# The British Empire Shame Thread



## Tommy Tainant

On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history

The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.

I am sure that you can find other examples.


----------



## defcon4

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> *The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.*
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.


Yes, also cannibals brought shame on the Maori....etc...etc...


----------



## aaronleland

You Brits should be ashamed. Us Americans have nothing like that in our history.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

What else can you expect from these "muslim savages" ?


----------



## TNHarley

The British suck. However, if they didn't, we could possibly be living there..
They have invaded almost every country on earth; played their part in the destabilization of the 
ME etc etc HOWEVER, a lot of statists should like Europe. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't be HALF as globalized without them!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot

Spreading the love in Kenya.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Even Guantanamo isnt quite that bad.


----------



## defcon4

Tommy Tainant said:


> Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot
> 
> Spreading the love in Kenya.
> 
> Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
> 
> Even Guantanamo isnt quite that bad.


What's your point dude? If it is in the past then how this generation could possibly be responsible for it?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

defcon4 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot
> 
> Spreading the love in Kenya.
> 
> Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
> 
> Even Guantanamo isnt quite that bad.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point dude? If it is in the past then how this generation could possibly be responsible for it?
Click to expand...


There are several points but I suppose the main one is that people are very quick to condemn one group in society for the actions of a few whilst ignoring the actions of others. Are the awful actions of ISIS any worse than those of the British, or American governments ?
I hate hypocrisy although I accept that much of it is based on ignorance.


----------



## Moonglow

I believe black bird pie is a fine example of British abuses...


----------



## CremeBrulee

Jallianwala Bagh massacre


----------



## defcon4

Tommy Tainant said:


> There are several points but I suppose the main one is that people are very quick to condemn one group in society for the actions of a few whilst ignoring the actions of others. *Are the awful actions of ISIS any worse than those of the British, or American governments ?*
> I hate hypocrisy although I accept that much of it is based on ignorance.


ISIS is in the present therefore it needs to be dealt with. What was in the past has been dealt with, move on dude. If you live in the past you will miss out on the present wasting your life.


----------



## defcon4

CremeBrulee said:


> Jallianwala Bagh massacre


Is that a rocket ship or a huge phallic symbol?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

That incident was covered in the film Gandhi. Typical that some elements of reactionary England should see him as a hero.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

defcon4 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several points but I suppose the main one is that people are very quick to condemn one group in society for the actions of a few whilst ignoring the actions of others. *Are the awful actions of ISIS any worse than those of the British, or American governments ?*
> I hate hypocrisy although I accept that much of it is based on ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is in the present therefore it needs to be dealt with. What was in the past has been dealt with, move on dude. If you live in the past you will miss out on the present wasting your life.
Click to expand...

Isis needs dealing with. However the overwhelming law abiding muslim majority does not need to be dealt with. Do you see the point I am making ? British government atrocities should not indict the vast majority of the British public and vice versa.
I also believe that the past has not been dealt with properly and that British misrule has caused much of the present mess the world is in.


----------



## defcon4

Tommy Tainant said:


> Isis needs dealing with. However the overwhelming law abiding muslim majority does not need to be dealt with. Do you see the point I am making ? British government atrocities should not indict the vast majority of the British public and vice versa.
> *I also believe that the past has not been dealt with properly *and that British misrule has caused much of the present mess the world is in.


I recommend you to go digging irrigation ditches in Kenya or something, maybe that will help you in attaining to peace within.


----------



## Correll

defcon4 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot
> 
> Spreading the love in Kenya.
> 
> Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
> 
> Even Guantanamo isnt quite that bad.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point dude? If it is in the past then how this generation could possibly be responsible for it?
Click to expand...



By tearing down British history and culture, he justifies the lack of concern the modern political elite has for maintain or protecting British culture or interests.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.

Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal


----------



## defcon4

Tommy Tainant said:


> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal


You are very determined to dig shit up not pertaining to our present world affairs. I'll just leave you wallowing in your misery.


----------



## Correll

Tommy Tainant said:


> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal




That has nothing to do with the British Empire. That was ended long before Thatcher was in charge.

Indeed, the only reason to post it is if this is NOT a historical discussion, but is a political attack on British heritage, as I said it was.

It is a damn shame I can't rank my own post as Winner of the Thread. Because I just won this thread.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the British Empire. That was ended long before Thatcher was in charge.
> 
> Indeed, the only reason to post it is if this is NOT a historical discussion, but is a political attack on British heritage, as I said it was.
> 
> It is a damn shame I can't rank my own post as Winner of the Thread. Because I just won this thread.
Click to expand...

Its the same people who ran the Empire. You understand very little about Britain.


----------



## Correll

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the British Empire. That was ended long before Thatcher was in charge.
> 
> Indeed, the only reason to post it is if this is NOT a historical discussion, but is a political attack on British heritage, as I said it was.
> 
> It is a damn shame I can't rank my own post as Winner of the Thread. Because I just won this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its the same people who ran the Empire. You understand very little about Britain.
Click to expand...


I understand perfectly.

You think that British history means that present day Brits do not have the right to craft policy that advances and protects their interests vs those of various traditionally disadvantaged peoples, whether domestically or internationally.

You are a bigot. YOu are holding current day Brits accountable for the actions of others who were of the same ethnic group as them.


----------



## Tilly

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the British Empire. That was ended long before Thatcher was in charge.
> 
> Indeed, the only reason to post it is if this is NOT a historical discussion, but is a political attack on British heritage, as I said it was.
> 
> It is a damn shame I can't rank my own post as Winner of the Thread. Because I just won this thread.
Click to expand...

There you go honey 
And all trolling Tommy, the Welsh pit pony, has done since he got here is lie about and trash the Brits. He's not an example of a typical Brit, but perhaps is a typical boyo, with all that bitterness and hatred


----------



## defcon4

Tilly said:


> There you go honey
> And all trolling Tommy, the Welsh pit pony, has done since he got here is lie about and trash the Brits. He's not an example of a typical Brit, but perhaps is a typical boyo, with all that bitterness and hatred


All I can say that Tommy is a very bitter and angry individual. He find happiness in his own misery. I really do not have any stake in his mumbling since I am not a Limey nor Kenyan or Indian. I just cannot understand this trend nowadays to dig up the past and hang the descendants of previous generations of whatever someone deems to be "unethical, cruel, barbaric, etc.." deed. It is a moronic worldwide phenomenon and I am sure it is a concerted effort.


----------



## whitehall

When the U.S. is attacked for some social impropriety or the U.S. Military is disrespected by an international poster I am ready to respond but I don't think this forum should sponsor something called a "British shame thread".


----------



## gtopa1

whitehall said:


> When the U.S. is attacked for some social impropriety or the U.S. Military is disrespected by an international poster I am ready to respond but I don't think this forum should sponsor something called a "British shame thread".



What shame?? The Africans had a slave trade in Egyptian times. How many Black minorities in Arab countries?? Any?? lol.

The Brits were excellent at killing foreigners. So who cares now?? Some smarmy small minded pommy dumpling!!! What a cretin!!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

whitehall said:


> When the U.S. is attacked for some social impropriety or the U.S. Military is disrespected by an international poster I am ready to respond but I don't think this forum should sponsor something called a "British shame thread".



So far he has gathered a support base of ONE!!! Says it all really.

Greg


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.



The British Empire was "great", apparently. Just as other empires and superpowers consider themselves "great". The British have managed to come to terms with their dark past, Americans on the other hand often don't come to terms with what is happening either.

If you're talking about internal policy - American government is really bad.
If you're talking foreign policy - American government is amazing and never does anything bad.

Or maybe it's just selective editing within the brain.


----------



## Meathead

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.


The biggest shame is what you, personally, have become.


----------



## Challenger

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.



Interesting thread and I agree, there are many deeds we should be ashamed of about the Empire, but there are equally also many things we can be proud of. 

At its greatest extent the Empire covered 12.7 million square miles, approximately 25% of Earth's land mass; we governed over 440 million people; the majority of whom in a fair and just manner. We were the world's banker; investing huge sums around the world. By the 1890's 44% of the world's capital investment portfolio was in British hands. We controlled virtually all the major sea lanes and trade routes. We took western style science, medicine, education and enlightenment to places it would never have gotten to, I could go on and on and on, but on balance I believe the Empire did more good than evil to the world throughout it's existance.


----------



## Maggdy

Tommy Tainant said:


> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.



“The Bards of Wales” by the Hungarian poet Janós Arany (1817-1882). 

History: Asked to write a poem of praise for the occasion of a visit to Budapest by Emperor Franz Joseph (only eight years after the Hapsburg empire crushed Hungary’s War of Independence), Arany chose to compose a ballad based on the ancient Welsh legend of how King Edward I of England had 500 Welsh bards executed for failing to sing his praises at a banquet in 1277. The message was unmistakable: the truth must be told, at whatever sacrifice.

"The composer, who will be conducting his own work, said: “I knew nothing about this poem 12 months ago. It’s written in Hungarian and all children in Hungary have to learn it at school...
... Mr Jenkins added: “I’ve been commissioned to set this in three languages – it is an English piece but there will be Welsh and Hungarian versions." Source: Tale of Welsh bards’ massacre taught to generations... in Hungary

KARL-posts (English)




