Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
| From | paulh |
| Date | 2002-04-18 20:04 (2002-04-18 20:04) |
| Message-ID | <k82ubu8sa9cg4fu866m9ib6jg2telm8boc@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Russ |
| Followups | Russ (3h & 35m) > paulh |
On 18 Apr 2002 17:21:12 GMT, mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote:
RussI don't doubt it..but if an army chose to 'attack an area' how many casualties would really occur?. If they had attacked the area then 104 dead in 5 years is a pretty bad record, thats 21 per year not, one every 2-3 days, not nice, but hardly a massacre. You should be able to do that in 1/2 an hour if they were attacked in the true nature of attack...hell the Americans unfortunately did that with one bomb in Ameriyah in Baghdad.
In article <r3utbu8s1pve35catmqbnohkndis6eptg3@4ax.com>, paulh <paulh@fahncahn.com>writes:paulhRuss
Ah... yes.. the singular incident that occurred 30 years ago. Its not exactly the west bank though, is it? What Ojevind is pointing out that is the your original comment seems to imply that the British Army 'attacked' nationalist areas and therefore its ok to bomb them back.Can you prove that this occurred or is just perhaps a slight exaggeration...
Well, as I pointed out in another message from 1969-1974, British security services killed 117 civilians, only 13 of which were the civilians shot dead on Bloody Sunday.
So no, I don't believe the British Army attacked nationalist areas. the figures don't add up do they?
paulh
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
