British soldier describes the technique of using children as human shields in Ireland

Good point. The human shield works against many shoulder weapons.

Thanks for the reply.

That link appears not to be working. I have failed to find the ABC documentary.

I was asking about evidence to link the soldiers testimony in your original video to any official BA policy with regard to using children to deter IRA volunteers from firing on foot patrols.

Thanks, got it.

That really doesn't address the foot patrol tactic which you mentioned.

We already know that the siting of any installations was clearly officially BA sanctioned policy.

Pity we can't find the ABC documentary which might shed more light on the matter.

As you say it's unlikely any written evidence will turn up but it wouldn't really matter that instructions were not written if they were given.

The IRA were defending this country. The brits are just foreigners or in some cases traitors.

Doesn't make what either side did OK. Both sides killed and maimed innocent people.

This country was never under attack so who were they defending it from? The island was split into 2 countries long before the IRA started their campaign, the Unionists think that its their country and the IRA where the traitors.

It makes sense in the context of a soldier trying to survive a war & sacrificing children for their own personal safety so they can continue fighting in said war.

Do you find Hamas equally justified when they are accused of using human shields during Israeli terror attacks on Gaza? I presume you would find that even more justifiable as the population actually want Hamas there as they won a democratic election in Gaza, unlike the British Army on the Falls Road, Creggan or the Bogside, who very clearly not wanted in those areas.

Yes it makes sense to me why Hamas would be employing the same tactic. That situation is maybe slightly different because I think for many soldiers it is a mindset of “do your round and get out alive”.

Yes, and the Post-WW2 British Army already had a reputation for brutality from it's incursions in Kenya, Malaya, Aden, Cyprus & Egypt.

From the Mau Mau Uprising for example

"We knew the slow method of torture [at the Mau Mau Investigation Center] was worse than anything we could do. Special Branch there had a way of slowly electrocuting a Kuke—they'd rough up one for days. Once I went personally to drop off one gang member who needed special treatment. I stayed for a few hours to help the boys out, softening him up. Things got a little out of hand. By the time I cut his balls off, he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him.[217]

One settler's description of British interrogation. The extent to which such accounts can be taken at face value has been questioned"

Yep, once someones balls, eyes & ears are gone I think it's safe to say things got a "little" out of hand.

I mean The Troubles were awful, but really it was a walk in the park to what happened in 3rd world countries. I have no doubt if Ireland was off the coast of West Africa instead of West Europe then the British Army would have run amok, every Sunday would have been a Bloody Sunday. We were lucky we had support from Irish-America including a number of Kennedy's & supporters from the left in Britain.

My mother witnessed first hand the British Army in Strabane, 1971 shooting a deaf mute in the back because he wouldn't obey their commands (obviously he couldn't), things like that happened a lot during the 1970 -72 period, but after the negative media over Bloody Sunday they were forced into holding back, and by 1976 the UDR & RUC were pushed on to the front line instead with the Ulsterisation policy.

Righto.

I assume that you take a similarly sanguine view on dead Bloody Sunday protestors - "collateral damage", "c'est la guerre", etc.