> The bards of Wales (English)
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Rode on a dapple grey charger
> ‘I wish to know the worth’, said he,
> ‘of my Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Is the grass rich for sheep and ox,
> Are the soil and rivers good?
> And are my provinces watered well
> By rebel patriots’ blood?
> 
> And what of the people, the wretched people
> Do they seem a contented folk?
> Are they as docile, since I subdued them,
> As their oxen in their yoke?’
> 
> ‘Your Majesty Wales is the fairest jewel
> You have in all your crown,
> River and field and valley and hill
> Are the best you may come upon.
> 
> And as for the people, the wretched people,
> They live so happily, Sir,
> Like so many graves their hamlets stand
> And none there even stir.’
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Rode on a dapple grey charger,
> Around him silence which way he want
> In his Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Montgomery the castle’s name,
> Where he that night remained,
> The castle’s lord, Montgomery,
> His monarch entertained.
> 
> There was fish and flesh and whatever else
> To sight and taste seemed good,
> A rowdy throng, a hundred strong,
> Bore in the heavy load.
> 
> All kinds were there, that isle could bear
> Of meat and drink, with these
> was bubbling wine that sparkling shone,
> Carried from distant seas.
> 
> ‘Ye Lords! ye lords! will no one here
> His wine glass with me clink?
> Ye lords! ye lords! ye rude Welsh curs,
> Will none the King’s health drink?
> 
> There is fish and flesh and whatever else
> To sight and taste seem best,
> - That I can see, but the devil I know
> Dwells in each noble’s breast.
> 
> Ye lords! ye lords! ye vile Welsh curs,
> Come greet your Edward;
> Where is the man to sing my deeds
> A Welshman and a bard?’
> 
> Each night upon the other looked
> Of the guests assembled there;
> Upon their cheeks a furious rage
> Paled to a ghastly fear.
> 
> And strangled breath from lips like death
> Was all that could be heard;
> When, like a white defenceless dove
> Arose an ancient bard.
> 
> ‘Here there is one to tell thy deeds,’
> Chanted the ancient seer;
> ‘The clash of battle, the hoarse death rattle,
> The plucked strings made them hear.
> 
> The clash of battle, the hoarse death rattle,
> On blood the sun setting;
> The stench that drew night - prowling beasts.
> You did all this, O King!
> 
> Ten thousand of our people slain,
> The rest are gathering
> The corpses heaped like harvest stocks –
> You did all this, O King!’
> 
> ‘Off to the stake! this song’s too harsh’.
> Ordered King Edward.
> ‘Come, let us have a gentler tune’
> Forth stepped a young Welsh bard.
> 
> ‘Soft breezes sigh in the evening sky,
> O’er Milford Haven blown;
> Maids’ sobbing tears and widows’ prayers
> Within those breezes moan.’
> 
> ‘Don’t bear a race of slaves ye maids!
> Mothers give such no more!’
> The King spoke and the boy caught up
> The old man sent before.
> 
> But though unasked, yet recklessly
> Advanced, unmoved, a third
> His lyre’s fierce song, like the Welsh bard strong,
> And his word must be heard.
> 
> ‘Our bravest fell on the battle field,
> Listen O Edward -
> To sing the praises of your name
> There is not one Welsh bard!’
> 
> ‘One memory sobs within my lyre,
> Listen O Edward -
> A curse on your brow every song you hear
> From a Welshman and a bard!’
> 
> ‘Enough of this! I orders give’
> Answered the furious King,
> ‘To send to the stake all the bards of Wales
> Who thus against me sing!’
> 
> His servants till their task was done
> Their searching never ceased;
> Thus grimly in Montgomery,
> Ended that famous feast.
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Spurred his dapple grey charger.
> On the skies around, stakes burning stand
> In the Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Five hundred went to a flaming grave,
> And singing every bard.
> Not one of them was found to cry
> ‘Long live King Edward!’
> 
> What murmur is this in the London streets?
> What night song can this be?
> ‘I will have London’s Lord Mayor hanged
> If any noise troubles me’.
> 
> Within, a fly’s wing must not move,
> Outside all silence keep.
> ‘The man who speaks will lose his head
> The monarch cannot sleep.’
> 
> ‘No! Bring me the music of pipe and drum,
> And the trumpet’s brazen roar,
> For the curses I heard at the Welshman’s feast
> Ascend to my ears once more!’
> 
> But above the music of pipe and drum
> And the bugles’ strong refrain,
> Loud cry those witnesses of blood,
> Five hundred Welsh bards slain.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Maggdy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The Bards of Wales” by the Hungarian poet Janós Arany (1817-1882).
> 
> History: Asked to write a poem of praise for the occasion of a visit to Budapest by Emperor Franz Joseph (only eight years after the Hapsburg empire crushed Hungary’s War of Independence), Arany chose to compose a ballad based on the ancient Welsh legend of how King Edward I of England had 500 Welsh bards executed for failing to sing his praises at a banquet in 1277. The message was unmistakable: the truth must be told, at whatever sacrifice.
> 
> "The composer, who will be conducting his own work, said: “I knew nothing about this poem 12 months ago. It’s written in Hungarian and all children in Hungary have to learn it at school...
> ... Mr Jenkins added: “I’ve been commissioned to set this in three languages – it is an English piece but there will be Welsh and Hungarian versions." Source: Tale of Welsh bards’ massacre taught to generations... in Hungary
> 
> KARL-posts (English)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bards of Wales (English)
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Rode on a dapple grey charger
> ‘I wish to know the worth’, said he,
> ‘of my Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Is the grass rich for sheep and ox,
> Are the soil and rivers good?
> And are my provinces watered well
> By rebel patriots’ blood?
> 
> And what of the people, the wretched people
> Do they seem a contented folk?
> Are they as docile, since I subdued them,
> As their oxen in their yoke?’
> 
> ‘Your Majesty Wales is the fairest jewel
> You have in all your crown,
> River and field and valley and hill
> Are the best you may come upon.
> 
> And as for the people, the wretched people,
> They live so happily, Sir,
> Like so many graves their hamlets stand
> And none there even stir.’
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Rode on a dapple grey charger,
> Around him silence which way he want
> In his Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Montgomery the castle’s name,
> Where he that night remained,
> The castle’s lord, Montgomery,
> His monarch entertained.
> 
> There was fish and flesh and whatever else
> To sight and taste seemed good,
> A rowdy throng, a hundred strong,
> Bore in the heavy load.
> 
> All kinds were there, that isle could bear
> Of meat and drink, with these
> was bubbling wine that sparkling shone,
> Carried from distant seas.
> 
> ‘Ye Lords! ye lords! will no one here
> His wine glass with me clink?
> Ye lords! ye lords! ye rude Welsh curs,
> Will none the King’s health drink?
> 
> There is fish and flesh and whatever else
> To sight and taste seem best,
> - That I can see, but the devil I know
> Dwells in each noble’s breast.
> 
> Ye lords! ye lords! ye vile Welsh curs,
> Come greet your Edward;
> Where is the man to sing my deeds
> A Welshman and a bard?’
> 
> Each night upon the other looked
> Of the guests assembled there;
> Upon their cheeks a furious rage
> Paled to a ghastly fear.
> 
> And strangled breath from lips like death
> Was all that could be heard;
> When, like a white defenceless dove
> Arose an ancient bard.
> 
> ‘Here there is one to tell thy deeds,’
> Chanted the ancient seer;
> ‘The clash of battle, the hoarse death rattle,
> The plucked strings made them hear.
> 
> The clash of battle, the hoarse death rattle,
> On blood the sun setting;
> The stench that drew night - prowling beasts.
> You did all this, O King!
> 
> Ten thousand of our people slain,
> The rest are gathering
> The corpses heaped like harvest stocks –
> You did all this, O King!’
> 
> ‘Off to the stake! this song’s too harsh’.
> Ordered King Edward.
> ‘Come, let us have a gentler tune’
> Forth stepped a young Welsh bard.
> 
> ‘Soft breezes sigh in the evening sky,
> O’er Milford Haven blown;
> Maids’ sobbing tears and widows’ prayers
> Within those breezes moan.’
> 
> ‘Don’t bear a race of slaves ye maids!
> Mothers give such no more!’
> The King spoke and the boy caught up
> The old man sent before.
> 
> But though unasked, yet recklessly
> Advanced, unmoved, a third
> His lyre’s fierce song, like the Welsh bard strong,
> And his word must be heard.
> 
> ‘Our bravest fell on the battle field,
> Listen O Edward -
> To sing the praises of your name
> There is not one Welsh bard!’
> 
> ‘One memory sobs within my lyre,
> Listen O Edward -
> A curse on your brow every song you hear
> From a Welshman and a bard!’
> 
> ‘Enough of this! I orders give’
> Answered the furious King,
> ‘To send to the stake all the bards of Wales
> Who thus against me sing!’
> 
> His servants till their task was done
> Their searching never ceased;
> Thus grimly in Montgomery,
> Ended that famous feast.
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Spurred his dapple grey charger.
> On the skies around, stakes burning stand
> In the Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Five hundred went to a flaming grave,
> And singing every bard.
> Not one of them was found to cry
> ‘Long live King Edward!’
> 
> What murmur is this in the London streets?
> What night song can this be?
> ‘I will have London’s Lord Mayor hanged
> If any noise troubles me’.
> 
> Within, a fly’s wing must not move,
> Outside all silence keep.
> ‘The man who speaks will lose his head
> The monarch cannot sleep.’
> 
> ‘No! Bring me the music of pipe and drum,
> And the trumpet’s brazen roar,
> For the curses I heard at the Welshman’s feast
> Ascend to my ears once more!’
> 
> But above the music of pipe and drum
> And the bugles’ strong refrain,
> Loud cry those witnesses of blood,
> Five hundred Welsh bards slain.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sublime.


----------



## Picaro

Who is the British Empire supposed to be 'shamed' by? They were pretty tame and mild by the rest of the world's historical standards, and having been to many of their former colonies it's obvious their conquests did many of them a favor, especially compared to other empires, in fact compared to almost all other empires, really.

They left many of them way too soon, re Africa and the ME, obviously; that was largely Roosevelt's and America fault, though. That whole 'ending colonialism and setting up new independent democratic states' fad didn't work out well in most cases. That same 'laissez faire' mentality was also responsible for the post-Versailles European disaster as well. This brings to mind that scene in *Band of Brothers* where one of the actors was hollering 'what the hell were you thinking???' at the German POWs marching by.


