Saville Enquiry - Carrington's Paras. guilty of murder?

[TonyGosling]

Saville matters not only for what it says, but for the impact it will have on the conduct of future inquiries into the actions of the state. There is now a new Inquiries Act, brought in – ministers said – to avoid repeating the mistakes of Saville. In the opinion of the joint committee on human rights, it is in breach of the Human Rights Act, for ministers can insist on secret hearings, prevent publication and even terminate an inquiry. But in Northern Ireland, where the murders of the human rights lawyer Pat Finucane and the solicitor Rosemary Nelson and the deaths of Billy Wright and Robert Hamill are now all the subjects of inquiries, legal challenge has failed. Meanwhile the Baha Mousa inquiry carries confidence. Last month William Hague, the incoming foreign secretary, promised an inquiry into allegations of torture and rendition. What has really changed, along with Northern Ireland, is the political culture. Accountability is the norm. But sometimes it still has to be fought for. On the other hand!

http://www.bilderberg.org/2002.htm#Bloody

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/12/bloody-sunday-inqu iry-editorial

[xmasdale]

Bloody Sunday Report

At last there is a report on Bloody Sunday in (London)Derry which looks credible. The families and friends of those murdered by British troops appear satisfied. The Saville report has found that the troops should never have been ordered into the Bogside and that they shot dead unarmed civilians who were peacefully protesting. It is outrageous that this conclusion should have taken 38 years to achieve.

The earlier Widgery report into Bloody Sunday has been confined to the dustbin, but its very existence demonstrates how corrupt the whole business of government sponsored reports can be. The Butler Report on misleading intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction and the related Hutton Report on the death of the bioarmaments inspector Dr David Kelly remain as shameful reminders of how such reports can be whitewashes. Perhaps it was determination to end the troubles in Ireland which led to the realism of Saville.

But Tony is right to remind us of the human rights’ shortcomings of the Inquiries Act which appear to leave the door open for further whitewash reports in the UK when the government wants one.

The truth about Bloody Sunday is out and it feels good to have truth at last, but what about 7/7, 9/11 and other false flag operations. There is not the determination to get the truth out about these shocking events.

In the case of 7/7 the media now claim that the Blair government’s ministers acted on the advice of senior civil servants in refusing to set up and inquiry. The civil servants, it is claimed, maintained that any such inquiry would unleash an orgy of public Islamophobia! Passing the buck?

The 9/11 Commission Report has now been widely denounced by its own authors, claiming that the US government lied to them. How many years will it be before a serious attempt is made to determine what happened on 9/11?

We also need an honest report into why Blair's sacked foreign minister, Robin Cook, a mere month after he had written that Al Qaeda was a database of CIA assets operating in Afghanistan, died suddenly when out hill walking, though I doubt we shall get one.

[TonyGosling]

Comprehensive report on this from 6pm tonight
http://www.thisweek.org.uk

Saville report Extracted - 26 mins long
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/43542

[TonyGosling]

"I saw General Ford in William Street shouting at the troops 'Go Paras, go,'" said Cooper. "If you examine the evidence during the tribunal that stated that General Ford wanted action against the so-called Derry Young Hooligans, he is the officer who had overall control of the operation. I firmly believe he should have been held accountable for the action of his troops. After all, it was he who, as commander of land forces, was ultimately responsible."
Saville report: Commander should be held accountable - civil rights activist
Ivan Cooper says Major General Robert Ford had overall responsibility for Paras during Bloody Sunday march
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/16/saville-report-commander-acco untable-civil-rights

[jazds]

The report fails to mention, this bloody Sunday massacre:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idaVJSr-aCI

Or the hundreds of other Bloody Sunday's, Bloody Monday's, Bloody Tuesdays, Bloody Wednesday's, Bloody Thursday's, Bloody Friday's and Bloody Saturday's committed by the hands of the PIRA scum murders.

It also fails to mention the peace process, the release of all convicted terrorists but reinforces the constant and continuous hounding of ordinary soldiers who were doing their job being PIG IN THE MIDDLE, trying to keep the peace.

