The Unionist/Loyalist response to the findings of the Saville Report have so far been characteristic. “It’s one-eyed”, one claimed. Another demanded, “What about the rest of the Troubles”? Jeffrey Donaldson was typical,
Balance? What of it?
Has-been Reg Empey of the tired UUP had this to say
“In the days before Bloody Sunday, two RUC officers – Peter Gilgunn and David Montgomery – were shot dead in the Creggan area of the city. Their families have not received justice.”
Yes but these people were killed by agents of the State, not by armed guerillas. There’s a big, big difference.
It would be perverse if the events of Bloody Sunday were used to justify those unjustifiable events that PIRA launched in the 1970s.
Again, these were state-sponsored killings. By the way, what about all the names of supposed Republicans that were passed to Loyalist paramilitaries by the RUC?
Unionist splitter McAllister, on the other hand, paints a selectivised picture of history,
Thus today’s jamboree over the Saville report throws into very sharp relief the unacceptable and perverse hierarchy of victims which the preferential treatment of ‘Bloody Sunday’ has created.
Yes but what about civil rights? Weren’t the Catholic community entitled to these? What about the rampant gerrymandering that was typical of Unionist controlled municipal councils?
My question to all of these people would be “How many Unionists and Loyalists were shot to death by the British Army for simply protesting”? I’m willing to bet that I get no reply. Furthermore, why did the Army send in the Parachute Regiment, wasn’t that a little heavy-handed?
One-sided? It seems the Unionists don’t know the meaning of the word.