----------



## Challenger

Maggdy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The Bards of Wales” by the Hungarian poet Janós Arany (1817-1882).
> 
> History: Asked to write a poem of praise for the occasion of a visit to Budapest by Emperor Franz Joseph (only eight years after the Hapsburg empire crushed Hungary’s War of Independence), Arany chose to compose a ballad based on the ancient Welsh legend of how King Edward I of England had 500 Welsh bards executed for failing to sing his praises at a banquet in 1277. The message was unmistakable: the truth must be told, at whatever sacrifice.
> 
> "The composer, who will be conducting his own work, said: “I knew nothing about this poem 12 months ago. It’s written in Hungarian and all children in Hungary have to learn it at school...
> ... Mr Jenkins added: “I’ve been commissioned to set this in three languages – it is an English piece but there will be Welsh and Hungarian versions." Source: Tale of Welsh bards’ massacre taught to generations... in Hungary
> 
> KARL-posts (English)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bards of Wales (English)
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Rode on a dapple grey charger
> ‘I wish to know the worth’, said he,
> ‘of my Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Is the grass rich for sheep and ox,
> Are the soil and rivers good?
> And are my provinces watered well
> By rebel patriots’ blood?
> 
> And what of the people, the wretched people
> Do they seem a contented folk?
> Are they as docile, since I subdued them,
> As their oxen in their yoke?’
> 
> ‘Your Majesty Wales is the fairest jewel
> You have in all your crown,
> River and field and valley and hill
> Are the best you may come upon.
> 
> And as for the people, the wretched people,
> They live so happily, Sir,
> Like so many graves their hamlets stand
> And none there even stir.’
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Rode on a dapple grey charger,
> Around him silence which way he want
> In his Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Montgomery the castle’s name,
> Where he that night remained,
> The castle’s lord, Montgomery,
> His monarch entertained.
> 
> There was fish and flesh and whatever else
> To sight and taste seemed good,
> A rowdy throng, a hundred strong,
> Bore in the heavy load.
> 
> All kinds were there, that isle could bear
> Of meat and drink, with these
> was bubbling wine that sparkling shone,
> Carried from distant seas.
> 
> ‘Ye Lords! ye lords! will no one here
> His wine glass with me clink?
> Ye lords! ye lords! ye rude Welsh curs,
> Will none the King’s health drink?
> 
> There is fish and flesh and whatever else
> To sight and taste seem best,
> - That I can see, but the devil I know
> Dwells in each noble’s breast.
> 
> Ye lords! ye lords! ye vile Welsh curs,
> Come greet your Edward;
> Where is the man to sing my deeds
> A Welshman and a bard?’
> 
> Each night upon the other looked
> Of the guests assembled there;
> Upon their cheeks a furious rage
> Paled to a ghastly fear.
> 
> And strangled breath from lips like death
> Was all that could be heard;
> When, like a white defenceless dove
> Arose an ancient bard.
> 
> ‘Here there is one to tell thy deeds,’
> Chanted the ancient seer;
> ‘The clash of battle, the hoarse death rattle,
> The plucked strings made them hear.
> 
> The clash of battle, the hoarse death rattle,
> On blood the sun setting;
> The stench that drew night - prowling beasts.
> You did all this, O King!
> 
> Ten thousand of our people slain,
> The rest are gathering
> The corpses heaped like harvest stocks –
> You did all this, O King!’
> 
> ‘Off to the stake! this song’s too harsh’.
> Ordered King Edward.
> ‘Come, let us have a gentler tune’
> Forth stepped a young Welsh bard.
> 
> ‘Soft breezes sigh in the evening sky,
> O’er Milford Haven blown;
> Maids’ sobbing tears and widows’ prayers
> Within those breezes moan.’
> 
> ‘Don’t bear a race of slaves ye maids!
> Mothers give such no more!’
> The King spoke and the boy caught up
> The old man sent before.
> 
> But though unasked, yet recklessly
> Advanced, unmoved, a third
> His lyre’s fierce song, like the Welsh bard strong,
> And his word must be heard.
> 
> ‘Our bravest fell on the battle field,
> Listen O Edward -
> To sing the praises of your name
> There is not one Welsh bard!’
> 
> ‘One memory sobs within my lyre,
> Listen O Edward -
> A curse on your brow every song you hear
> From a Welshman and a bard!’
> 
> ‘Enough of this! I orders give’
> Answered the furious King,
> ‘To send to the stake all the bards of Wales
> Who thus against me sing!’
> 
> His servants till their task was done
> Their searching never ceased;
> Thus grimly in Montgomery,
> Ended that famous feast.
> 
> Edward the King, the English King,
> Spurred his dapple grey charger.
> On the skies around, stakes burning stand
> In the Welsh lands over the border.
> 
> Five hundred went to a flaming grave,
> And singing every bard.
> Not one of them was found to cry
> ‘Long live King Edward!’
> 
> What murmur is this in the London streets?
> What night song can this be?
> ‘I will have London’s Lord Mayor hanged
> If any noise troubles me’.
> 
> Within, a fly’s wing must not move,
> Outside all silence keep.
> ‘The man who speaks will lose his head
> The monarch cannot sleep.’
> 
> ‘No! Bring me the music of pipe and drum,
> And the trumpet’s brazen roar,
> For the curses I heard at the Welshman’s feast
> Ascend to my ears once more!’
> 
> But above the music of pipe and drum
> And the bugles’ strong refrain,
> Loud cry those witnesses of blood,
> Five hundred Welsh bards slain.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


All well and good, but the British Empire didn't exist then, so if you open a thread on "English shame" this would be a more appropriate place to put it. In imperial times, however, I'm minded that the Welsh helped slaughter black men in Africa:  (It never happened that way, but makes a great cinema moment, and if you've never seen the film, it's worth watching the full 13 minutes)


----------



## Steven_R




----------



## Political Junky

Tommy Tainant said:


> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal


Oh my, the darling of the Right, Thatcher .. Disgusting.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Political Junky said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, the darling of the Right, Thatcher .. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Thatcher was quite welcoming of paedos. She was amoral I think the word is.


----------



## gtopa1

Tommy Tainant said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, the darling of the Right, Thatcher .. Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thatcher was quite welcoming of paedos. She was amoral I think the word is.
Click to expand...




> The full extent of the shocking links between three senior Labour figures and a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children can be exposed today.
> 
> The trio held key roles in a human rights organisation that supported the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.
> 
> Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her husband, home affairs spokesman Jack Dromey, and former health secretary Patricia Hewitt were all leading officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties.
> 
> Astonishingly this Left-wing group granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE and built close links with it.
> 
> The group of predatory paedophiles was calling for the age of consent to be cut to just four.



http://www.dailystormer.com/uk-3-senior-labour-politicians-linked-to-vile-pedophile-gang/

Your comment is nonsense of course.

Greg


----------



## The Great Goose

Erm. That was the Australia Day this year. Next one google plans a picture of Captain Arthur Philip pissing on the beach.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gtopa1 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, the darling of the Right, Thatcher .. Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thatcher was quite welcoming of paedos. She was amoral I think the word is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full extent of the shocking links between three senior Labour figures and a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children can be exposed today.
> 
> The trio held key roles in a human rights organisation that supported the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.
> 
> Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her husband, home affairs spokesman Jack Dromey, and former health secretary Patricia Hewitt were all leading officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties.
> 
> Astonishingly this Left-wing group granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE and built close links with it.
> 
> The group of predatory paedophiles was calling for the age of consent to be cut to just four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.dailystormer.com/uk-3-senior-labour-politicians-linked-to-vile-pedophile-gang/
> 
> Your comment is nonsense of course.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Why is it ? Because other politicians were also involved ? I dont think paedophilia recognises political distinctions.


----------



## The Great Goose

Tommy Tainant said:


> Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot
> 
> Spreading the love in Kenya.
> 
> Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
> 
> Even Guantanamo isnt quite that bad.


Hey, when in Rome..


----------



## Picaro

Posted elsewhere, but this OP being a similar sort of pissy sniveling ...

Pre-colonial era was no democratic paradise, our histories are records of brutal tyranny



> In Summary
> 
> 
> As we begin to debate who is a hero, we must also acknowledge our true history. A skewed history gives wrong heroes and wrong values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this year’s Mashujaa Day celebrations, President Uhuru Kenyatta cast as heroes those who resisted brutal colonial occupation and others who fought for Independence. He also mentioned Wangari Maathai and Professor Ali Mazrui as heroes. He conveniently forgot to say that the latter two did not just achieve international stature, they had also fought hard against the Kanu regime.
> 
> Uhuru’s narrative was a rehearsal of the official view of African history crafted by nationalism. According to this rendition, the pre-colonial era was a democratic paradise where various African communities lived harmoniously with each other, a state of affairs that was disrupted by an oppressive colonial occupation. After the defeat of colonialism, the story goes, Africa reclaimed its democratic traditions.
> 
> This idealistic retelling of African history is now official, documented in school history books and rehearsed during the marking of national days. The truth, however, is a lot more inconvenient for both our cultural nationalists and those who hold power, for the common denominator in all three historical eras — pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial — is brutal tyranny.



I would think the PC types would be praising the British for their respect for the local cultural norms and maintaining Kenya's age old traditions.


----------



## Steven_R

Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.


----------



## Mindful

gtopa1 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, the darling of the Right, Thatcher .. Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thatcher was quite welcoming of paedos. She was amoral I think the word is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full extent of the shocking links between three senior Labour figures and a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children can be exposed today.
> 
> The trio held key roles in a human rights organisation that supported the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.
> 
> Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her husband, home affairs spokesman Jack Dromey, and former health secretary Patricia Hewitt were all leading officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties.
> 
> Astonishingly this Left-wing group granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE and built close links with it.
> 
> The group of predatory paedophiles was calling for the age of consent to be cut to just four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.dailystormer.com/uk-3-senior-labour-politicians-linked-to-vile-pedophile-gang/
> 
> Your comment is nonsense of course.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


It's noticeable who started this thread. 

And it's attracted some of the "usual suspects"


----------



## Challenger

Steven_R said:


> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.



Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
Click to expand...


What have the British  done to you?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Challenger said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
Click to expand...

Any beneficial acts were incidental rather than part of any particular strategy. The aim of the Empire was to exploit the resources of the world for the benefit of the British ruling class. 
These places would have been better off left alone than subjected to the exploitation of the British Empire.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any beneficial acts were incidental rather than part of any particular strategy. The aim of the Empire was to exploit the resources of the world for the benefit of the British ruling class.
> These places would have been better off left alone than subjected to the exploitation of the British Empire.
Click to expand...


You can't put today's context onto the past.


----------



## Steven_R

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any beneficial acts were incidental rather than part of any particular strategy. The aim of the Empire was to exploit the resources of the world for the benefit of the British ruling class.
> These places would have been better off left alone than subjected to the exploitation of the British Empire.
Click to expand...


It would have been so much better to allow slavery to continue to exist, widows to be burned to death, no medicine, civil engineering, literacy, or international trade to be introduced to the whole world. Africa was such a paradise before the Europeans showed up.


----------



## Challenger

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any beneficial acts were incidental rather than part of any particular strategy. The aim of the Empire was to exploit the resources of the world for the benefit of the British ruling class.
> These places would have been better off left alone than subjected to the exploitation of the British Empire.
Click to expand...


So the exploitative activities of the Belgians in the Congo, Belgian Congo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the Germans in SW Africa Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would have been preferable? There was a "Scramble for Africa" If Britain hadn't "exploited" those resources other Europeans would have. We may have to be ashamed of some of the things we did, but I venture to suggest we were more "humane" exploiters than some others. Not sure why you want to single out the British Empire for opprobrium?


----------



## defcon4

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have the British  done to you?
Click to expand...

They bought some weekend houses in Wales...


----------



## Mindful

defcon4 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have the British  done to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They bought some weekend houses in Wales...
Click to expand...


Oh yes. Forgot about that.


----------



## Challenger

defcon4 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have the British  done to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They bought some weekend houses in Wales...
Click to expand...


...and the Welsh set fire to them.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have the British  done to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They bought some weekend houses in Wales...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and the Welsh set fire to them.
Click to expand...



That's common knowledge.


----------



## Picaro

Challenger said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
Click to expand...


We can also note the impressive numbers of former colonies who have freely chosen to remain in the Commonwealth, and send their scholars to English university.


----------



## Picaro

Mindful said:


> And it's attracted some of the "usual suspects"



That is one of my favorite movies. I watch it at least twice a year even now. 

The Usual Suspects (1995) - IMDb

30 Unusual facts about The Usual Suspects


----------



## Tilly

defcon4 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have the British  done to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They bought some weekend houses in Wales...
Click to expand...

Good point. Quite a shameful recent episode illustrating the hatred of the Welsh for the English (aka according to Tammy - the 'oppressors' *snicker*) and quite cowardly too.


----------



## bodecea

defcon4 said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jallianwala Bagh massacre
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a rocket ship or a huge phallic symbol?
Click to expand...