Of course Bloody Sunday was a mistake, of course heads should have rolled, of course the first inquiry was a whitewash but so is this one. It mentions OIRA men firing armalites in the direction of the soldiers, it mentions Martin McGuinness carry a tompson sub machine gun which he probably fired. But washes over the relevance of that. 38 years after the event, the best this inquiry could have done was exonerate those who were killed and slate those who made mistakes.

We need to move on from the blame game in Northern Ireland. Too many people lost too much. You either have peace and reconciliation for everyone involved... including the troops or you dig up old wounds and old hatreds.

The Savile Report was never going to reach a conclusion that McGunniss, or the IRA had a hand to play that day. The political message was clear and the political repercussions would have been disastrous!

[outsider]

[TonyGosling]

The Savile Report was never going to reach a conclusion that Heath, Carrington or the Orange Order had a hand to play that day. The political message was clear and the spiritual repercussions would have been disastrous!

[jazds]

Outside and Tony,

I don't know enough about Bloody Sunday to comment what evidence or otherwise there was for it having been concocted by Heath and Carrington as a pretext to take action against the no-go zones. Of course that's a possibility and one that would be high on a list of possibilities for people like us who know faulse flag events are far more common than just 9/11. My point is, any high level conspiracy would have been just that. No the Saville Inquiry would have ever delved into it. Therefore it was never going to be able - 38 years after the event - to reach an accurate conclusion of what happened. It should have simply kept to clearing the names of those who were killed, something that should have been done years ago and would have been if the lawyers and judges and their entourage hadn't been allowed to milk this gravy train of MILLIONS for over a decade. That is an abuse of the system. As is the continued hounding of ordinary soldiers, long after the peace process and the release of everyone responsible of wounding, maiming and killing soldiers, inocent civilians - men, women and children.

What we therefore have is another white wash. Those being blamed are the ordinary squadies again. What a surprise. If it was a false flag, they hardly went around the troops and told them to murder innocent protesters. They may have fired blanks and the commander on the ground then gave the order "to fire at will". Equally though, this may have been a simple c***-up, shots being fired by the OIRA and probably PIRA (as the report mentions) causing the troops to think they were under attack and chaos breaking out. All too easy in a situation like that, it would not be the first time.

No General's left to bring to justice, Prime Minister Heath long gone (good ridance to the treasonous traitor). Seems by the time this report was published all the higher up's had passed away!

[outsider]

[TonyGosling]

Errrrr, just because Heath is dead that doesn't mean the rest are now does it?

[jazds]

Martin McGuinness is still alive!

[outsider]

[jazds]

Outsider McGuiness was not fighting for a just cause, he was a terrorist, he is a sectarian racist, traitor, murdering terrorist scum, coward, who attacked innocent people from the shadows with his coward gangster terrorist sectarian racist scum followers and then claimed political capital for it.

The British Army was there to stop both sides killing each other, they were originally deployed there to stop the Loyalists ethnically cleansing Republicans before McGuness et al realized that killing peace keepers and Protestants and attempting to ethnically cleanse the border was a means of achieving their cause, faster then peaceful political activity.

That you can support scum like that does nothing for supporting 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali - War on Terror truth. I want truth for 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali. People sympathising with the likes of McGuiness are simply anti-British!

[jazds]

McGuniess also obviously had a role on Bloody Sunday. Ignoring the fact, that he as photographed and identified that day carrying a Thompson sub machine gun and two OIRA man apparently fired Amalites at the Para's is just simply bloody minded.

As I pointed out in an earlier post McGuniess's IRA are responsible for multiple Bloody Sunday's, Bloody Monday's, Bloody Tuesday's, Bloody Wednesday's, Bloody Thursday's, Bloody Friday's and Bloody Saturday's.

You don't have to be British to be plain evil minded! Though some times by the way Northern Ireland's troubles are remembered, by those on the left you would thing that light shined out of the ass of the Republican movement, that Britain didn't have a case to stand on. You know so little about the history of Ireland or what you know is gleaned from listening and reading from one side.

