Posted on 06/15/2010 1:39:06 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
LONDON: British prime minister David Cameron apologized on behalf of his country Tuesday for the 1972 slaughter of 13 Catholic demonstrators in the Northern Ireland town of Londonderry, an outrage that became known as "Bloody Sunday."
In a solemn statement to the British House of Commons, Cameron said that a mammoth, 12-year investigation into the killings left no doubt that the soldiers confronting crowds of Catholic demonstrators in Londonderry's hard-line Bogside district mowed down unarmed protesters without provocation.
"What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong," Cameron said, as a crowd watching him from Londonderry burst into cheers and applause.
Cameron prefaced his remarks by saying he was a patriot and a strong supporter of the British Army, but said "you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible."
He said the 190 million pound ($280 million) report contained "shocking conclusions to read" and that he was "deeply sorry" for what happened.
Fair enough. And you are unwilling to examine the moral difference (none) between yourself, and your fellow Fennians, and every other bunch of savages on the planet who say "The extreme, and unique, savageries imposed on my ancestors privilege me to murder, rape and pillage anyone whose ancestors I deem responsible for what I perceive to be the injustices done to my ancestors." Which is why the PLO, Hammas, Al-Queda, and every bunch of American hating murders on the planet are so beloved in Irish "Republican" circles. They are birds of a feather.
The problem with your argument is that the killing, raping, and pillaging was/is primarily being done by the protestant paramilitaries and their British allies. Which you seem to have no problems with and only complain when the Catholics in the north commit violent acts in response to the atrocities committed by your buddies in the UDA and such.
The Irish Republicans love Americans. The US their number one source of financial revenue.
Which is why the have so many flags of American hating terrorist groups flying in "hard" Republican neighborhoods.
The US their number one source of financial revenue.
Because Americans like you think that funding terrorism is cute, so long as the killers look like you, and talk like grandpa. You'd condemn Americans sending money to fund Kurd, Sri Lankan, Hutu or Serbian terrorists.
Because Americans like you think that funding terrorism is cute, so long as the killers look like you, and talk like grandpa.
Americans provide funding to the Irish Republicans because they see that the British always provided support to the unionists. They view the Republican cause as right and just.
You don't have any problems calling the Republicans killers, but just can't bring yourself to say the same about the unionists and the British military. Even though the Republicans are a defensive force and the unionists are an offensive force.
The conflict will only end when the north of Ireland is reunited with the Republic. One island, one nation, one people.
Yep, there you go, explaining how genocide is laudable, so long as you get to decide who gets killed. Here's a tip, the "one ___, one ____, one ____" slogan has been done before, in connection with events most folks with a lick of political sense don't want associated with themselves, however well it fits them. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer
Let's get together and feel alright....(pass the ganja, mon!)
You are the one attempting to explain away genocide. The English were the ones that attempted genocide against the Irish.
.............the "one island, one nation, one people" slogan has been done before, in connection with events most folks with a lick of political sense don't want associated with themselves, however well it fits them. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer
Well, the Nazis knew a good slogan when they heard one. They also knew a good rally and were snazzy dressers.
Well, I guess you have something to strive for then. Meanwhile, why are you living in Illinois, oppressing and exploiting the Illini, Miami and Dakota tribes? According to your view of the world, it would be nothing more than simple justice if they blew you up with a bomb.
There is a big difference between small nomadic tribes and established nations with settlements that are 5,000 years old. Still, restitution has been made to the various Indian tribes in the form of autonomous reservations, many of which are quite profitable.
Will the British be providing restitution to the Irish for centuries of oppression?
Really? Its OK to commit genocide (your word) against "nomadic tribes"? Of course given that the Celtic Irish were, well into Tudor times, largely a herding people, following their cattle from summer pastures, to winter pastures, and back, with the seasons, your comment reveals not only your moral bankruptcy, but your historical ignorance. Try again.
I never said that it was! You are the one trying to justify the attempted genocide of the Irish by the English by ignorantly accusing Americans of the same thing. Read a history book.
the Celtic Irish were, well into Tudor times, largely a herding people
Nonsense. The Irish had farms and raised cattle. Very different from following the migrations of the buffalo.
From a Wikipedia entry about Ireland At the Céide Fields, preserved beneath a blanket of peat in present-day County Mayo, is an extensive field system, arguably the oldest in the world, dating from not long after this period. Consisting of small divisions separated by dry-stone walls, the fields were farmed for several centuries between 3,500 and 3,000 BC. Wheat and barley were the principal crops.
You are total moron.
I never said that it was! You are the one trying to justify the attempted genocide of the Irish by the English by ignorantly accusing Americans of the same thing. Read a history book.
the Celtic Irish were, well into Tudor times, largely a herding people
Nonsense. The Irish had farms and raised cattle. Very different from following the migrations of the buffalo.
From a Wikipedia entry about Ireland At the Céide Fields, preserved beneath a blanket of peat in present-day County Mayo, is an extensive field system, arguably the oldest in the world, dating from not long after this period. Consisting of small divisions separated by dry-stone walls, the fields were farmed for several centuries between 3,500 and 3,000 BC. Wheat and barley were the principal crops.
You are a total moron.
Yes, the Celtic Irish did some farming, but the the man in the street, err, bog, was far more likely to be a herdsman. The farms (monastic communities, perhaps, excepted) tended to be clustered around the port cities nearest England, or around the seats of Viking and later Norman Lords. Farmer was a low social position to the Celts, who aspired to be warriors, bards or brehons (judges).
Farmers were more valued by foreign invaders, as they were easier to exploit. A herdsman who has taken his flock, and family, twenty miles up into the hills, to an ill defined summer pasture, can, unless watched constantly by armed men, vanish with all his kin and belongings. A farmer has far less ability to stuff his oat crop into a sack and disappear with it. The farmer, and the fruits of his labor, will be easy to find when the new foreign lord's tax/rent collectors show up. The herdsman, not so much. Farming, far from being what the Celts preferred, is what they were forced to, by the destruction of their society, by the Vikings, Normans, English and Lowland Scots.
Of course, given that you have posted that following herds is so useless an existance that it justifies a farming people in exterminating the herders, in order to take their land, I hardly expect you to admit my point.
Your opinions regarding the ancient farming and herding practices of the Celts show how desperate you are to justify the continued suppression of Irish independence. Your statement that the Celts were mainly a herding people is factually incorrect.
No. The topic I was addressing was the genocidal visions and desires of folks like yourself. I haven't posted a word in justification, mitigation, or denial, of any atrocity, real or imagined, committed by any one, at any time in the past. I've just condemned, and pointed out the hypocrisy of, all the atrocities you look forward to, with evident relish, seeing committed in the future.
Great post!
regards,
Have the Irish ever attempted genocide of the Brits? No.
Have the Irish ever tried to starve the nation of Britain out of existence? No.
Have the Irish ever forced the British out their homeland and sent them to barren lands half-way around the world? No.
Have the Irish ever invaded and colonized the nation of Britain? No.
You are trying to (all at once) deny and justify the inhumane treatment of the Irish by the Brits. Your fantasy about the Irish committing genocide is a lame justification for your desire to see that the Brits retain control of the north of Ireland. Those days will be over soon. Thank God.
Read back over your posts Waz. Ethnic cleansing and genocide against Protestants in Northern Ireland is your fantasy, not mine.
Your argument is similar to that of a Nazi complaining that the Jews, Gypsies, and Poles would have committed genocide on the Germans if they didn’t get them first.
Really? I thought I was the guy condemning genocide in all circumstances, and you were the guy championing it against people whose ancestors had, in your estimation, brought it on them? /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.