Yes...laugh at it.


----------



## Dhara

Moonglow said:


> I believe black bird pie is a fine example of British abuses...


Tripe is right up there for me.


----------



## Tilly

Dhara said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe black bird pie is a fine example of British abuses...
> 
> 
> 
> Tripe is right up there for me.
Click to expand...

You think we eat tripe and blackbirds


----------



## Dhara

Tilly said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe black bird pie is a fine example of British abuses...
> 
> 
> 
> Tripe is right up there for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think we eat tripe and blackbirds
Click to expand...

My granny sure did.  Tripe but not blackbirds.


----------



## Picaro

I've been to the UK many times, and found the food excellent. Don't know where the bad rep comes from, but obviously not from anybody who has been there. Many fine restaurants all over, even in the small villages.

Well, except for Scotland, that is.


----------



## defcon4

bodecea said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jallianwala Bagh massacre
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a rocket ship or a huge phallic symbol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...laugh at it.
Click to expand...

Who said I was laughing dear? I asked what symbol of the monument was based on. Lighten up.


----------



## Publius1787

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.



Lemme get this straight, The British seize Australia from a bunch of backwards uncivilized warring tribes and they owe an apology? Let me ask you something, if one aboriginal tribe was able to take over and cultivate Australia via destroying all the other aboriginal tribes do you think that Google would have ran an aboriginal doodle in remembrance of those fallen tribes? Of course not. So why do it to spite the British/Australians? Their skin is white? Their culture is different? Listen, it's a Machiavellian world out there and if you aren't improving your falling behind. If one nation/culture doesn't take advantage of an opportunity another will. The aborigines  fell into the same trap that so many less advanced peoples of the world did before them and it's a trap they themselves would have set on their lesser tribes had they the opportunity. Moreover, if the roles were reversed, they would have done the same to the Brits. The Brits owe an apology to no one. The victimization idea promoted in the op  is simply a leftist scheme to bring up dirt on their country or the countries of others to promote political agenda when there was no dirt to bring up in the first place. "Look look, look how awful they were .... The system is built on oppression, lets change the system." Yeah, its an old playbook indeed.


----------



## Steven_R

Bingo. Colonization was basically a game of "are you going to eat that?" Africa and Australia and the Americas held vast natural resources that the locals did nothing to exploit. While the Europeans were building Rome and Paris and London and Vienna, the Africans and Australians were still living in the Stone Age. The Europeans needed the resources, had the technology to simply take I and try to bring some enlightenment to savages. Sucks for the locals, but it's the same old story of two tribes with vastly differing technological levels and the lesser tribe loses. If anything those African, Australian, and American aborigines should count themselves lucky that they weren't simply wiped out by the victorious Europeans and that's before we even get into local tribes fucking over their neighboring tribes.

I read on a different board once "then they should have fought harder and invested in some post-Neolithic R&D." That about sums up my feelings on the matter.


----------



## Tilly

But, let's not forget, the OP has said outright that Isis is no worse than the US and UK gvmnts, so his hatred for the West is clear. He puts us on a par with heinous savages who are enslaving, raping, decapitating, immolating, and even raping and murdering toddlers RIGHT NOW, not centuries ago.  This stooooopid thread of his is just yet another example of his warped mind.


----------



## Tilly

Dhara said:


> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe black bird pie is a fine example of British abuses...
> 
> 
> 
> Tripe is right up there for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think we eat tripe and blackbirds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My granny sure did.  Tripe but not blackbirds.
Click to expand...

Ewwwww


----------



## Picaro

Never ate the English version of tripe, but I can't criticize it since I live in the Southwest and I love  good menudo.


----------



## StLucieBengal

As a US citizen I am pleased and proud that we were a British colony.   They certainly had the recipe for success.    The alternative was to be a Spanish or Dutch colony and we have seen how that has turned out in Central America.    

To shame the British empire is ridiculous.    Without them our world would look much darker and worse off.


----------



## StLucieBengal

Not to mention The fact they put forth the Magna Carta  is reason enough that they should be commended.   

To speak ill of them is just ridiculous considering of what they have brought to humanity and made today's world a better and much more civilized place.


----------



## gtopa1

Picaro said:


> Never ate the English version of tripe, but I can't criticize it since I live in the Southwest and I love  good menudo.



We LOVED tripe as kids. Can't stomach it now.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

defcon4 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jallianwala Bagh massacre
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a rocket ship or a huge phallic symbol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...laugh at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said I was laughing dear? I asked what symbol of the monument was based on. Lighten up.
Click to expand...


Looks like a penis.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any beneficial acts were incidental rather than part of any particular strategy. The aim of the Empire was to exploit the resources of the world for the benefit of the British ruling class.
> These places would have been better off left alone than subjected to the exploitation of the British Empire.
Click to expand...


Nah; I like living in Oz. Much better weather than Wrexham!!

Greg


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot
> 
> Spreading the love in Kenya.
> 
> Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
> 
> Even Guantanamo isnt quite that bad.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point dude? If it is in the past then how this generation could possibly be responsible for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several points but I suppose the main one is that people are very quick to condemn one group in society for the actions of a few whilst ignoring the actions of others. Are the awful actions of ISIS any worse than those of the British, or American governments ?
> I hate hypocrisy although I accept that much of it is based on ignorance.
Click to expand...


OK, Tommy ... what were you hoping for, as a result of your thread ?

'Awful actions' is how you describe what ISIS get up to. Yet ... you wanted this thread, obviously, to reflect an equivalence between the old British Empire and the present-day actions of ISIS. 

So ... WHY, Tommy ? 

You dig up old history - which you may be painting as darker than it really is - and want people to reflect upon history long-since dead and buried. The obvious point is to claim an equivalence between the old Empire and the likes of ISIS today. Why do this, unless you're trying to foment some sort of 'guilt trip' meant to neutralise our resolve to properly tackle ISIS ?

Are we meant to say that the actions of ancestors from several generations ago, for which current generations hold NO responsibility *AT ALL*, must stop us from seeing the evil of ISIS and doing something about it in the present-day world ??

Tommy, you _could_ take the line that, now, we are much better than our ancestors, and therefore eminently fitted to deal with ISIS. This, Tommy, would be the proper and useful line to take. Instead ... what ? We must wallow in your self-contrived guilt trip and think ourselves unfit to do anything on the world stage ?

We are not our ancestors, Tommy. Regardless of any rights or wrongs committed in the long-ago past, the REAL world, *NOW*, has issues requiring solutions. 

_Would you rather we all ran away from those 'issues' ? _

*And, if we did ... would a 'Tommy' from a future generation post a thread on a discussion site berating us for the 'shameful chapter in our history' when we failed to act ??*

Think on that, Tommy ...


----------



## Two Thumbs

defcon4 said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jallianwala Bagh massacre
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a rocket ship or a huge phallic symbol?
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## Mindful

Is this the self flagellating thread? It's the fashion these days.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the British doing stuff like stopping Indian widows from becoming kindling on their husband's funeral pyre. Or ending the African slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also supressing the Thugee cult, allegedly "the most destructive terrorist group in history". Thuggee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I suspect that for every "evil" act committed by the British Empire, you could find at least one "good" or "beneficial" act to compensate. Ultimately, the Empire was what it was, like all empires, neither glorious nor abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any beneficial acts were incidental rather than part of any particular strategy. The aim of the Empire was to exploit the resources of the world for the benefit of the British ruling class.
> These places would have been better off left alone than subjected to the exploitation of the British Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the exploitative activities of the Belgians in the Congo, Belgian Congo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the Germans in SW Africa Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would have been preferable? There was a "Scramble for Africa" If Britain hadn't "exploited" those resources other Europeans would have. We may have to be ashamed of some of the things we did, but I venture to suggest we were more "humane" exploiters than some others. Not sure why you want to single out the British Empire for opprobrium?
Click to expand...


Cut out the posh words.


----------



## Toro

Thank God for the British Empire. 

Without them, we'd all be speaking fucking French!


----------



## Tilly

Mindful said:


> Is this the self flagellating thread? It's the fashion these days.


Tammy isn't really self flaggelating at all, he's really just blaming the English - the English who 'oppress' him. Lol.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.

The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.

It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.

Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?


----------



## Mindful

English blimps.

Lmao.


----------



## ChrisL

Tommy Tainant said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot
> 
> Spreading the love in Kenya.
> 
> Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
> 
> Even Guantanamo isnt quite that bad.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point dude? If it is in the past then how this generation could possibly be responsible for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several points but I suppose the main one is that people are very quick to condemn one group in society for the actions of a few whilst ignoring the actions of others. *Are the awful actions of ISIS any worse than those of the British, or American governments ?*
> I hate hypocrisy although I accept that much of it is based on ignorance.
Click to expand...


Yes!


----------



## boedicca

Google is a 21st Century Empire which is should feel Shame, but is incapable of such honest introspection.




7264 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Challenger

Tommy Tainant said:


> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?



I think the point is "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". The 18th and 19th centuries were ages of European empires and the technical dominance of Europe as a whole. Colonies provided raw materials and ready markets for what Europe produced. Were natives exploited? Yes, undoubtedly but they were also given access to western education, medicine and science. There was also outward investment in the colonies including infrastructure projects that benefited both colonisers and colonised. Benefits may have been "incidental" but that made them no less real or ultimately valuable to the colonies themselves.

I agree however with your comments regarding the "shit sandwich" that was left when the colonial empires were dismantled after WW2, but here our American cousins must bear their share of responsibility as they have taken over the role of "world policeman" only to find it's not that easy a role to fulfill.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?



Not only isn't it a 'competition', it can't meaningfully be one, either.

ISIS has, according to you, a long way to go to match the curse of the Empire ??? I see. You're seriously telling me that ISIS, when they behead captives, when they destroy cultural heritages, when they enslave womenfolk, when they commit their terrorist acts and take over territory by force, give the populations they meet a BETTER time of it than our old Empire did ? 

They introduce a kinder, more law-abiding regime, than the Empire ever did ?

Tommy - you'll doubtless leap on this post and make all sorts of accusations which insult our long-dead past, and favour ISIS  !! But the fact of the matter is that, comparatively speaking, YOU ARE FAVORING ISIS ! 

In passing -- would you care to provide a list of any other Muslim terrorist groups you'd like to be supportive of ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only isn't it a 'competition', it can't meaningfully be one, either.
> 
> ISIS has, according to you, a long way to go to match the curse of the Empire ??? I see. You're seriously telling me that ISIS, when they behead captives, when they destroy cultural heritages, when they enslave womenfolk, when they commit their terrorist acts and take over territory by force, give the populations they meet a BETTER time of it than our old Empire did ?
> 
> They introduce a kinder, more law-abiding regime, than the Empire ever did ?
> 
> Tommy - you'll doubtless leap on this post and make all sorts of accusations which insult our long-dead past, and favour ISIS  !! But the fact of the matter is that, comparatively speaking, YOU ARE FAVORING ISIS !
> 
> In passing -- would you care to provide a list of any other Muslim terrorist groups you'd like to be supportive of ?
Click to expand...