[outsider]

[jazds]

Outsider,

This just points out how one sided your understanding of the troubles is! I refer you to my earlier posts, re Bloody Sunday, I was not defending the action. I was attacking the inquiry, which even the most simple minded must find is incredible, considering it served as a gravy train for lawyers, judges and their entourage for over a decade, while the families and everyone else involved had all their hurt, fears, hate and anger dragged back to the surface and stired up. The first inquiry was a white wash, so was this! If you bothered to read my previous comments, I in no way try and justify what happened on Bloody Sunday and those killed that day needed their names cleared. Soldiers who reacted in the chaos, under bad, control and communication from their commanders should not be hounded, now they are well into their 60's, the Peace Process is 15 years old and these same soldiers lost friends and colleagues murdered and injured by the very same people who have been released from prison under the Good Friday agreement, while they are being hounded as murderers. Have you ever served in Northern Ireland? Do you have a clue?

As to the troubles, I don't claim to know all the answers, I don't claim the Loyalist cause was 100% right or Republican the republican cause was - the truth is somewhere inbetween. I just wish people realised that, because if they did there would be REAL and LASTING PEACE. A balanced understanding of the history of Ireland would bring you to the realisation that propaganda plays a large part in the history of Ireland on all sides.

If you can bring yourself to the realisation that nations like the UK, US, Russia, France, Itlay, Australia, Indonesia, Spain etc engage in propaganda and dirty tricks, what makes you so sure this isn't a trait found in virtually every group, organisation, movement and nation trying to achieve a cause? Republicanism being a classic example if you do your research.

I pointed out that we are arguening over Bloody Sunday, while there were thousands of sectarian and other bloody massacres committed by the IRA during the troubles. Why was this event more important, than lets say, the unsolved Pub bombings campaign? Why are not those cases re-opened and the investigation teams given a similar budget? Or the hundreds of other unsolved cases of murder and terrorism, some involving more deaths than this?

If you think the UK wanted Northern Ireland, you need your head seeing to. The UK government bent over backwards to create a united Ireland after WW1, the thinking being that a strong Loyalist minority (20% in the South and 65% in the North) would influence Ireland's allegiance to the UK. That Loyalists felt betrayed, after sacrificing tens of thousands in the mud and trenches of the Western front, shouldn't be surprising. If I woke up tomorrow, to find that my country, my culture and my values, indeed everything I believed in was going to be sold out to another entity,after I had sacrificed, shed blood and lost family and friends I would. They were sold out, to the very people who had rebelled while they fought in the trenches. I wouldn't have been too happy. Neither would you! That is not to say I don't understand Republicanism, merely I also understand Loyalism and their case is hardly ever mentioned - strangely!

I have grand parents who were ethnically cleansed from Southern Ireland in the early 1930's, as do many people. It is the unspoken ethnic cleansing. The one that doesn't appear in poplar Irish history books. Neither the policy of Rome which required children to be brought up Catholic, following a mixed marriage. This has led to the almost entire eradication of the Protestant faith from Southern Ireland, everywhere apart from some border counties where the traditions and communities remained strong. They now account for 0.5% of the population. Had the reverse occurred, there would be volumes on the subject and it would be as high profile as the potato famine.

The history of Ireland is a history of abuse by vested interests on both sides. It does NOT travel in just one direction, although history presents it as such. Massacres happened on both sides and spanned many periods. Like, no one mentions the East Anglia or South West England famines, they are not even mentioned on the internet. It is as if they never happened.

It is a shame we don't realise we have a common enemy, the rich, powerful elite that divide and rule. The Savile inquiry was another stab at divide and rule by completely washing over any Republican paramilititray involvement, which it states clearly took place and pursue soldiers in their 60's. Forgetting the Peace Process and only including the terrorists in the reconciliation is bound to stir up OLD WOUNDS!

[outsider]

You don't seem to understand that the Loyalists committed more killings; they didn't explode bombs in the UK, because the UK government and troops sided with them.
Bloody Sunday was not a case of 'jumpy' troops firing on a threatening crowd; they were Paras, sent in to kill some Republicans to 'teach them a lesson'.

