Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Rule Britannia for global crimes


Big Bad Voodoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still didnt start lecture. But I will. Yes aplogize would be fine then followed by compesation.

And you said it like British have right to burn their homes. Thats tells a lot.

Apologise by whom? the Queen? to whom? And what slightest difference would that kind of PC stunt make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that British worth more then others? If others can say Im sorry and kneel in front of memorial so can British. Or you think that anglo saxons are on top of pyramid?

Which memorial would you like David Cameron to kneel in tears in front of? And what conceivable difference would such a pointless stunt make? If you want attitudes of racical superiority, why not look at the poor old victims of the british progrom, the Boers, and what they did subsequently to the native population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which memorial would you like David Cameron to kneel in tears in front of? And what conceivable difference would such a pointless stunt make? If you want attitudes of racical superiority, why not look at the poor old victims of the british progrom, the Boers, and what they did subsequently to the native population?

I guess then it's ok to starve their children to death.

The ability to apologize shows magnanimity (I hope this is the right word), the ability to learn from the past, and the willingness to never do this again, as well as acknowledging that what was done was wrong. It doesn't undo what is done, but it's way better than ignoring it. Show some dignity.

Edited by FLOMBIE
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect you're a modern historian then. Burning of settlements has been a part of war throughout history, whether to draw out armies or to deny rebels supplies.

So why the arbitrary date of 1800? What makes burning towns acceptable in 1799 but not in 1801? Setting a date like that shows you're just trying to catch those who were powerful nations at that time and not interested in fair restitution at all.

Modern history?! Scorched earth was invented by Romans during Hanibals life, meaning during war with Chartage.

Im not saying that 1800 must be the date. But from that time onwards we have documents on which basis we can sue some countries or make pressure on them to confess their crimes.

Im for justice. And as I said before if we talked about Japanese I would point out their crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologise by whom? the Queen? to whom? And what slightest difference would that kind of PC stunt make?

From British officals. To whom?! What you cant read or you ignoring my posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Northeastern American indigenous people known as the Haudenosaunee (or, in common American English, the Iroquois)? Even before the advent of 'firewater,' some of their warriors got angry at 'white' encroachment on their lands. They captured a few French Jesuit missionaries, tortured, dismembered and forced them to eat certain body parts--right in front of grandma and the kids! Then they burned them to death. Should their remaining tribal members pay reparations to the Vatican? I hear the Pope could use some more cash for his own additional defense counsel needs. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern history?! Scorched earth was invented by Romans during Hanibals life, meaning during war with Chartage.

Uhh...yeah...my point exactly.

You were saying that scorched earth isn't a part of war, then you go on to contradict yourself. As I said earlier, figure out what your position is then try and say it. At the moment you're just going in circles.

Im not saying that 1800 must be the date. But from that time onwards we have documents on which basis we can sue some countries or make pressure on them to confess their crimes.

Im for justice. And as I said before if we talked about Japanese I would point out their crimes.

So if there are no records, no-one's responsible. So if we just get rid of our records, we can say we're innocent? Sounds easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh...yeah...my point exactly.

You were saying that scorched earth isn't a part of war, then you go on to contradict yourself. As I said earlier, figure out what your position is then try and say it. At the moment you're just going in circles.

So if there are no records, no-one's responsible. So if we just get rid of our records, we can say we're innocent? Sounds easy.

My point was that have nothing to do with modern warfare.

Second that from time of Rome till today it wasnt common thing in war.

Third, sadly for you there are records that from East India company, Spanish Armada that British empire was home of slavery and racial thinking.

Massacres , for example India.

British fear from Germany and win over was not permenant. Germany is now more stronger in any term.

So I think its matter of time when will British confess their crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a price for life now? I know very little about Germany "paying their debt" so whether you mean via apology or monetary, I'm not sure.

And how is America's reasons different? 100,000 civilians died UNNECESSARILY in the Iraqi war and that's just one of our little invasion projects. America contributed to that. Why aren't you demanding America "pay their debt" towards the Iraqi people?

willy_brandt.jpg

The famous Kniefall of chancellor Willi Brand in Warsaw.

$70 billion to the state of Israel, $15 billion to Holocaust survivors and still going. German companies payed about $2 billion to slave labours (not enough) and the establishment of the National Holocaust Museum.

I am sure he thinks like that about America, too, but this thread is about the UK

Rather than bang on about who should pay who for this war and that war, perhaps it's time we knocked our heads together and realised that war is not the answer, unless under extreme EXTREME circumstances ie: Nazi Germany. If we spent a little more time bringing the people of this world together and we could actually get along, that imo, would be paying a great debt and tribute to the people who die needlessly in these wars.

We know that won't happen though. The West already has its eyes on the next big invasion.

So true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a price for life now? I know very little about Germany "paying their debt" so whether you mean via apology or monetary, I'm not sure.

