Apology over 1920 on the way?

oscarBravo

Fratton Fred wrote:

maybe you should get your anti English head out of your arse and back that one up

There's been enough moderator input into this thread already that I can't let that one go. Banned for a week.

Judt

RedPlanet wrote:

You know sometimes when people apologise it's actually for their own benefit and not the ones they're apologising to. Like alleviating their own guilt.
I wonder if that's the case here.
Being the case that nobody in any official capacity has made any suggestion that HMG apologize.

If this situation panned out (and i for one do not believe this rumour), then what would we look like...
A bunch of spoilt children too immature to accept an apology?

Probably, yes. And they could well be correct.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

I think one point missing here is that even those who want an apology for the murders carried out by Crown Forces on Bloody Sunday 1920 (and the rest of Britain's evil occupation of Ireland) will agree that a rugby match is not the place for it to happen.

Maybe Britain could send over their monarch to give the apology on the much talked about visit, and then British officials can offer a fair amount in reparations for the stealing of land from the native Irish with generous interest included.

Then people can have their much sought after 'normalisation'.

Oh, and they can also change the way they teach their history and make sure their kids are taught that Churchill was a war criminal, not a war hero.

I detect some Anti-Engilsh sentiment in the above post. And would like you to estabilsh how exactly Churchill was a war criminal. I suspect its something to do with his Iraq record but please back it up.

stakey

Well yeah, Iraq is a major first for the blood thirsty Churchill as Secretary for War he was responsible for the quelling of Kurdish and Arab uprisings in Iraq. His decision was to use poison gas to deal with those damned local savages.

In his won words, "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes… to create a lively terror", lovely!

Churchill could be held directly responsible for between 30,000 and 130,000 civilian deaths in Dresden between the 13th and 15th of February, 1945.

Some might claim a necessary evil but considering the war was pretty much over and the fact that the city was full of retreating refugees (fleeing the Red Army) the destruction of Dresden was purely a punishment for Germany (seeing as it was the jewel in the crown of the old kingdom of Saxony).

Of course at that don't forget the continued mass bombing of other German cities at the closing days of the war or Churchill's out and out support for the use of Atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

After the war Churchill was very quick to hand over 90,000 cossacks to the Soviet Union (the cossacks fought against the soviets in the russian civil war) for Stalin to do as he pleased with them.

In fact, the whole period of 1945-1946 is full of crazy decisions that Churchill made regarding the fate of Russians and enemies of the USSR in Europe.

Even afterwards Churchill's ruthlessness was well known, have a read around, decide for yourself... but certainly going by todays standards, Churchill was a blood thirsty war criminal.

Zambia

Churchills Record could be another thread.

Oh I heard the other day that vikings use to raid the coast of Ireland and kill folk and stuff , lets not forgot to bring those Swedes ,Danes and Norweigians over to apologise.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote:

maybe you should get your anti English head out of your arse and back that one up

See Deconstruct's post. when you are unbanned feel free to argue that he wasn't a war criminal. Should be a good laugh. And btw, I'm not anti-English. Far from it, bit sad you had to play the race card though instead of actually arguing the point.

Zambia232 wrote:

I detect some Anti-Engilsh sentiment in the above post. And would like you to estabilsh how exactly Churchill was a war criminal. I suspect its something to do with his Iraq record but please back it up.

Again no anti-English sentiment here. Again see Deconstruct's post.

Zambia232 wrote:

Oh I heard the other day that vikings use to raid the coast of Ireland and kill folk and stuff , lets not forgot to bring those Swedes ,Danes and Norweigians over to apologise.

Fair play to you! I've actually known about those Viking raids since I was about six. Still, better late than never.......

The Viking raids have nothing to do with the modern Scandinavian states. The same British state is still in existence which caried out atrocities in Ireland and further afield. People often say 'leave it in the past', but if Britain is still making a big deal about its "war heroes" from 1914-18 then it can recognise and apologise for its murders from 1920.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

Again no anti-English sentiment here. Again see Deconstruct's post.

Noted the attack on churchill infered it could be, but it was well cleared up by Deconstructs post.

Zebra3 wrote:

The Viking raids have nothing to do with the modern Scandinavian states. The same British state is still in existence which caried out atrocities in Ireland and further afield. People often say 'leave it in the past', but if Britain is still making a big deal about its "war heroes" from 1914-18 then it can recognise and apologise for its murders from 1920.

I see your piont but I dont see it as strong enough to warrant an apology of any official nature from the present goverment.

LordSutch

Zebra3 wrote:

I think one point missing here is that even those who want an apology for the murders carried out by Crown Forces on Bloody Sunday 1920 (and the rest of Britain's evil occupation of Ireland) will agree that a rugby match is not the place for it to happen.

Maybe Britain could send over their monarch to give the apology on the much talked about visit, and then British officials can offer a fair amount in reparations for the stealing of land from the native Irish with generous interest included.

Then people can have their much sought after 'normalisation'.

Oh, and they can also change the way they teach their history and make sure their kids are taught that Churchill was a war criminal, not a war hero.