Did the Protestants come to Ireland as immigrants, as guests of the Irish? Or where they shipped in as colonisers by the Brit invaders?
The British Empire was just that, and reacted with brutality to Resistance, just as they did on Bloody Sunday.

Then there were the four high-profile jailings of Irish men and women, later to be released as not guilllty; they had been 'fitted-up' by the police?

And the Lord Mountbatten assassination; cui bono? He was supportive of Irish reunification:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-15003677.html

Wouldn't be the first, or last, time the Brits pulled either a 'False-Flag' attack, or more likely, got some of their myriad of agents in the IRA to set the hit up.

And by the way, do you equate the Afghans killing Brit troops as 'terrorists' or as brave Resistance Fighters, battling at vastly uneven odds (not in personell, but in back-up). Tribesmen battling with rifles, RPG's and IED's against an invading army equipped with fighter bombers, helicopter gunships and transport 'copters, armoured personnel carriers, tanks, 'Predator' drones, state-of-the-art intelligence from satelites, coms intercept ability, airborne back-up).

Also by the way, I don't know if you are aware the wartime Churchill Brit Govt. had set up groups of people who had underground 'hides' built in the countryside, with orders to sabotage railways etc, and to kill Germans and Brits who worked under them, i.e. teachers, clergy, local govt., in the event of Germany overunning Britain?
Would you have called THEM 'murderous terrorists' or brave Resistance Fighters?

[jazds]

Outsider,

On your logic, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, white African's, indeed half the population of the American continent and more could be classed as colonists, even though they are not colonists but may or may not be descended from colonists! That is quite an EXTREME VIEW.

What about the mixed race and those who came later? Do they get rights? Maybe Afro-American's get more rights because they may be decended for those forced to move, although clearly large numbers of them are not in that category (including the President and his skin colour is as disputable as his place of birth). What about European migrants who's only claim to move to the America's rested on those who came before them and established a country to move to? Do they get rights?

How do you trace the loyalist community's genealogy to distinguish those who are - lets say - 100 % colonial stock (probably ZERO) and those who may be more like 80% Irish stock (probably the largest percent)? Indeed what is Irish anyway? If the British Isles are made up of roughly the same type of mix - Germanic (Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Norman, Dane) and Celtic. I mean Dublin was an English city before it became an Irish one! I'm not sure how you define "colonists" when we're talking about peoples who have inter-populated these islands for thousands of years! Or how you try and classify them. How about the Irish who colonized parts of Scotland do we in some way try and classify all Scottish catholics as "Colonists" who therefore have less rights? How about the Irish who colonised parts of Wales? How far do we go back? Norman conquest or before?

Maybe the Anglo-Saxons have no rights? Although how we define Anglo-Saxon could be a problem. We could say English but then Anglo-Saxons settled all over the British Isles and have moved since!

It is CLEARLY a lunatic idea to try and claim that loyalists are the descendants of English and Scottish colonists and therefore have less rights!

You are only interested in one side of the story. Try reflecting on what you said.

As for claiming false flags on everything. Where is the evidence? Also why be so selective and only see false flag agendas being carried out by your enemies (the Brits and Yanks)?

I like to say I'm a patriot but that doesn't cloud the issue when I can clearly see from evidence, facts and circumstances that the War on Terror is a lie. Likewise, the IRA / Republican cause committed huge atrocities and attempted to escalate violence with the express purpose of forcing the British hand.

We did not side with the loyalists. You are probably talking about, the "Shoot to Kill" inquiry and collusion with loyalist para-militaries. The loyalists paramilitiaries are as bad as the Republican paramilitaries. Obviously there was some collusion, which you would expect at an intelligence level. But that is different from siding. Loyalists did not kill more than the IRA, that is a myth but clearly both sides are as bad as each other - they are TERRORISTS. Likewise there is evidence that elements of the Irish state colluded with the PIRA in its founding and original arms shipments. It isn't right but dirty tricks are not confined to the side you tend to disfavor.