And how is America's reasons different? 100,000 civilians died UNNECESSARILY in the Iraqi war and that's just one of our little invasion projects. America contributed to that. Why aren't you demanding America "pay their debt" towards the Iraqi people?

Rather than bang on about who should pay who for this war and that war, perhaps it's time we knocked our heads together and realised that war is not the answer, unless under extreme EXTREME circumstances; ie: Nazi Germany. If we spent a little more time bringing the people of this world together and we could actually get along, that imo, would be paying a great debt and tribute to the people who die needlessly in these wars.

We know that won't happen though. The West already has its eyes on the next big invasion.

why was war with germany necessary??? they were no threat to us in the uk...hitler said as much....repeatedly....please explain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why was war with germany necessary??? they were no threat to us in the uk...hitler said as much....repeatedly....please explain...

Uhm, have you missed the constant bombings and rocket firings, as well as the invasion plans? :unsure2:

Edit: Most of what Hitler told the public was not the truth.

Edited by FLOMBIE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why was war with germany necessary??? they were no threat to us in the uk...hitler said as much....repeatedly....please explain...

he wanted to eradicate the Jewish race, for one thing? Or would you not consider that worth making a fuss about, being none of our business?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, have you missed the constant bombings and rocket firings, as well as the invasion plans? :unsure2:

lol...we bombed them first.

the invasion was planned as a response once WE declared war on them....as a result of their incursion into poland...which they claim was a response to polands invasion of germany....no doubt you'd be agreeing with the germans there..

as for rocket attacks - these didnt take place til 1944 / 45 so had no bearing on our entry into the war...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he wanted to eradicate the Jewish race, for one thing? Or would you not consider that worth making a fuss about, being none of our business?

but that isn't why we entered the war and had no bearing on our entry whatsoever...

we sent an expeditionary force to france and declared war on germany due to their invasion of poland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post Flombie, I genuinely wasn't aware of that. I still don't think you can put a price on death though.

I couldn't be prouder of Britain for standing up against Hitler. I can't think of a war more "necessary" in modern times than with Nazi Germany.

then tell me why it was necessary....shouldnt be that hard surely...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You tell me why it wasn't? You're the one who argued it wasn't.

i'm not saying it wasn't....i'm trying to illuminate things for you.

we didnt go to war with germany because of nazi anti-semitism...so i'm interested in your own personal view of why it was necessary...

look ive got some work to do so cant mess around any more - the reasons we declared war on germany are the same as why we went into afghanistan...because of a pre-existing treaty with another nation who got attacked....

okay?

Edited by dekker87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm not saying it wasn't....i'm trying to illuminate things for you.

we didnt go to war with germany because of nazi anti-semitism...so i'm interested in your own personal view of why it was necessary...

PM, please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right :P I'd still like for those in favour of us paying out to put a price on the past.

do we deduct from the total for the benefits bestowed upon the colonies by the british empire??

infrastructure, healthcare, roads that type of thing...

heaven - i'd love to chat with you in 15 years when you're my age and see how you view things then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so it's not about people dying then...it's just about material things? Gotcha...

hahaha...you aint doin very well are you kid...

YOU just mentioned putting a 'price' on the past...not i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed compensation for the death of people...not compensation to the government.

Big difference.

so should we make those who benefitted by british presence pay for it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who benefited from British presence?

name a former british colony at random...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole sub-plot in the OP is the attempt to engender some kind of Collective Guilt on the British Population and it's Govt. It will not happen because, living in the enlightened times that we do, the National Demographics have changed enormously.

You should ask the question "Who exactly should pay?". Do the millions of ex - Empire Citizens now living in the UK (many for several Generations) have to pay? Which of todays Citizens were culpable in any of the events mentioned so far?

My answer is a categorical NO. I was not culpable, or indeed involved in anyway in any actions that were undertaken 200 years ago, even 100 years ago, or the 2nd World War.

The OP has also totally ignored the Historical Context of the actions at the time, and also ignored some of the aweful atrocities inflicted on many ex Empire countries by their own Governments once they became Independent.

I feel no Guilt, I have no connection with any of these things in the past, and therefore totally reject any idea of Compensating anyone - even the Terrorist, Racist Boers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia (referring to the various skirmishes during the napoleonic wars, or the intervention after the Revolution?) was hardly seriously invaded, was it.

Hmmm.... Crimea. I claim compensation for - hurt feelings, feelings of devastation, feelings of low self esteem, loss of national pride, destruction of Sevastopol, death of Admiral Nakhimov, and others. I will accept my share of the compensation in $, thank you. Oh, and also for the advance up the Volga to Tsaritsyn by British tank forces during civil war. Some of these machines still held captive, so there is a lot of backdated payment needed for looking after them all this time. More $ please, thank you :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Britain openly admits that the concentration camps were horribly run and also openly admits the causes of the Opium Wars (which France was also involved in so not sure why Britain is being singled out). I see no reason why there should be any payouts. Those who were wronged have since died and most of the actions taken by Britain were par the course during the colonial era.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.