I am not supportive of any terrorist group. Why do you twist my words in this way ?


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only isn't it a 'competition', it can't meaningfully be one, either.
> 
> ISIS has, according to you, a long way to go to match the curse of the Empire ??? I see. You're seriously telling me that ISIS, when they behead captives, when they destroy cultural heritages, when they enslave womenfolk, when they commit their terrorist acts and take over territory by force, give the populations they meet a BETTER time of it than our old Empire did ?
> 
> They introduce a kinder, more law-abiding regime, than the Empire ever did ?
> 
> Tommy - you'll doubtless leap on this post and make all sorts of accusations which insult our long-dead past, and favour ISIS  !! But the fact of the matter is that, comparatively speaking, YOU ARE FAVORING ISIS !
> 
> In passing -- would you care to provide a list of any other Muslim terrorist groups you'd like to be supportive of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not supportive of any terrorist group. Why do you twist my words in this way ?
Click to expand...


He said *Muslim* terrorist group.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only isn't it a 'competition', it can't meaningfully be one, either.
> 
> ISIS has, according to you, a long way to go to match the curse of the Empire ??? I see. You're seriously telling me that ISIS, when they behead captives, when they destroy cultural heritages, when they enslave womenfolk, when they commit their terrorist acts and take over territory by force, give the populations they meet a BETTER time of it than our old Empire did ?
> 
> They introduce a kinder, more law-abiding regime, than the Empire ever did ?
> 
> Tommy - you'll doubtless leap on this post and make all sorts of accusations which insult our long-dead past, and favour ISIS  !! But the fact of the matter is that, comparatively speaking, YOU ARE FAVORING ISIS !
> 
> In passing -- would you care to provide a list of any other Muslim terrorist groups you'd like to be supportive of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not supportive of any terrorist group. Why do you twist my words in this way ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said *Muslim* terrorist group.
Click to expand...

That would probably come under the catch all of "any terrorist group".


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only isn't it a 'competition', it can't meaningfully be one, either.
> 
> ISIS has, according to you, a long way to go to match the curse of the Empire ??? I see. You're seriously telling me that ISIS, when they behead captives, when they destroy cultural heritages, when they enslave womenfolk, when they commit their terrorist acts and take over territory by force, give the populations they meet a BETTER time of it than our old Empire did ?
> 
> They introduce a kinder, more law-abiding regime, than the Empire ever did ?
> 
> Tommy - you'll doubtless leap on this post and make all sorts of accusations which insult our long-dead past, and favour ISIS  !! But the fact of the matter is that, comparatively speaking, YOU ARE FAVORING ISIS !
> 
> In passing -- would you care to provide a list of any other Muslim terrorist groups you'd like to be supportive of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not supportive of any terrorist group. Why do you twist my words in this way ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said *Muslim* terrorist group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would probably come under the catch all of "any terrorist group".
Click to expand...


Why didn't you say it?


----------



## idb

Interesting thread but I'm struggling to find the point of it.
Are you suggesting that committing atrocities in the name of creating an empire is historically justified?


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". The 18th and 19th centuries were ages of European empires and the technical dominance of Europe as a whole. Colonies provided raw materials and ready markets for what Europe produced. Were natives exploited? Yes, undoubtedly but they were also given access to western education, medicine and science. There was also outward investment in the colonies including infrastructure projects that benefited both colonisers and colonised. Benefits may have been "incidental" but that made them no less real or ultimately valuable to the colonies themselves.
> 
> I agree however with your comments regarding the "shit sandwich" that was left when the colonial empires were dismantled after WW2, but here our American cousins must bear their share of responsibility as they have taken over the role of "world policeman" only to find it's not that easy a role to fulfill.
Click to expand...


A lot of us do NOT want America to take such a role.  I would rather let the Europeans deal with it.


----------



## Steven_R

The Europeans no longer have the capability, let along the will. WW1 just destroyed Europe and WW2 just finished off the job.

I actually just finished The First World War by John Keegan. It was excellent. If you have the time, check out this Youtube channel The Great War and Dan Carlin's podcast Blueprint for Armeggedon Hardcore History 50 – Blueprint for Armageddon I


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only isn't it a 'competition', it can't meaningfully be one, either.
> 
> ISIS has, according to you, a long way to go to match the curse of the Empire ??? I see. You're seriously telling me that ISIS, when they behead captives, when they destroy cultural heritages, when they enslave womenfolk, when they commit their terrorist acts and take over territory by force, give the populations they meet a BETTER time of it than our old Empire did ?
> 
> They introduce a kinder, more law-abiding regime, than the Empire ever did ?
> 
> Tommy - you'll doubtless leap on this post and make all sorts of accusations which insult our long-dead past, and favour ISIS  !! But the fact of the matter is that, comparatively speaking, YOU ARE FAVORING ISIS !
> 
> In passing -- would you care to provide a list of any other Muslim terrorist groups you'd like to be supportive of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not supportive of any terrorist group. Why do you twist my words in this way ?
Click to expand...


Islamic terrorists are the lowest of the low, Tommy. So low are they, that I struggle to even see them as 'human' at all (I usually fail, in fact). In the face of this reality, you have the gall to so much as hint that ISIS is better than the British Empire was.

What else can that add up to, than an attempt to sanitise peoples' perception of ISIS ? And why else would you do that, unless you want to suggest that ISIS is more deserving of being seen favourably, than our old - *AND LONG DEAD !!! *- British Empire !

The very fact of resurrecting something long dead and buried, so you are then able to introduce any laughable case for saying that the most vicious Islamic terrorists around today are perceivable as 'better' (!!!) ... cannot be anything but a considerable stretch made to view them with unsupportable favour.

I suggest this: your hatreds, your prejudices, have led you to this. To exercise them is an exercise in extremist thought, as well as total illogic. The British Empire is *dead*.So is the dodo - *dead*. So are dinosaurs - *dead*. Why not make a case for saying that ISIS behave better than a Tyrannosaurus Rex usually did, if he was having an 'off' day .. ?

Start a thread on it ... 'ISIS v Jurassic Era: a critique'. See for yourself how much sense that would make to anyone.


----------



## Mindful

God save the Queen and the flat hats!


----------



## yiostheoy

StLucieBengal said:


> As a US citizen I am pleased and proud that we were a British colony.   They certainly had the recipe for success.    The alternative was to be a Spanish or Dutch colony and we have seen how that has turned out in Central America.
> 
> To shame the British empire is ridiculous.    Without them our world would look much darker and worse off.


Correct.  The Brit's at least treated their overseas subjects no worse than their homeland subjects in London or Dublin.

The Americans actually had it quite good.

I'm still surprised they rebelled at all.

It was expensive for the King to defend his worldwide colonies against the French and Indians.

Perhaps he just hit the colonists too hard all at once with his taxation ?!

The USA would have gotten their freedom eventually.  Heck even Canada got theirs and they were loyalists to the very end.


----------



## yiostheoy

Mindful said:


> God save the Queen and the flat hats!


Since her son the Crown Prince is such a fokking philanderer, I hope that God saves her until Charles is too feeble to ascend the thrown over there.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.



The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.

The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.


----------



## yiostheoy

Tommy Tainant said:


> Any benefits of the empire were incidental. Countries exploited for their assets,people slaughtered, and so on.
> 
> The real damage of the empire is in the shit sandwich it has left the world to deal with today. Not least the risible pride that the english blimps take in it.
> 
> It is where the racist attitudes of today come from.
> 
> Isis has a long way to go to match the curse of the empire, but its not a competition is it ?


The benefits of colonization were massive for the English.

It gave them a place to escape to from England where they could start over, clear land, build homes, plant farms, raise livestock, eat, drink, and be Merry Olde Englishmen.

Of course the Native Americans were pissed about losing their land.  And that created the need for militias.

And being in communications with each other, the settlers needed a Congress of some kind to govern themselves.

This all led to an American tax revolt in 1775 and their Declaration Of Independence in 1776 with its Locke-esque "natural philosophy" built into it.

The rest is history.

Since then almost all monarchies have been discarded and representative government with all its drawbacks and weaknesses is the norm everywhere.

Think again.  The impact was astronomical.


----------



## Mindful

yiostheoy said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a US citizen I am pleased and proud that we were a British colony.   They certainly had the recipe for success.    The alternative was to be a Spanish or Dutch colony and we have seen how that has turned out in Central America.
> 
> To shame the British empire is ridiculous.    Without them our world would look much darker and worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  The Brit's at least treated their overseas subjects no worse than their homeland subjects in London or Dublin.
> 
> The Americans actually had it quite good.
> 
> I'm still surprised they rebelled at all.
> 
> It was expensive for the King to defend his worldwide colonies against the French and Indians.
> 
> Perhaps he just hit the colonists too hard all at once with his taxation ?!
> 
> The USA would have gotten their freedom eventually.  Heck even Canada got theirs and they were loyalists to the very end.
Click to expand...


Just because you wouldn't foot the bill for the French/Indian War.

What do you mean, Freedom? You weren't Americans then. And becoming them was a long process.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.
> 
> The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.
Click to expand...

I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:

Akkadians
Assyrians
Babylonians
Egyptians
Persians
Greeks
Romans
Byzantines
Arabs
Venetians
Portuguese
Spanish
English
French
Germans
Russians
Japanese
Americans
Chinese
North Koreans
Israelis
Palestinians
Arabs again

Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.


----------



## Mindful

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.
> 
> The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:
> 
> Akkadians
> Assyrians
> Babylonians
> Egyptians
> Persians
> Greeks
> Romans
> Byzantines
> Arabs
> Venetians
> Portuguese
> Spanish
> English
> French
> Germans
> Russians
> Japanese
> Americans
> Chinese
> North Koreans
> Israelis
> Palestinians
> Arabs again
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.
Click to expand...


They beat us at cricket.


----------



## yiostheoy

Mindful said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a US citizen I am pleased and proud that we were a British colony.   They certainly had the recipe for success.    The alternative was to be a Spanish or Dutch colony and we have seen how that has turned out in Central America.
> 
> To shame the British empire is ridiculous.    Without them our world would look much darker and worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  The Brit's at least treated their overseas subjects no worse than their homeland subjects in London or Dublin.
> 
> The Americans actually had it quite good.
> 
> I'm still surprised they rebelled at all.
> 
> It was expensive for the King to defend his worldwide colonies against the French and Indians.
> 
> Perhaps he just hit the colonists too hard all at once with his taxation ?!
> 
> The USA would have gotten their freedom eventually.  Heck even Canada got theirs and they were loyalists to the very end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you wouldn't foot the bill for the French/Indian War.
> 
> What do you mean, Freedom? You weren't Americans then. And becoming them was a long process.
Click to expand...