The first act Argentinian Commandos committed on invading the Falkland Islands, was blow the Royal Marine Barracks at Moody Brook to smithereens, they leveled it! Luckly the Marines had deployed, otherwise all 68 of them would have been killed in their beds as the Argentines planned! Despite the fact that there was a Fascist Junta in power in Argentina at the time, they had no regard for human life - having killed plenty of their own people, they had only one stake of claim on the islands dating back to an illegal occupation in 1833, you will have no doubt supported the Argentines against the British 1,800 peaceful "colonialists" on the island. Even though Argentina was originally settled by colonists from Spain, even Britain (some of the higher command in the Argentine occupation forces were Anglo-Argentine) but that DON'T COUNT does it!

Try not to be so blind.

I understand why it is easy to see false flags in everything but without the evidence, seeing them is probably counter productive. It's just feeding a personal agenda / cause. You only have to looks at history to realise it is not something confined to your "enemies". Take the Second World War as an example. Plenty of scull dugery going on both sides and remember we went to war against Germany for invading Poland, but ignored Russia's Polish invasion, which took place on the same day!

[outsider]

Yo ho ho! The first cause I took up after being sensitized to State Abuses with 'Bloody Sunday' was against the Fascist (and Brit and Yank supported) Junta in Argentina. The first leaflets I ever distributed were regarding this, and the World Cup which was being held in Argentina.
Of course, football aficionados have (with exceptions, of course!) very little interest in Human Rights, which is what one would expect. Like the feeding of Christians to the lions (perhaps you think it didn't occur?), football serves as a useful carnival, a diversion from serious issues.
Needless to say, not a lot of people gave a toss about 10,000 disapeared in Argentina (I still have copies of that leaflet).
I never claimed that Protestants have less rights; brought up as a Catholic, I have rejected the Catholic Church, but still remain a non-denominational Christian. So that in a way makes me a Protestant, but I have no truck with that organization either.

Notice you don't respond to a lot of my previous post; wonder why?

Do you agree we are part of an occupying force, after the 'False Flag' setting of the blame for 9/11 on OBL, harboured (or harbored!) (or 'Such a thing!) (or wherever it is you're coming from) by Afghanistan?
It is highly relevant: do you accept 9/11 was an 'Inside Job', nought to do with OBL, or not?
We are wasting our time here, if you think OBL planned 9/11.

[outsider]

http://www.emusic.com/album/Shamrog-21-Irish-Rebel-Songs-MP3-Download/ 11230157.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au30c9ZMIPg

[jazds]

I don't want to listen to any racist, sectarian Republican IRA songs.

In regards to your other point re seeing the Taliban being freedom fighters, what kind of freedom fighters are people who don't believe in anything resembling freedom. Clearly you need to catch up on some reading, Prof. Nafeez Ahmed and Prof Chussodovsky clearly address the continuing links between the Taliban and the ISI and the ISI and Pakistan's alliance to the CIA and the War on Terror (at least officially).

These "freedom fighters" are obviously providing the US with a pretext for hegemony over the region, military bases, economic power, political packs and dark maneuvers.

The enemy is not Britain or America. The real enemy is gangster capitalism, greed and the greedy INTERNATIONAL power elite (who owe alligence to no country). They merely use America as their Imperial Power house.

[TonyGosling]

How can the Orange Order reject legislation?
Who do they think they are?

Parades legislation on hold over Orange Order move
The DUP leader Peter Robinson has said legislation to replace the Parades Commission has been put on hold after the Orange Order refused to review their decision to reject it.
First Minister Peter Robinson said it is now inevitable that the Parades Commission will be reappointed for another year.
"I am disappointed by the outcome as considerable effort was made at Hillsborough to solve the issues around parades and protests.
"We had developed a new and improved framework to deal with parades.
"This framework was based on specifications outlined by the Orange Order," he added.
Mr Robinson said the draft bill should have been submitted to the Executive by September, in order to be ready for January 2011.
The first minister said that the time frame has now been missed because the Grand Lodge, which met at the weekend, did not review its decision to reject the Bill.
He revealed he had written to the Grand Master on 15 September telling him the Bill would be left in abeyance until if, or when, the order decided to proceed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11421511

[TonyGosling]

Carringtpn dies - aged 99


Dave Barnby writes

' ... then fought in the Second World War earning the decoration of the Military Cross'.