Wow Zebra ~ Your Hatred of the British is palpable & intense, and I strongly suspect that your opinions on this subject are somewhat clouded due to your blind hatred) and as for your "Churchill was a War criminal" comment ~ 'dispicable, mis-informed, hateful, provocative & out of order!

stakey

Arthur if that's the case regarding Churchill, care to comment on his record of:

- use of chemical weapons in Iraq
- use of non necessary lethal force on civilian/refugee populations at the end of world war 2 (dresden for example)
- collaboration with the USSR on rounding up/deporting ethnic peoples Russia wished to do away with
- mass deporation of Germans to Russia (for use in slave labour) as reparations for World War 2

If that isn't bad enough, care to explain away his admiration of Mussolini or his domestic policies (once threatening to turn machine guns on strikers in England).

So care to backup that 'dispicable, mis-informed, hateful, provocative & out of order' point?

Judt

Zambia232 wrote:

Churchills Record could be another thread.

Oh I heard the other day that vikings use to raid the coast of Ireland and kill folk and stuff , lets not forgot to bring those Swedes ,Danes and Norweigians over to apologise.

And where are those f***ing Italians, conquering the whole of Europe like nobodies business.

Zambia

Judt wrote:

And where are those f***ing Italians, conquering the whole of Europe like nobodies business.

According to 95% of my neighbours Southern Ireland is still under Active Roman occupation.

Zebra3

ArthurF wrote:

Wow Zebra ~ Your Hatred of the British is palpable & intense, and I strongly suspect that your opinions on this subject are somewhat clouded due to your blind hatred) and as for your "Churchill was a War criminal" comment ~ 'dispicable, mis-informed, hateful, provocative & out of order!

Wow ArthurF, your wild accusations of me are palpable and intense, I am not (as I have pointed out already in this thread) anti-British or anti-English. Just because people think Bush II is a war criminal doesn't make them anti-American neither does it make me anti-British/English because of my informed opinions on Churchill.

I challenge you to make valid points against Deconstruct's support of my view of Churchill otherwise do not make any more false accusations about me. Thank you.

oscarBravo

I think it's painfully clear at this point that this thread isn't going anywhere useful.

oscarBravo

Re-opened at the OP's request, with a caveat: any more of the crap that led to the previous closure will lead to a permanent re-closing, and to bannage.

ANXIOUS

Much appreciated oscar bravo. I would just like to add to the discussion that since the last posting the gaa has publicly come out and announced that their will reath laying ceremony at croke park.

Bloody Sunday
It was reported that in so far as the GAA is concerned there is no substance to alleged leaks from the Secretary of State’s office in Northern Ireland to the effect that a wreath laying ceremony will take place at the Bloody Sunday memorial in Croke Park on the day of the Ireland v England Rugby game.

Zambia

Is it just me or is your opening statement contradicted by your Quote you say it will happen and the Quote says it wont.

ANXIOUS

Exactly zambie thats why i asked for the thread to be re-open. Just so i could up-date the situation. Looks like the first article was wrong.

InFront

Thank goodness for that, this is a game of rugby, leave the politics with the politicians, history with the historians, and let the fans and players get on with the rugby. A sports stadium is a monument to sports and sportsmanship not petty nationalist opportunism. A wreath laying ceremony is the kind of uncomfortable political interference that would only have detracted from the game, which by passing peacefully, says "we're over it" more powerfully than a bouquet of lillies ever could.
Who would the British Government be apologizing to, exactly? Maybe they should write letters to the family of those few who were genuinely effected.

Anxious I think Zambia was pointing out that what you said in post 76 is the opposite of what the GAA said.

Flex

Judt wrote:

And where are those f***ing Italians, conquering the whole of Europe like nobodies business.

Couldnt be bothered going into detail since its so late, reagarding your 'Waht the Romans did for us' argument (ie. "British occupation was great because they built some roads and dug some canals and didnt exploit us, oh look at me Im so kewl and mature, loike, think Ill go eat a panini while Fintan and Roystan finish shopping in BT2 then we can go get pink highlights in our metro hair. Never EVER talk about history or youre a racist, alroysh? Now, wheres my yellow and pink pocadot t-shirt"). The problem with your argument about how wonderful the British occupation for Ireland is that it relies on the assumption/ belief that the Irish wouldve been to thick, backward, primitive, etc to ever master the mind boggling mechanics behind digging a canal or laying a rail road track without British domination.

Hagar

InFront wrote:

Thank goodness for that, this is a game of rugby, leave the politics with the politicians, history with the historians, and let the fans and players get on with the rugby.

The trouble is it's not that simple. Rugby IMHO is a politcised sport. The Irish Rugby team claim to represent a country that doesn't exist. There is no 32 county Ireland. If there was this debate would not be happening. The Irish rugby team would then just play the Irish National Anthem and the English would play theirs. There would be no need for this Ireland's Call malarkey.

Because the Nation is artificially split there is an ongoing animosity between the two nations. If that were resolved we could put the past behind us in the way that France and Germany have after WWII. They could do that because a line was drawn under the conflict and conquered lands were returned to their owners. This has yet to happen on this island. Until it does this nation is divided politically by a foreign power and there is still a deep rooted resentment because of that. Because of that it is hard for the Irish to accept the English politically in the same way that we accept other nations.

I don't even think the issue would be as contentious if the Irish rugby team represented just the 26 counties. At least then we would be meeting as two national teams. As a matter of interest, why aren't there two teams as in soccer? I know the rugby organization predates the Republic, but why wasn't it split in two like everything else at the time of patition? Who gives the IRFU the right to represent a United Ireland?

I think the only apology that will ever be acceptable will have to come after the English leave this island and let us get on with our own lives without their "benevolent" input.

oscarBravo

Flex is banned for two weeks. Thread is permanently closed.