Correct -- the French And Indian War was the first de facto world war in history, and it was very expensive for the King.

The Native North American tribes had freedom, but without guns they could not defend it.

They never evolved beyond the Stone Age to a Bronze or Iron Age unfortunately for them and lucky for the European settlers.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.
> 
> The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:
> 
> Akkadians
> Assyrians
> Babylonians
> Egyptians
> Persians
> Greeks
> Romans
> Byzantines
> Arabs
> Venetians
> Portuguese
> Spanish
> English
> French
> Germans
> Russians
> Japanese
> Americans
> Chinese
> North Koreans
> Israelis
> Palestinians
> Arabs again
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.
Click to expand...


Really? How long have they been at war with Pakistan for? Kashmir?


----------



## Dr Grump

Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.
> 
> The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:
> 
> Akkadians
> Assyrians
> Babylonians
> Egyptians
> Persians
> Greeks
> Romans
> Byzantines
> Arabs
> Venetians
> Portuguese
> Spanish
> English
> French
> Germans
> Russians
> Japanese
> Americans
> Chinese
> North Koreans
> Israelis
> Palestinians
> Arabs again
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How long have they been at war with Pakistan for? Kashmir?
Click to expand...

Is that a crime ??


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.
> 
> The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:
> 
> Akkadians
> Assyrians
> Babylonians
> Egyptians
> Persians
> Greeks
> Romans
> Byzantines
> Arabs
> Venetians
> Portuguese
> Spanish
> English
> French
> Germans
> Russians
> Japanese
> Americans
> Chinese
> North Koreans
> Israelis
> Palestinians
> Arabs again
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How long have they been at war with Pakistan for? Kashmir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a crime ??
Click to expand...


Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.
> 
> The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:
> 
> Akkadians
> Assyrians
> Babylonians
> Egyptians
> Persians
> Greeks
> Romans
> Byzantines
> Arabs
> Venetians
> Portuguese
> Spanish
> English
> French
> Germans
> Russians
> Japanese
> Americans
> Chinese
> North Koreans
> Israelis
> Palestinians
> Arabs again
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How long have they been at war with Pakistan for? Kashmir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a crime ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.
Click to expand...

Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.

At this point I am prone to side with India.

After all it was not India that UBL was hiding in, in full view, slaughtering goats and growing vegetables in a multi million dollar compound.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same with any superpower, they get there by trampling on others.
> 
> The US, the USSR, England, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Germans, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the others.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:
> 
> Akkadians
> Assyrians
> Babylonians
> Egyptians
> Persians
> Greeks
> Romans
> Byzantines
> Arabs
> Venetians
> Portuguese
> Spanish
> English
> French
> Germans
> Russians
> Japanese
> Americans
> Chinese
> North Koreans
> Israelis
> Palestinians
> Arabs again
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How long have they been at war with Pakistan for? Kashmir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a crime ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
Click to expand...


Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons? 

I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Dr Grump said:


> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...



Yeah, they were Great.

Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better list that goes back all the way to the beginning of history:
> 
> Akkadians
> Assyrians
> Babylonians
> Egyptians
> Persians
> Greeks
> Romans
> Byzantines
> Arabs
> Venetians
> Portuguese
> Spanish
> English
> French
> Germans
> Russians
> Japanese
> Americans
> Chinese
> North Koreans
> Israelis
> Palestinians
> Arabs again
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list is India.  India has never hurt anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How long have they been at war with Pakistan for? Kashmir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a crime ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
Click to expand...

Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
Click to expand...

Name some genocides.

It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.

But in this case I am happy with a footnote.

Go on ... .


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How long have they been at war with Pakistan for? Kashmir?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a crime ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
Click to expand...


You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name some genocides.
> 
> It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.
> 
> But in this case I am happy with a footnote.
> 
> Go on ... .
Click to expand...


Well, against the Australian peoples.

Report details crimes against Aborigines - World Socialist Web Site

"The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present."

British Genocides - New British Empire

Here's a whole website.

*NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives
NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians
AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania 
KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising
BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine

And more....... 
*
As for it would help to show stuff. Maybe, however my experience is you don't bother because half the people on here won't read past the first sentence. So until you find who you're dealing with, you keep it short and don't waste time proving things that will go unnoticed.


----------



## jillian

frigidweirdo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
Click to expand...


when did britain commit genocide?

i'm also not sure where you get the idea that some of the people on your list were imperialists.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name some genocides.
> 
> It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.
> 
> But in this case I am happy with a footnote.
> 
> Go on ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, against the Australian peoples.
> 
> Report details crimes against Aborigines - World Socialist Web Site
> 
> "The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present."
> 
> British Genocides - New British Empire
> 
> Here's a whole website.
> 
> *NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives
> NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians
> AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania
> KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising
> BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine
> 
> And more.......
> *
> As for it would help to show stuff. Maybe, however my experience is you don't bother because half the people on here won't read past the first sentence. So until you find who you're dealing with, you keep it short and don't waste time proving things that will go unnoticed.
Click to expand...

You're ranting about Mother Nature.

Mother Nature was not kind to native North Americans or Meso Americans or South Americans.

Germs killed most of them off.

The British did not kill any of them off.

The French enlisted the Indians for their world war against the British.

Thus the Indians became French pawns.

Blame France.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a crime ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
Click to expand...

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.


----------



## Dr Grump

frigidweirdo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
Click to expand...


Yeah. The Brits did real bad. Look at all those terrible former colonies that are total basket cases these days. Canada. Australia. US. New Zealand. India. South Africa. Unlike the Spanish colonies. Or French. Or Belgian. Or Portuguese.


----------



## StLucieBengal

frigidweirdo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
Click to expand...


They came in and people assimilated to them.    The exact opposite happened with the Spanish and Dutch. Who tried to integrate with the native cultures.      

You can't pull people out of the back woods unless they change and advance themselves.     

Just look at the differences of North America vs Central America?    

As for genocide and theft.....    There was no native Indian genocide in North America.    And there was no theft, as far as I am concerned they took their lands From weaker tribes and lost their lands to a stronger group.    What's funny is that we were able to take most of the land by paying them off and they left peacefully.  

As for you.... Stop reading Howard Zinn it rots your brain.


----------



## StLucieBengal

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name some genocides.
> 
> It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.
> 
> But in this case I am happy with a footnote.
> 
> Go on ... .
Click to expand...


The delay must be that he is going back to his Howard Zinn book collection to look it up.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jillian said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when did britain commit genocide?
> 
> i'm also not sure where you get the idea that some of the people on your list were imperialists.
Click to expand...


See post 112


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name some genocides.
> 
> It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.
> 
> But in this case I am happy with a footnote.
> 
> Go on ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, against the Australian peoples.
> 
> Report details crimes against Aborigines - World Socialist Web Site
> 
> "The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present."
> 
> British Genocides - New British Empire
> 
> Here's a whole website.
> 
> *NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives
> NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians
> AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania
> KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising
> BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine
> 
> And more.......
> *
> As for it would help to show stuff. Maybe, however my experience is you don't bother because half the people on here won't read past the first sentence. So until you find who you're dealing with, you keep it short and don't waste time proving things that will go unnoticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ranting about Mother Nature.
> 
> Mother Nature was not kind to native North Americans or Meso Americans or South Americans.
> 
> Germs killed most of them off.
> 
> The British did not kill any of them off.
> 
> The French enlisted the Indians for their world war against the British.
> 
> Thus the Indians became French pawns.
> 
> Blame France.
Click to expand...


I'm not ranting and I'm not talking about mother nature. YOU ARE. 

The British had policies that were Genocide. Please note that you don't even need to kill in order to commit genocide. However the British went into the Americas and by the time 1776 and all that had happened and the British were out of there (except Canada) they'd killed and destroyed quite a few Native American groups, but they also set in motion what the Americans would then do. 

Some of the famines, like one in what is now Bangladesh and India, was a case of the British moving food out of the area and allowing people to starve to death.


----------



## Mindful

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name some genocides.
> 
> It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.
> 
> But in this case I am happy with a footnote.
> 
> Go on ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, against the Australian peoples.
> 
> Report details crimes against Aborigines - World Socialist Web Site
> 
> "The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present."
> 
> British Genocides - New British Empire
> 
> Here's a whole website.
> 
> *NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives
> NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians
> AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania
> KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising
> BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine
> 
> And more.......
> *
> As for it would help to show stuff. Maybe, however my experience is you don't bother because half the people on here won't read past the first sentence. So until you find who you're dealing with, you keep it short and don't waste time proving things that will go unnoticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ranting about Mother Nature.
> 
> Mother Nature was not kind to native North Americans or Meso Americans or South Americans.
> 
> Germs killed most of them off.
> 
> The British did not kill any of them off.
> 
> The French enlisted the Indians for their world war against the British.
> 
> Thus the Indians became French pawns.
> 
> Blame France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ranting and I'm not talking about mother nature. YOU ARE.
> 
> The British had policies that were Genocide. Please note that you don't even need to kill in order to commit genocide. However the British went into the Americas and by the time 1776 and all that had happened and the British were out of there (except Canada) they'd killed and destroyed quite a few Native American groups, but they also set in motion what the Americans would then do.
> 
> Some of the famines, like one in what is now Bangladesh and India, was a case of the British moving food out of the area and allowing people to starve to death.
Click to expand...


Gosh. What a murderous blood thirsty lot.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
Click to expand...


Not big enough? 

It's 3 million people. 

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list. 

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big. 

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.


----------



## StLucieBengal

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
Click to expand...


So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Dr Grump said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. The Brits did real bad. Look at all those terrible former colonies that are total basket cases these days. Canada. Australia. US. New Zealand. India. South Africa. Unlike the Spanish colonies. Or French. Or Belgian. Or Portuguese.
Click to expand...


Canada, Australia, New Zealand took over the land, replaced the people. South Africa kept most of the people but then the Boers took over and well, that went well, didn't it? 

The British also made Iraq. How'd that work out? Oh, they put a SAUDI in as king, they hated him, the Ba'ath Party took over, Saddam took over the Ba'ath Party in Iraq. 
Afghanistan, went in twice, got kicked out twice. 
India. Well, second largest population in the world, not doing very well.
Pakistan. Wellllllllll, I don't see many people thinking Pakistan's doing so well....

Oh, I could go on all day. 






The others generally didn't take over and remove the native population, or at least push them as far away as to make them not a problem. 

Oh, Britain invented concentration camps in Kenya..... wonderful.


----------



## Dot Com

Tommy Tainant said:


> Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal


Thats outrageous and unacceptable and Quelle surprise!!! it was a Tory


----------



## frigidweirdo

StLucieBengal said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
Click to expand...


Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that. 

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.