When I spoke to Moffatt Burriss a few years ago, he said he didn't deserve it, read on:

There’s a reason Lord Carrington didn’t want to talk about his MC. As tank troop commander, Carrington, tasked with crossing Nijmegen Bridge after American paratroopers (of 82nd Division) had paddled across the Waal River in canvas canoes at great cost in lives and captured the far end of the bridge, he failed to capitalise on the American’s heroic and epic battle success (see film ‘A Bridge too far’).
Following the Americans foothold at the far end and having sent 4 tanks forward across the bridge and following them later in his tank, Carrington ‘dug in’ at the Arnhem end of the bridge and refused to budge for 12 hours, by which time it was too late to relieve the 2nd British Parachute Battalion at the Arnhem Bridge, just 7 miles away, under Col Frost.

Captain Moffit Burris who led ‘I’ company, challenged Carrington, demanding to know “why are you stopping”. In Burriss’s book ‘Strike and Hold’, Burriss writes (after more pleading):

‘I looked him straight in the eye’ and said: “You yellow-bellied son of a bitch. I’ve sacrificed half of my company in the face of dozens of guns, and you won’t move because of one gun”.

Then I cocked my tommy gun, put it to his head, and said, “You get this tank moving, or I’ll blow your damn head off”.
He didn’t of course, and Carrington lived to take over his bank, get jobs as Foreign Secretary, Secretary General of NATO and Chairman of Bilderberg.

Peter Oborne should check his facts before signing this man’s praises.


Sent: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:14
Subject: [UK-911-Truth] Lord Carrington: death of Bilderberg chairman/Arnhem traitor at 99

Only obituary to mention Bilderberg was from ITALY!
https://www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7723

Carrington sitting in his tank

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl= translate.google.co.uk&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.tvsvizzera. it/tvs/morto-99enne-lord-carrington--ultimo-dei--churchilliani-/442484 62&xid=17259,15700022,15700122,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700186,157 00190,15700201,15700208&usg=ALkJrhik_Qg8sFQEpAkYrcNppHDf-hHlLA


99-year-old Lord Carrington, last of the 'churchillians' dead

External content The following content comes from external partners. We can not therefore guarantee that it is accessible to all users.
All the news in brief
THIS CONTENT WAS PUBLISHED ON 10 JULY 2018 14.5810 JULY 2018 - 14:58

Lord Carrington in a picture taken three years ago in London
Keystone / EPA MOD / SGT ROSS TILLY / RAF / MINISTRY OF DEFENSE / HANDOUT
(sda-ats)
He died at the age of 100 (he had made 99 last month) Lord Peter Carrington.
He had been a veteran of several British Conservative Governments, NATO Secretary General, and last survivor of the post-war cabinet led by Winston Churchill in the United Kingdom.
The news was confirmed by Downing Street and David Lidington, number two of Prime Minister Theresa May, paid tribute to his figure as "servant of the state".
Born on 6 June 1919 in London into an aristocratic family, Carrington had embarked on a military career in the late 30s and then fought in the Second World War earning the decoration of the Military Cross. Member of the House of Lords for dynastic law since 1940, he held the first positions of government as undersecretary of Agriculture and then Defense in the 50s, under the premiership of Churchill and then Anthony Eden.
Later he was also, among other things, First Lord of the Admiralty (Minister of the Navy) in the MacMillan government, Minister of Defense in that of Edward Heath between 1970 and '74, and Minister of Foreign Affairs with Margaret Thatcher between 1979 and 82. He resigned from this position for not having foreseen the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, before the war won by the British forces. But he was 'recovered' two years later for the role of general secretary of NATO, held until 1988.
He was also a negotiator at the dawn of the conflict in former Yugoslavia in 1991 and in subsequent years a director of various companies, rector of the University of Reading, president of the Bilderberg group and of the Pilgrims Society, and chancellor of the Order of the Garter - on appointment of the queen - until 2012.
Horizontal line TVS Horizontale Linie