the ball at 2.45 p.m. Soon afterwards, an aeroplane flew over the ground and a red flare was shot from the cockpit. Black and Tans raided the ground and an officer on top of the wall fired a revolver shot

At first, the crowd thought the Tans were firing blanks. But then machine gun fire was fired in increasing volume. The crowd stampeded towards the railway wall furthest from the gunfire. Michael Hogan and Frank Burke were contesting for the ball when the shooting started and they, along with Dublin player Stephen Sinnott, were the last of 30 players left on the pitch.

And I stood there and the Black and Tans started shooting again, firing at the people going through the corrugated iron at the back of Hill 16Š They were firing all the time at that crowd and I was standing there wondering what's going to happen."

Subsequently, Burke reports a Black and Tan accosting him with a revolver with the words: 'Who are you playing for?' "Dublin," he replied. Another Black and Tan hit Burke "a crack in the back with his revolver" and asked him where his dressing room was and told him to "double up" and go.

[LoveDaBlues]

Well, this thread got me into doing a bit of research. It seems the 'Sharpeville Massacre' (March 21, 1960) was the event that started the long struggle to end apartheid.

I found a lot of information about this event. Of course, there are different versions of what happened that day. The following link is (I think) a good paper/read about the event:

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=121300

All the credible sources I have found say the same thing: not a single weapon (other than rocks) was seen in the crowd before the massacre. No weapons were found by the dead bodies or the wounded after the shooting. Here are the generally accepted figures from the hospital records: 69 killed, 8 of which were women and 10 which were children, and out of the 180 wounded, there were 31 women and 19 children. There were no less than 155 bullets that had entered the wounded and dead bodies in the back. In the 40 seconds of shooting 705 rounds were fired from revolvers and sten guns.

As far as injuries to police officers I can only find reports saying that 3 officers were struck by a rock. I find no report showing any officer injured to the point of needing medical attention. No officers were reported killed in the massacre.

Someone said this: if you kill unarmed citizens, arm, finance, endorse, then you are a terrorist, murderer, and deserve the death sentence for war crimes against humanity. I agree with this statement. Sadly, as far as I can tell none of the back-shooting murderers at Sharpeville were brought to justice.

[parrot]

Mod Note: The topic is Mandela. Off-topic comments will be removed.