----------



## StLucieBengal

The Britishî and French made Iraq with with Sykes-picot.      It really was genius because it kept the Muslims fighting themselves.    Now since Obama and Clinton has let almost every secular dictator be overthrown except when they didn't support Iran rebels ....    Thanks valerie Jarrett...

The Muslims are now running amuck in the west like animals.


----------



## StLucieBengal

frigidweirdo said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...


Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.    

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.


----------



## frigidweirdo

StLucieBengal said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They came in and people assimilated to them.    The exact opposite happened with the Spanish and Dutch. Who tried to integrate with the native cultures.
> 
> You can't pull people out of the back woods unless they change and advance themselves.
> 
> Just look at the differences of North America vs Central America?
> 
> As for genocide and theft.....    There was no native Indian genocide in North America.    And there was no theft, as far as I am concerned they took their lands From weaker tribes and lost their lands to a stronger group.    What's funny is that we were able to take most of the land by paying them off and they left peacefully.
> 
> As for you.... Stop reading Howard Zinn it rots your brain.
Click to expand...


Assimilated? Really? 

So it's okay for the strong to take from the weak. 

It was okay for Hitler to take from the Jews as he was strong and they were relatively weak? No genocide there then. No Genocide in Russia against the Cossacks, the Ukranians, the Russias were the strongest there. 
The trail of tears wasn't genocide because the natives were weak and just deserved to die?

You need to read up on what genocide is. 

Convention on Genocide

This is what Genocide is:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Basically Genocide is an attempt at destroying a group of people, either physically or on any other way. If you destroy a culture without killing people, it's genocide. What's left of native cultures in the US? Nothing. The destruction of the buffalo was genocide, because it led to the destruction of native ways of living.


----------



## frigidweirdo

StLucieBengal said:


> The Britishî and French made Iraq with with Sykes-picot.      It really was genius because it kept the Muslims fighting themselves.    Now since Obama and Clinton has let almost every secular dictator be overthrown except when they didn't support Iran rebels ....    Thanks valerie Jarrett...
> 
> The Muslims are now running amuck in the west like animals.



Oh, genius, the Muslims fighting themselves, oh, except when Saddam was in, and they didn't like that, so invaded, then the Muslims decided to fight the others too, and then the westerners get pissed when the Muslims start attacking them, then the westerners BLAME THE FUCKING MUSLIMS for the problem the westerners caused in the first place.

FUCKING GENIUS>


----------



## frigidweirdo

StLucieBengal said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> 
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
Click to expand...


Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
Click to expand...


Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.
Click to expand...


To be honest, I know Wales, I knew someone who's mother was in charge of hospitals, from Labour, and a former trade union woman, and she oversaw a period when the rest of the country was getting a better NHS but the Welsh NHS was going downhill. 

I don't have much faith in their politicians at all.


----------



## StLucieBengal

frigidweirdo said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
Click to expand...


Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.


----------



## frigidweirdo

StLucieBengal said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.


----------



## StLucieBengal

frigidweirdo said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.
Click to expand...


Pro southern?   

What is pro southern about sending more subsidy to Scotland than to England, Wales, or NI?


----------



## Picaro

StLucieBengal said:


> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.



We already have the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia as a current fun example, along with past examples like the Wiemar Republic in 1932, Iran in 1978, the former Soviet Union's assorted failed states, etc., etc. down a long long list. Scotland wouldn't be as bad as all that but nonetheless they would soon be looking to latch on to another 'partnership' within just a few weeks of imaginary' freedom from oppression n Stuff'. There is an historical reason why states trend to bigger political federations and coalitions and trade groupings  rather than smaller ones; the latter are usually a product of failures of one sort or another, including weakening moral values and rampant corruption. The Danes wouldn't be anywhere near 'the happiest people in Europe' if it weren't for a political umbrella of modern states that keeps the 'rain' of unpleasant realities off their backs, for instance. I do admire their current govt.'s attempt at keeping the violent invaders at heel despite all the snivelings from assorted Danish versions of Tommy Tainteds.


----------



## Mindful

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, I know Wales, I knew someone who's mother was in charge of hospitals, from Labour, and a former trade union woman, and she oversaw a period when the rest of the country was getting a better NHS but the Welsh NHS was going downhill.
> 
> I don't have much faith in their politicians at all.
Click to expand...


Have they got any?

Oh yes; that bloke who's challenging Jeremy Corbyn for  the Labour leadership.


----------



## Picaro

Lol some loser actually posted that ridiculous 'smallpox blanket' hoax again. Some people never get the memos from their local Commissars, directing them to drop the old lies and take up the new ones like the good little drones and muppets they aspire to be.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.
Click to expand...


There's only so much you can earn from a proliferation of male voice choirs, Tommy.

I've one solution for any jobless total in Wales. How about ... the jobless are roped into one almightily massive effort to demolish all the hills ??? I for one am sick to the back teeth of climbing them all, just to get from point A to B !!

In London, in the borough I came from, it had one sizeable hill. The local council saw to it that it was knocked down.

But as my life now stands .. just two streets away, is a road with such a steep incline that in winter - I kid you not !! - it'd be easy to slide right down it during snowfall. Literally, no need to walk .. just use a pair of skis ... and pretend that nobody would ever have to climb it !!!


----------



## Picaro

Yes! A 'Flatten Wales' movement sounds like just the thing Tommy needs to occupy his lack of enough to do all day but whine about Brits, Yanks and assorted other never-do-wells. A fitting crusade that fits his abilities and annoys his neighbors.


----------



## Drummond

Picaro said:


> Yes! A 'Flatten Wales' movement sounds like just the thing Tommy needs to occupy his lack of enough to do all day but whine about Brits, Yanks and assorted other never-do-wells. A fitting crusade that fits his abilities and annoys his neighbors.



Actually, his neighbours would probably fall over themselves to thank him.

I think I'll put it as second on my all-time wish list. Which begins with ...

PERSONAL LIFETIME WISH-LIST ...

1. See the world rid of the blight of Socialism, once and for all ... see it reviled every bit as much as Hitler's variant, 'National Socialism', currently is.

2. Forget the Flat Earth Society. I propose a *'Flatten Wales' Society* .. dedicated to relieving the population of Wales of the burden of perpetual backbreaking hill-climbing, or, death-defying mandatory ski-ing activities in winter (... and that's just the old age pensioners ...) Not to mention making TV and radio signals far more reliable ...


----------



## frigidweirdo

StLucieBengal said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro southern?
> 
> What is pro southern about sending more subsidy to Scotland than to England, Wales, or NI?
Click to expand...


You're the one talking about subsidies, not me. I'm talking about jobs, the economy, things that actually matter. 

Because of the oil industry Scotland ends up giving a lot of money to Westminster. 

Westminster charges Scotland billions of pounds in service costs - Business for Scotland

Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth - Scotland pays its way in the Union

"
*Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth - Scotland pays its way in the Union*"

The problem in the UK, not just for Scotland, but also the North of England, is that it is very London heavy. The fast train line from the North to London was set up by Labour who saw the need for it, to try and change this. The Tories wanted none of it, and got rid of it with a campaign of how expensive it was. Yeah, who wants to pay money to move economic power away from their areas?


----------



## Dr Grump

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> Yeah. The Brits did real bad. Look at all those terrible former colonies that are total basket cases these days. Canada. Australia. US. New Zealand. India. South Africa. Unlike the Spanish colonies. Or French. Or Belgian. Or Portuguese.
> 
> Canada, Australia, New Zealand took over the land, replaced the people. South Africa kept most of the people but then the Boers took over and well, that went well, didn't it?
> 
> The British also made Iraq. How'd that work out? Oh, they put a SAUDI in as king, they hated him, the Ba'ath Party took over, Saddam took over the Ba'ath Party in Iraq.
> Afghanistan, went in twice, got kicked out twice.
> India. Well, second largest population in the world, not doing very well.
> Pakistan. Wellllllllll, I don't see many people thinking Pakistan's doing so well....
> 
> Oh, I could go on all day.
> 
> 
> 
> The others generally didn't take over and remove the native population, or at least push them as far away as to make them not a problem.
> 
> Oh, Britain invented concentration camps in Kenya..... wonderful.



At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Dr Grump said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Yeah. The Brits did real bad. Look at all those terrible former colonies that are total basket cases these days. Canada. Australia. US. New Zealand. India. South Africa. Unlike the Spanish colonies. Or French. Or Belgian. Or Portuguese.
> 
> Canada, Australia, New Zealand took over the land, replaced the people. South Africa kept most of the people but then the Boers took over and well, that went well, didn't it?
> 
> The British also made Iraq. How'd that work out? Oh, they put a SAUDI in as king, they hated him, the Ba'ath Party took over, Saddam took over the Ba'ath Party in Iraq.
> Afghanistan, went in twice, got kicked out twice.
> India. Well, second largest population in the world, not doing very well.
> Pakistan. Wellllllllll, I don't see many people thinking Pakistan's doing so well....
> 
> Oh, I could go on all day.
> 
> 
> 
> The others generally didn't take over and remove the native population, or at least push them as far away as to make them not a problem.
> 
> Oh, Britain invented concentration camps in Kenya..... wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.
Click to expand...

But all of them have been treated like shit.


----------



## Dr Grump

Tommy Tainant said:


> But all of them have been treated like shit.



To a degree. And most modern govts that were part of the British Empire are trying to rectify it. In our case (NZ) the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 and is still valid today. Go figure

BTW, before you get all tearful about the poor 'indigenous' peoples, in the case of Maori in NZ, they were kicking the shit out of each other long before whitey arrived on the scene. They weren't the nobel savage skipping through the forest picking berries. Some of the worst cultures for genocide were pre-Colombian Central and South America. The Incas, Mayans and Aztecs sacrificed millions in the names of their gods.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

StLucieBengal said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro southern?
> 
> What is pro southern about sending more subsidy to Scotland than to England, Wales, or NI?
Click to expand...

The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?


----------



## yiostheoy

Dr Grump said:


> At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.


Colonization was an unintended consequence of seafaring.

Seafaring by the Portuguese to Africa and India was to work around the Arabs who had conquered the North African trade routes and would not permit free travel without taking high piratic tolls.

So the Portuguese (Prince Henry the Navigator) worked their way around Africa and eventually Vasco De Gama made it to India.

Then all of a fluke Christoforo Colombo decided to sail West not Southeast to get there, knowing that the ancient Greeks had determined the Earth to be either a cylinder or a globe.

That gave rise to the discovery of a new hemisphere which was the fabled Atlantis of ancient Greek myth.

Atlantis was fabled to have rich cities, and so Colombo and Cortez searched for gold and silver.

The gold turned out to be in Meso American and the silver in South America.  The natives wore it on their bodies.  It spelled their doom.  Had they never mined any gold they would have never been conquered.

From that point on, colonization was irresistible indeed.

South America was irresistible for silver.

Meso America was irresistible for gold.

And North America was irresistible for furs.  Then for homesteading by the crowded Dutch and English.  The fur trade remained the primary export of North America, and then also tobacco.


