Originally Posted by
Finningley Boy
I think this sums it all up, the problem is, ever since Blair and his, I would say, genuine efficacious approach to resolve the "troubles" the outcome, I would further say for political reasons, has seen British Soldiers of the era treated like Nazi war criminals. The supporters then and now, of the IRA and Sinn Fein etc, will never accept a balanced and fair settlement. They believe every British soldier is a murderer or potentially one. They further believe that every member of of the IRA, every violent protester who flung rocks and bricks and engaged in worse, are unquestionably innocent. There are of course those on the Brit side who react similarly from their own perspective. Blair took the saucepan off the boil, but he didn't solve the matter. Out of fear that the provos wouldn't accept anything but a subjective outcome deeply favourable to their boys, so he couldn't seek a fair settlement. Because of the international situation, British Governments have to contend with the often biased or ignorant pro-IRA leanings of just about any other government on the planet. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to counter an IRA terrorist resurgence in any decisive manner, which would ensue if the likes of this soldier were granted the amnesty afforded all the terrorist characters on both sides. Its still a puzzle to me , however, why all these charges are being brought, this is perhaps the most recent one, at least 34 years on?
FB
Have a guess as to which of the two terrorist groups carried out the greatest number of attacks between 1985 and 1998. I will give you a clue - it was not the Republican terrorists.
There is a widespread myth propagated, mostly in the UK media, that the IRA were to blame for all the violence. The reality is that both sides were equally to blame. The Republicans carried out more attacks between 1968 and 1985, then the Loyalists upped they game and massively increased the number of attacks they carried out. You couldn't slip a fag paper between the two when it comes to who was worst.
As someone rightly observed earlier, the peacekeeping force were hated by both sides, and were fair game as targets for both, even if the UK media often tried to focus on the Republicans as the bad guys and the Loyalists as the good guys. Add in that the Loyalists were often actively encouraged to march in Republican areas, just to stir things up, and it's little wonder that it took so long for someone to knock all their bloody heads together and start a workable peace process.
FWIW, I very strongly disagree with the one-sided nature of the amnesty - both sides, and the peacekeepers caught in the middle, should have been granted the same immunity for actions back then. It's a bloody tragedy that this never happened.