Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "British government apologises for Ballymurphy massacre in Northern Ireland" video.

@rutgersplague4595 I do not dispute that, thought I could say that those killed in the Birmingham pub bombings did not deserve to die either. Why should the perpetrators of one atrocity be treated differently to the other. I do not know why British soldiers might shoot inocent civilians, it is certainly worth finding out, I am not sure much will be gained from prosecuting those involved, when the GFA effectively pardoned the terrorists involved in this war. How is an army to react, when those they are fighting do not respect the Geneva Convention. It is the lack of symmetry that I object too.
4
The murder of inocents is always a tragedy, but there is a lack of symmetry, in that the terrorists have been granted immunity from prosecution and therefore justice. Why should the terrorists who murdered so many inocents escape justice, while the soldiers face prosecution. Either there is an amnesty for all, or all those guilty of murder must face prosecution. The GFA cannot provide a get out of jail free card for the terrorists, while still requiring British soldiers to face the courts. If it were not for the actions of the terrorists, the british army would not have been in NI.
3
@rutgersplague4595 the GFA did provide an amnesty for terrorists. Since the IRA like to claim that they were fighting a war, with a campaign that specifically targeted civilians, is it surprising that in a war civilians die on both sides. If there had not been an amnesty for the terrorists, then both sides should have been subject to war crime investigations, but the IRA and to some extent the UDF, use the cloak of war very selectively. The uk government was complicit, in that it suited the politicians that they were not fighting a war, but were involved in defeating criminal organisations. A claim that has some merit, when one considers the crimes that financed a lot of IRA activity, but a paratroop regiment is not a police force, it is a weapon of war, and in war civilians die. If there is to be justice, then the bombers and irregular gunman, must also be subject to punishment. It is their fault that the army was on the streets of NI in the first place. Why should the IRA escape justice, simp!y because it claims not to be an army when it suits it.
3
@rutgersplague4595 you are probably right, but its the terrorists who like to selectively claim that they were fighting a war. Certainly, both sides deployed weapons of war. The British reacting to the weapons of choice of the terrorists. By their very name, the IRA declared its self an army, but it could not issue a declaration of war, and while it liked to take on the trappings of an army at funerals, it was not shy of hiding in the republic, safe in the knowledge that a state of war did not exist between the UK and the RoI. So the IRA were really playing soldiers, lacking the discipline that comes from respecting the rules of war. Like all military forces forced to fight guerrilla warfare, it out the british soldiers in an impossible position, particularly when faced with a enemy hiding in a civilian population, as opposed to say a jungle.
3
@rutgersplague4595 then you will understand british feelings regarding the IRA. It is difficult to defend the actions of the british empire. I would say that all armies forced into fighting police actions, will sooner or later be found guilty of the killing of inocents, I think it is in the nature of asymmetrical warfare. When fighting an enemy that does not respect the Geneva Convention, and who specifically targets inocent civilians, is it really surprising that sooner or later the military unofficially defends to adopting the same tactics. It is not as if the soldiers are subject to enemy weapons that are any less deadly. I cannot think of any police action by a military force, anywhere in the world, where the military have not been found guilt of questionable behaviour.
3
@roisinmalone3015 but they were fighting murders and criminals. Why would you expect the behaviour of the British troops on the ground not to degenerate to the standards of their adversary.
2
Saints and Scholars the soldiers certainly started from the premise that they were upholding the rule of law, and the uses of lethal force was justified to stop the murderous activity of the terrorists. As the conflict progressed, the soldiers were no doubt suffering a level of cynicism which allowed all civilians to be regarded as potential terrorists. I think it is a form of battle fatigue, the result of risking life and limb on a regular basis. I am not defending crossing the line, but I think I understand the psychology.
1