https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/celebrating-70-years-of-british-massacres
Celebrating 70 years of British massacres!
What’s past is past. Why go into the bloody history of the UK if it’s just that: history?
Why go into Britain’s bloody massacres in Africa? Its slave trade? Or that Winston Churchill blamed India’s Bengal famine in World War II (1943), which was caused by food being exported to Britain from India, on the Indians themselves, as he famously said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
The major thing about history is that it’s so important because it informs the present, particularly when you choose not to apologize for it and continue the same traditions you once upheld. Particularly, in this instance, I’m referring to Britain’s lively tradition of imperialism that still informs its worldview and foreign policy.
Perhaps it is telling that a YouGov poll conducted in 2016 found that the British public is proud of the history of the British Empire and the role their country played in colonialism, with 43% of Britons saying they were “proud” of it, while only 21% said they regretted that it happened.
It is also telling, and amazingly so, that the British Ministry of Defense has claimed that its bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq between September 2014 and January 2021 resulted in 4315 casualties, only one of which was a civilian.
When asked by London-based research charity Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) for the number of civilian casualties that the British military caused around the world in the past 20 years, the MoD said that these numbers are not recorded.
However, digging a bit deeper into the history of UK interventions in the past 70 years, since Queen Elizabeth II took the throne, anyone can clearly see that there is a recurrent pattern of UK forces massacring civilians and trying to hide it under the pretense of the requirement of hard evidence to prove they are responsible.
This isn’t to suggest that the queen herself was behind these massacres, as her role is largely a ceremonial one. But she is, nevertheless, an influential figure in British politics and the Commonwealth Realm, and her silence on such matters as Britain causing irreparable harm to the world merely reflects an ambivalence that is characteristic of Britain’s attitude toward other nations.
Part 1