because theirs is ‘not to reason why’.
donyork wrote:just come across a rather elegant and dignified website at www.britishcyprusmemorial.org in memory of the British servicemen who died on active service in Cyprus between 1955-1959. Interestingly it does not mention EOKA, murders, terrorism or contain anything which any reasonable person could take offence at — any why should they anyway? The memorial does what all memorials (or British ones) do which is to honour the memory of those killed in the service of their country, regardless of whether the war was popular or unpopular — Suez, Iraq for example —because theirs is ‘not to reason why’. I hope even your most strident nationalist will see that. A memorial should not be a target for hate — though sometimes in Europe they are by neo-Nazis.
Oracle wrote:donyork wrote:just come across a rather elegant and dignified website at www.britishcyprusmemorial.org in memory of the British servicemen who died on active service in Cyprus between 1955-1959. Interestingly it does not mention EOKA, murders, terrorism or contain anything which any reasonable person could take offence at — any why should they anyway? The memorial does what all memorials (or British ones) do which is to honour the memory of those killed in the service of their country, regardless of whether the war was popular or unpopular — Suez, Iraq for example —because theirs is ‘not to reason why’. I hope even your most strident nationalist will see that. A memorial should not be a target for hate — though sometimes in Europe they are by neo-Nazis.
The British are none too happy to be reminded of the atrocities they inflicted during their colonial past.
Mention of how they met their end, may raise questions, and we don't want that do we!
Bubble 'n' squeak wrote:Oracle wrote:donyork wrote:just come across a rather elegant and dignified website at www.britishcyprusmemorial.org in memory of the British servicemen who died on active service in Cyprus between 1955-1959. Interestingly it does not mention EOKA, murders, terrorism or contain anything which any reasonable person could take offence at — any why should they anyway? The memorial does what all memorials (or British ones) do which is to honour the memory of those killed in the service of their country, regardless of whether the war was popular or unpopular — Suez, Iraq for example —because theirs is ‘not to reason why’. I hope even your most strident nationalist will see that. A memorial should not be a target for hate — though sometimes in Europe they are by neo-Nazis.
The British are none too happy to be reminded of the atrocities they inflicted during their colonial past.
Mention of how they met their end, may raise questions, and we don't want that do we!
Here we go again!
GatewayforIndia wrote:Jalianwala Bagh Massacre 1919
British responded to the Indian help in World War I by enacting in 1919, The Rowlatt Act. This allowed the government to imprison anyone without a trial or a conviction. There were widespread protests to this law. On April 13, 1919, thousands of people gathered peacefully in protest against this law in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar Punjab. British troops marched to the park accompanied by an armored vehicle on which machine guns were mounted. The vehicle was unable to enter the park compound due to the narrow entrance. The troops were under the command of General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer. He ordered his men to open fire on the peaceful gathering. Since there was no other exit but the one already manned by the troops, people desperately tried to exit the park by trying to climb the walls of the park. Some people also jumped into a well to escape the bullets. More than a thousands people including women and children were massacred. Sir Michael O’Dwyer, who was The Governor of the Punjab region, supported the massacre. The event was condemned worldwide and General Dyer was summoned to London the Hunter Commission in 1920, found him guilty. However, the British Parliament cleared his name and even praised his ruthlessness. Many Britons raised a fund in his honor.
purdey wrote:With respect to all those that fought and died against the British in their struggle for independance, I must ask for a little respect to the British soldiers who died during this period.
Most were very young men, most conscripted under national service. They were ordinary men with no wish to be conscripted in the British Army. They were poorly trained and sent to police an area most had never heard of.
I realise some on this forum HATE the British and try to score a point at every opportunity, but please on occassion show a little respect.
purdey wrote:With respect to all those that fought and died against the British in their struggle for independance, I must ask for a little respect to the British soldiers who died during this period.
Most were very young men, most conscripted under national service. They were ordinary men with no wish to be conscripted in the British Army. They were poorly trained and sent to police an area most had never heard of.
I realise some on this forum HATE the British and try to score a point at every opportunity, but please on occassion show a little respect.
Users browsing this forum: Juliaafch and 1 guest