zlacker

Civil unrest is going to happen when you rule for 70 years.

When you say "extraordinarily cruel" then maybe you refer to the 2,100,000 to 3,800,000 Bengals you starved to death

The murder of 13 people (the inciting incident of the troubles) by the British army is not exactly comparable; even taking into consideration the total losses during that time of 3,500~, hardly comparable at all.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

>>dijit+(OP)
The Troubles - was literally a rebellion violently suppressed... for 3 decades.

Let alone all of the Unionists are staunch monarchists and were tightly linked to government institutions.

I wasn't comparing anything to anything. You think that comparing The Troubles to bengal Famine, somehow excuses you from writing an obvious false sentence.

PS: Civil Unrest isn't Civil Unrest, when the army is literally shooting.

>>JAlexo+X6
I just don’t see it as “extraordinarily cruel” when comparing to other cruelty committed. I see it as quite significantly reduced.

I’m not saying she was perfect, but describing her reign as extraordinarily cruel is a real stretch.

I really don’t want to talk about the troubles but if I’m going to be a dick I will mention that the IRA intentionally targeted civilians, I don’t think the military at that time are as black as they’re painted. It’s all villains I’m afraid.

>>dijit+Q8
>I really don’t want to talk about the troubles but

The "I'm not a racist, but" speech.

You're also missing a few words in your rant here.

>>JAlexo+ma
Shallow dismissals and insinuations I’m a racist(?) are not compelling arguments I’m afraid.

Also, three paragraphs do not a rant make. Nice try though.