Censorship

Big Money said:
So the people of Amritsar hailed you as Sahib?
Click to expand...

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was undoubtedly a seminal event for the British Raj and Gandhi exploited it to the fullest extent. I might point out that none of the 50 odd troops that opened fire were British, instead consisting of Gurkhas, Pathans and Sikhs.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was undoubtedly a seminal event for the British Raj and Gandhi exploited it to the fullest extent. I might point out that none of the 50 odd troops that opened fire were British, instead consisting of Gurkhas, Pathans and Sikhs.
Click to expand...

Commanded by an Englishman, Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer, who was applauded in the House of Lords...for slaughtering unarmed men, women, and children.

Tell me some more about the great love your former colonial inferiors bear the perfidious Albionites...
 
Big Money said:
Commanded by an Englishman, Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer, who was applauded in the House of Lords...for slaughtering unarmed men, women, and children.

Tell me some more about the great love your former colonial inferiors bear the perfidious Albionites...
Click to expand...

Mr. CHURCHILL Certainly. The Cabinet can certainly alter the employment of any officer. I now come to explain and to justify the decision of the Cabinet. This is the question I have been asking myself, and which I think the House should consider. Were we right in accepting, as we have done, the conclusion of the Army Council as terminating the matter so far as General Dyer was concerned, or ought we to have taken further action of a disciplinary or quasi-disciplinary character against him? Here, for the first time, I shall permit myself to enter, to some extent, upon certain aspects of the merits of the case.

However we may dwell upon the difficulties of General Dyer during the Amritsar riots, upon the anxious and critical situation in the Punjab, upon the danger to Europeans throughout that province, upon the long delays which have taken place in reaching a decision about this officer, upon the procedure that was at this point or at that point adopted, however we may dwell upon all this, one tremendous fact stands out—I mean the slaughter of nearly 400 persons and the wounding of probably three or four times as many, at the Jallian Wallah Bagh on 13th April. That is an episode which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire. It is an event of an entirely different order from any of those tragical occurrences which take place when troops are brought into collision with the civil population. It is an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.

Collisions between troops and native populations have been painfully frequent in the melancholy aftermath of the Great War. My right hon. Friend has reminded the House that in this particular series of disturbances there were 36 or 37 cases of firing upon the crowd in India at this particular time, and there have been numerous cases in Egypt. In all these cases the officer in command is placed in a most painful and difficult position. I agree absolutely with what my right hon.

1726 Friend has said, and the opinions he has quoted of the Adjutant-General in India, of the distasteful, painful, embarrassing, torturing situation, mental and moral, in which the British officer in command of troops is placed when he is called upon to decide whether or not he opens fire, not upon the enemies of his country, but on those who are his countrymen, or who are citizens of our common Empire. No words can be employed which would exaggerate those difficulties. But there are certain broad lines by which, I think, an officer in such cases should be guided. First of all, I think he may ask himself, Is the crowd attacking anything or anybody? Surely that is the first question. Are they trying to force their way forward to the attack of some building, or some cordon of troops or police, or are they attempting to attack some band of persons or some individual who has excited their hostility? Is the crowd attacking? That is the first question which would naturally arise. The second question is this: Is the crown armed? That is surely another great simple fundamental question. By armed I mean armed with lethal weapons.
Click to expand...

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1920/jul/08/army-council-and-general-dyer#column_1725
 
Last edited:
On 13 April 1919, a crowd of non-violent protesters, along with pilgrims, had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh garden in Amritsar, Punjab.


The Jallianwala Bagh was surrounded on all sides by houses and buildings and had few narrow entrances.


Most of them were kept permanently locked.


The main entrance was relatively wide, but was guarded heavily by troops backed by armored vehicles.


Brigadier-General Dyer—without warning the crowd to disperse—blocked the main exits.


He explained later that this act "was not to disperse the meeting but to punish the Indians for disobedience."


On the orders of Brigadier-General Dyer, the army fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to run out.


Dyer ordered his troops to begin shooting toward the densest sections of the crowd.


Firing continued for approximately ten minutes.


Cease-fire was ordered only when ammunition supplies were almost exhausted, after approximately 1,650 rounds were spent


Many people died in stampedes at the narrow gates or by jumping into the solitary well on the compound to escape the shooting.


A plaque in the monument at the site, set up after independence, says that 120 bodies were pulled out of the well.


The wounded could not be moved from where they had fallen, as a curfew was declared, and many more died during the night.


The dead numbered between 370 and 1,000, or possibly more.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
 
Big Money said:
On 13 April 1919, a crowd of non-violent protesters, along with pilgrims, had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh garden in Amritsar, Punjab.


The Jallianwala Bagh was surrounded on all sides by houses and buildings and had few narrow entrances.


Most of them were kept permanently locked.


The main entrance was relatively wide, but was guarded heavily by troops backed by armored vehicles.


Brigadier-General Dyer—without warning the crowd to disperse—blocked the main exits.


He explained later that this act "was not to disperse the meeting but to punish the Indians for disobedience."


