A measured look at a difficult situation

Please tell us what provoked Cromwell to massacre people in Drogheda and Wexford. What was the provocation that made Cromwell responsible for the deaths of almost 50% of the Irish population?Why is the Washington Post biased? Because it does not agree with what you want to be the truth? If you cannot find any sources to back up your claims it may be that your claims are not valid. To claim it is because of Catholic propaganda is delusional and I would say probably a sing of some mental health issues.Please give list of atrocities that make it ok for a christian to order a massacre.

You did not address my post. Here it is again.

Please explain how you get to this determination. The British faced an illegal, armed militia.

You really shouldn't discuss issues you are utterly ignorant on.
When did the American colonies declare independence? 1776 in case you were home schooled. When was battle of Lexington and Concord? April 19, 1775. So no they had not declared their independence. They were in open rebellion against their legitimate government. Again explain why the American colonies were ok to rebel, but the Irish were not.Also evidence for the Irish murdering thousands that disagreed with them, thus deserving the atrocities visited upon them.P.S.
You might want to do research before you spout crap about history. I think there are a few of us that know a bit more than you.

So basically this and this Is not only untrue but just bullsht your were spouting that you know you can not defend.I should start counting how many arguments you don't defend. Well I guess it would probably be all your arguments.

Have you studied any history? Standing armed in front of the British troops is military action. Still waiting for the explanation and evidence on this.

It truly is amazing how you condemn any catholic violence, but justify all protestant violence. You have a total unwillingness to look at the actual facts behind the history of Ireland.Did you not support James interpretation of the divine right of kings on another thread? Why are you not supportive of that right by other kings?Your blanket dismissal of English violence against the men, women and children of Ireland is truly abhorrent. But not surprising considering the amorality you have expressed in the past.

That is correct sorry. You have a very odd view of this. That it wasn't a divine right of kings, but that kings needed to get back authority that the pope some how had taken from them.It all boils down to
1. Catholics bad
Protestants good2. Conqueror good
Trying to throw off conqueror bad3. American Revolution Good
Irish revolution bad
See 14. If Protestant vs Protestant violence than one side(decided by Faith) is obviously not true Protestant.5. Winner is always good. Unless of course they are not Protestants, then the Jesuits were behind it.Anything else we need to add to Faith's rules of history?BTW, have you even tried reading anything about Irish history to learn the reasons for the Irish rebellions?

Of course not, because that would destroy your simplistic arguments.

The reality is in the thousands,

I will say again. Not true. Provide scholarly evidence for this or quit saying it.

quote:

---

Garca Crcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560—1700about 2%the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, it is likely that the toll was much higher, keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and Garca Crcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed.[92]

​

Modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Histrico Nacional), conserves the annual relations of all processes between 1540 and 1700. This material provides information on about 44,674 judgements, the latter studied by Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. These 44,674 cases include 826 executions in persona and 778 in effigie. This material, however, is far from being completefor example, the tribunal of Cuenca is entirely omitted, because no relaciones de causas from this tribunal have been found, and significant gaps concern some other tribunals (e.g. Valladolid). Many more cases not reported to the Suprema are known from the other sources (e.g. no relaciones de causas from Cuenca have been found, but its original records have been preserved), but were not included in Contreras-Henningsen's statistics for the methodological reasons.[93] William Monter estimates 1000 executions between 1530—1630 and 250 between 1630—1730.[94]

​

The archives of the Suprema only provide information surrounding the processes prior to 1560. To study the processes themselves, it is necessary to examine the archives of the local tribunals; however, the majority have been lost to the devastation of war, the ravages of time or other events. Jean-Pierre Dedieu has studied those of Toledo, where 12,000 were judged for offences related to heresy.[95] Ricardo Garca Crcel has analyzed those of the tribunal of Valencia.[96] These authors' investigations find that the Inquisition was most active in the period between 1480 and 1530, and that during this period the percentage condemned to death was much more significant than in the years studied by Henningsen and Contreras. Henry Kamen gives the number of about 2,000 executions in persona in the whole of Spain up to 1530.[97]

---

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
See wiki page for sources. The sources used data from original sources, not ravings of idiots and lunatics.

Read the sources. Present your sources.

His sources are not scholarly sources. Looking at them none of them seem to use any original source material. He is an anti-catholic using other anti-catholic writings as a source. All this paper is is a rehash of other anti-catholic writings. He repeats the writings unquestioningly. None of it is based on original source material.He is a computer professor, he has no training or expertise in historical research. It is amazing that no historian has presented such an interpretation of catholic killing of protestants. He is hatemongering nothing more.We have discussed this dreck on another thread. No need to rehash your inability to actually back up the figures with original source material.

The Spanish Inqusition was not a part of the Catholic Church. It was an office of the Spanish Crown. So the same argument you have for Henry holds for the Spanish Inquisition.

Faith will claim anyone deemed heretic before the Protestant reformation, were in fact Protestants, so therefore they qualify as examples.