scott

Enjoy,
John M. Stafford

Yes, it is based on the transcripts of the inquirys into the Bloody Sunday maaacre that eventually took place 30 years later. (Same way you guys won't find outb what was done in Iraq in your name until all those involved are lond since retired and beyond prosecution). Basically what happened was the British Parachute regiment opened fire on a peaceful civil rights protest, killing 13 civilians. Nobody disputes this fact. It is not pro - IRA but does portray the British in an unfavourable light. It is a very good movie. Watch it, you may learn alot. Bloody Sunday led to a huge upsurge in IRA activity and made alot of recruits for the IRA, massacres always do (again, think Iraq). Northen Ireland, despite what SCOTT has said, no longer has any real terrorism, but there is still the occasional sectarian attack or murder as the thing fizzles out. Nothing like the daily assassinations and bombs I used to get on the news every day when I was growing up. It went on for 30 years and thousands died, eventually, the British negotiated a ceasefire with the terrorists, so so much for that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bullshit, you do if you have no choice. My own grandfather was killed there before I was born by an IRA landmine. My other grandfather fought with the IRA, who came and fired shots over his grave when he died as a mark of respect.

When you have watched that movie, get "Holy Cross" when it comes out, that will show you true stuff that happpened here 2 years ago that you will not f*cking believe.

When I see people talking about your situation in Iraq in terms of statistics and nubers killed, I really don't think they understand what it's like, how horrible it is to live under those conditions, the incessant fear, the horror. And to be completely honest with you, with no hint of triumphalism, Iraq is heading exactly the same way as Northern Ireland was for 30 years but 10 times worse, and at this stage, I don't think theres a damn thing anyone can do about it.
But this stuff doesn't help.

US battle claims denied

PRESSURE is mounting on the US military to supply conclusive evidence to support its claim to have killed 54 Iraqi guerrillas in the biggest battle since President George Bush declared an end to major combat seven months ago.

Scepticism about the US version of the death toll has been expressed within upper echelons of the occupation authorities. One exasperated source said: "We predicted this would play out as it did."

In another damaging setback, a US combat leader involved in the firefight has denounced the military's account of the battle. In an email to retired US veteran Colonel David Hackworth, who is one of America's most decorated living soldiers, he says: "Hack, most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or criminals as being reported. We are probably turning many Iraqis against us and I am afraid instead of climbing out of the hole, we are digging ourselves in deeper."

The controversy began on Sunday when Iraqi guerrillas attacked two US military convoys escorting consignments of new currency to two banks in Samarra, a Sunni town which is a hotbed of anti-US sentiment.

The US military said on the same day that it had killed 46 attackers in a long battle. The army later amended the number of dead upwards to 54. (© Independent News Service)