On the orders of Brigadier-General Dyer, the army fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to run out.


Dyer ordered his troops to begin shooting toward the densest sections of the crowd.


Firing continued for approximately ten minutes.


Cease-fire was ordered only when ammunition supplies were almost exhausted, after approximately 1,650 rounds were spent


Many people died in stampedes at the narrow gates or by jumping into the solitary well on the compound to escape the shooting.


A plaque in the monument at the site, set up after independence, says that 120 bodies were pulled out of the well.


The wounded could not be moved from where they had fallen, as a curfew was declared, and many more died during the night.


The dead numbered between 370 and 1,000, or possibly more.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
Click to expand...

Well done looks like you've followed Desh's example and used Wiki, how inventive.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Nice job with the hyperbole, countless indeed. The British did many positive things in India not least banning the practice of sati. If you really think that the British in India were really such despots can you explain to me why over two million Indians fought for them in WW2? Who invented the caste system anyway, it wasn't the British.

As for Ireland, I presume that you are referring to the Great Famine. That was a very nasty episode in Irish history not least because it was wholly preventable. It is true that grain, which could have prevented the famine, was still being exported in large quantities but the dependency on not just a single crop but a single variety in hindsight was a monumental mistake. One thing that should be made clear though is that it was no picnic living in Victorian England either for the poor peasants, most were hardly better off than slaves and lived miserable lives where death was often a mercy.
Click to expand...

So, just one or two murders, then?
 
Threedee said:
So, just one or two murders, then?
Click to expand...

You and I both know what the numbers were, it is easy enough to find out, isn't it? Those were brutal times and life was cheap. It was really an example of laisssez faire economics and the belief in divine provenance in action, there are a few on here that would advocate the same type of market economics and philosophy today.

Laissez-faire, the reigning economic orthodoxy of the day, held that there should be as little government interference with the economy as possible. Under this doctrine, stopping the export of Irish grain was an unacceptable policy alternative, and it was therefore firmly rejected in London, though there were some British relief officials in Ireland who gave contrary advice.

The influence of the doctrine of laissez-faire may also be seen in two other decisions. The first was the decision to terminate the soup-kitchen scheme in September 1847 after only six months of operation. The idea of feeding directly a large proportion of the Irish population violated all of the Whigs' cherished notions of how government and society should function. The other decision was the refusal of the government to undertake any large scheme of assisted emigration. The Irish viceroy actually proposed in this fashion to sweep the western province of Connacht clean of as many as 400,000 pauper smallholders too poor to emigrate on their own. But the majority of Whig cabinet ministers saw little need to spend public money accelerating a process that was already going on 'privately' at a great rate.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml
 
Last edited:
During the later stages of the Second Boer War, the British Empire ordered the civilian internment of the Afrikaner population into concentration camps, one of the earliest uses of this method by modern powers.


Though intended as a humanitarian gesture to protect the civilian population from the British Army's scorched earth policy, the women and children were rounded up and driven to, or transported to the camps under the most brutal, inhuman and appalling conditions, e.g. being transported in open cattle trucks in freezing rain during winter, without being given adequate food and water.


Many Afrikaners consider these to be war crimes, which ended with the deaths of around 34,000 people.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes
 
Big Money said:
During the later stages of the Second Boer War, the British Empire ordered the civilian internment of the Afrikaner population into concentration camps, one of the earliest uses of this method by modern powers.


Though intended as a humanitarian gesture to protect the civilian population from the British Army's scorched earth policy, the women and children were rounded up and driven to, or transported to the camps under the most brutal, inhuman and appalling conditions, e.g. being transported in open cattle trucks in freezing rain during winter, without being given adequate food and water.


Many Afrikaners consider these to be war crimes, which ended with the deaths of around 34,000 people.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes
Click to expand...

Apartheid was such a humane policy, I wonder who implemented that?
 
Dum-dum bullets were invented by the British Indian Army in the 1890s at Dum-Dum Arsenal, near Calcutta.

The inventor realized that by drilling a hole in the bullet, it would expand on impact, maximizing the damage to the "unfortunate individual" who was targeted.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes
 
Big Money said:
Dum-dum bullets were invented by the British Indian Army in the 1890s at Dum-Dum Arsenal, near Calcutta.

The inventor realized that by drilling a hole in the bullet, it would expand on impact, maximizing the damage to the "unfortunate individual" who was targeted.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes
Click to expand...

I thought they named the bullet after you!!
 
On 23 May 1945, in Schleswig-Holstein, after holding Prince Ferdinand of Holstein at gunpoint, British troops plundered Glücksburg castle, stealing jewelry, and desecrating 38 coffins from the castle's mausoleum.


The British government closed public access to the official report about the incident for 75 years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes
 
Grind said:
you are so full of shit.

what really happens is you probably start stomping your feet talking about facts and how you are a truth warrior and before you know it your assailant thinks you have downs syndrome and decides to leave you alone.
Click to expand...


oh Im your new target am I?


with you "hating my guts " and all.

help everyone I have a heartless power scrapper after me.


Im just so scared
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top