Replies

What happened that day was terrible.

But the IRA fired from the Bogside first, and the killings that transpired were an overreaction from the Paras, who thought they were in danger.

Britain has blood on its hands. But so does the IRA.

The IRA were quite happy to use 13 innocent young men as collateral damage to further their cause.

We’re in agreement that both the IRA and Britain have blood on their hands, if we’re just talking generally, and not about this, and that what happened here was terrible, and that the IRA used the deaths of these innocent men in recruiting.

But here’s what a British government inquiry found:

“British paratroopers “lost control”, fatally shooting fleeing civilians and those who tried to aid the civilians who had been shot by the British soldiers. The report stated that British soldiers had concocted lies in their attempt to hide their acts. Saville stated that the civilians had not been warned by the British soldiers that they intended to shoot. The report states, contrary to the previously established belief, that no stones and no petrol bombs were thrown by civilians before British soldiers shot at them, and that the civilians were not posing any threat.”

from wikipedia, which I will admit is not the most conclusive and impartial source, but is a place to start. I draw your attention to the conclusion that the British lied immediately after, and that the initial assertion that the British were under attack was false. There was indeed an IRA man who fired at the British, as witnessed by a Roman Catholic priest, but he was later found to be Official IRA, which was the IRA the Provisional IRA felt was doing nothing, hence having to start their own, provisional one. And the British were unaware that he had, and did not target him in all their shooting, so couldn’t have been the excuse for this.