----------



## Dr Grump

Tommy Tainant said:


> The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?



But they voted to stay. Their call. Not Westminster's...


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
Click to expand...

I vote for India.  Great democratic nation.  Very trustworthy.

And UBL was not hiding there right under the government's noses.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Those little beet farm countries are not wedged between 2 nuclear superpowers such as India and Pakistan.

They can grow their sugar beets until hell freezes over and it would make no difference because the Serbs being Russian Orthodox have already murdered all the Muslim Bosniaks and Croats.

Russia, France, and England are the nearest superpowers and far away.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Dr Grump said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they voted to stay. Their call. Not Westminster's...
Click to expand...

The landscape has changed since then. Every area of Scotland voted to remain. English votes will take them out of the EU. Membership was a big issue during the independence debate. Its worth them taking another look at it as the negotiations unwind.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a crime ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
Click to expand...

Right now they mostly and usually get it (legitimacy) from the U.N.

Occasionally the Russians will roll their tanks and mobile artillery in and that will give legitimacy too.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name some genocides.
> 
> It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.
> 
> But in this case I am happy with a footnote.
> 
> Go on ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, against the Australian peoples.
> 
> Report details crimes against Aborigines - World Socialist Web Site
> 
> "The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present."
> 
> British Genocides - New British Empire
> 
> Here's a whole website.
> 
> *NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives
> NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians
> AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania
> KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising
> BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine
> 
> And more.......
> *
> As for it would help to show stuff. Maybe, however my experience is you don't bother because half the people on here won't read past the first sentence. So until you find who you're dealing with, you keep it short and don't waste time proving things that will go unnoticed.
Click to expand...

Your claims against the British are false.

I should mute you right now by putting you on the ignore list.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.
> 
> Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom.  It would be fun to see if this could work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro southern?
> 
> What is pro southern about sending more subsidy to Scotland than to England, Wales, or NI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?
Click to expand...


Who forced them to become a part of, then continue on as, part of the UK ?

You might remember that they had a Referendum ? How did that turn out ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Dr Grump said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Yeah. The Brits did real bad. Look at all those terrible former colonies that are total basket cases these days. Canada. Australia. US. New Zealand. India. South Africa. Unlike the Spanish colonies. Or French. Or Belgian. Or Portuguese.
> 
> Canada, Australia, New Zealand took over the land, replaced the people. South Africa kept most of the people but then the Boers took over and well, that went well, didn't it?
> 
> The British also made Iraq. How'd that work out? Oh, they put a SAUDI in as king, they hated him, the Ba'ath Party took over, Saddam took over the Ba'ath Party in Iraq.
> Afghanistan, went in twice, got kicked out twice.
> India. Well, second largest population in the world, not doing very well.
> Pakistan. Wellllllllll, I don't see many people thinking Pakistan's doing so well....
> 
> Oh, I could go on all day.
> 
> 
> 
> The others generally didn't take over and remove the native population, or at least push them as far away as to make them not a problem.
> 
> Oh, Britain invented concentration camps in Kenya..... wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.
Click to expand...


Native populations aren't actually doing that well, are they? I mean in the US they ended up being fed with alcohol and forced onto plantations. In Australia they've had problems like in New Zealand. They basically can have a good life but feel like they've been taken over. 

Many of those who didn't have the native populations replaced hit the shit pile. 

I mean, according to the UN, GDP per capita, Somalia (part of which was British ruled) is at the bottom, the Burundi (German controlled), then Malawi, British controlled, a couple of French controlled countries, The Gambia, British Controlled. 

It doesn't seem to matter who controlled who, the bottom of the pile is a lot of these countries that were occupied, being controlled by the British didn't make your country any better.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they were Great.
> 
> Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name some genocides.
> 
> It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.
> 
> But in this case I am happy with a footnote.
> 
> Go on ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, against the Australian peoples.
> 
> Report details crimes against Aborigines - World Socialist Web Site
> 
> "The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present."
> 
> British Genocides - New British Empire
> 
> Here's a whole website.
> 
> *NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives
> NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians
> AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania
> KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising
> BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine
> 
> And more.......
> *
> As for it would help to show stuff. Maybe, however my experience is you don't bother because half the people on here won't read past the first sentence. So until you find who you're dealing with, you keep it short and don't waste time proving things that will go unnoticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims against the British are false.
> 
> I should mute you right now by putting you on the ignore list.
Click to expand...


Wow, you say my claims are false, but not WHY. Then you claim you're going to put me on ignore because.... well because you don't like what I have to say. Then, if you're not willing to listen, you might as well put me on ignore.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?
> 
> I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote for India.  Great democratic nation.  Very trustworthy.
> 
> And UBL was not hiding there right under the government's noses.
Click to expand...


How is India great? It has a massive problem with sleazy men, too many people live in absolute poverty and despair and it doesn't seem to be changing any time soon, while China is powering forwards without being restrained by things like democracy.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro southern?
> 
> What is pro southern about sending more subsidy to Scotland than to England, Wales, or NI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who forced them to become a part of, then continue on as, part of the UK ?
> 
> You might remember that they had a Referendum ? How did that turn out ?
Click to expand...


It was close though. If there wasn't this whole sectarian nonsense there, they'd have probably have voted to leave.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?
> 
> 
> 
> The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.
> 
> My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.
> 
> And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.
> 
> UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not big enough?
> 
> It's 3 million people.
> 
> That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.
> 
> Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.
> 
> India is more responsible? *You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. *Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.
> 
> I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those little beet farm countries are not wedged between 2 nuclear superpowers such as India and Pakistan.
> 
> They can grow their sugar beets until hell freezes over and it would make no difference because the Serbs being Russian Orthodox have already murdered all the Muslim Bosniaks and Croats.
> 
> Russia, France, and England are the nearest superpowers and far away.
Click to expand...


"little beet farm countries", you're going to have to explain.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc Parry

Britains gulag.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc Parry
> 
> Britains gulag.



So what are you going to do about it?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc Parry
> 
> Britains gulag.



... H'm. I don't think anyone could ever credibly 'accuse' you of patriotic feeling, Tommy ... you seem very determined to paint the UK in the darkest light you can. 

Mindful's question is an excellent one. I echo it. What ARE you going to do about it ?


----------



## Picaro

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc Parry
> 
> Britains gulag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you going to do about it?
Click to expand...


Pretend that neither he or his ancestors ever benefited personally, and he's going to see to it all you 'Other People' pay dearly for whatever it is he thinks you're guilty of. 

And Stuff.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc Parry
> 
> Britains gulag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... H'm. I don't think anyone could ever credibly 'accuse' you of patriotic feeling, Tommy ... you seem very determined to paint the UK in the darkest light you can.
> 
> Mindful's question is an excellent one. I echo it. What ARE you going to do about it ?
Click to expand...

Mindfuls question is on the intellectual level of an infant. In truth there is very little any of us can do over events that happened a long time back.
All the principals will now be dead.
What we can all do is be honest about our countries role in all of this and stop fantasising about some bullshit golden age of empire.
Is that within your skillset ?


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc Parry
> 
> Britains gulag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... H'm. I don't think anyone could ever credibly 'accuse' you of patriotic feeling, Tommy ... you seem very determined to paint the UK in the darkest light you can.
> 
> Mindful's question is an excellent one. I echo it. What ARE you going to do about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindfuls question is on the intellectual level of an infant. In truth there is very little any of us can do over events that happened a long time back.
> All the principals will now be dead.
> What we can all do is be honest about our countries role in all of this and stop fantasising about some bullshit golden age of empire.
> Is that within your skillset ?
Click to expand...


Oops. 

I must be doing something right.

Rule Britannia!


----------



## PredFan

In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.

People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.

The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.


----------



## Picaro

PredFan said:


> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.



Well, part of the problem with historical discussions is that most of the savages and cretins either don't have a tradition of writing histories or are illiterates, while Europe has hundreds of years of documentation and written references that can be cited endlessly over and over, giving a completely distorted and one-sided view of it all, for one. This elaboration of context and cautionary advice when studying history used to be a mandatory preliminary warning for first year History and Political Science students in both high schools and universities, but no longer.


----------



## PredFan

Picaro said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, part of the problem with historical discussions is that most of the savages and cretins either don't have a tradition of writing histories or are illiterates, while Europe has hundreds of years of documentation and written references that can be cited endlessly over and over, giving a completely distorted and one-sided view of it all, for one. This elaboration of context and cautionary advice when studying history used to be a mandatory preliminary warning for first year History and Political Science students in both high schools and universities, but no longer.
Click to expand...


What you say is absolutely true. For instance the Huns had no written history at all and everything we know about Attilla and the Huns was written by the people he conquered.

Still, there is plenty of evidence in ancient dig sites that can confirm the brutal shortness of life and the cruel things people did to each other. You can't judge ancient times by today's standards and values, yet that it exactly what we are doing.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

PredFan said:


> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.


Were they using a different bible for guidance ?


----------



## PredFan

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.
> 
> 
> 
> Were they using a different bible for guidance ?
Click to expand...


Yeah, but not much different. Is this the "Bible shame thread" or the "Great Britain" shame thread?

Their motovation has little to do with anything. You think the Moors conquered Southern Spain because the bible said so? What bible did Attilla the Hun use?

All the way up to as recent as the early 20th century, life was brutal, rulers were  vicious tyrants, and everyone was at war with somebody.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

PredFan said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.
> 
> 
> 
> Were they using a different bible for guidance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but not much different. Is this the "Bible shame thread" or the "Great Britain" shame thread?
> 
> Their motovation has little to do with anything. You think the Moors conquered Southern Spain because the bible said so? What bible did Attilla the Hun use?
> 
> All the way up to as recent as the early 20th century, life was brutal, rulers were  vicious tyrants, and everyone was at war with somebody.
Click to expand...

Technology made the C20th more brutal than any before it.

The empire builders were motivated by greed and that hasnt changed since the dawn of time.

The british empire was supposedly a christian empire and killing and stealing were not allowed back then either. Similarly in the US. Greed and self interest built the country and not christian values.


----------



## PredFan

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.
> 
> 
> 
> Were they using a different bible for guidance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but not much different. Is this the "Bible shame thread" or the "Great Britain" shame thread?
> 
> Their motovation has little to do with anything. You think the Moors conquered Southern Spain because the bible said so? What bible did Attilla the Hun use?
> 
> All the way up to as recent as the early 20th century, life was brutal, rulers were  vicious tyrants, and everyone was at war with somebody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technology made the C20th more brutal than any before it.
> 
> The empire builders were motivated by greed and that hasnt changed since the dawn of time.
> 
> The british empire was supposedly a christian empire and killing and stealing were not allowed back then either. Similarly in the US. Greed and self interest built the country and not christian values.
Click to expand...


I never argued that. I'm only saying that those times weren't like today. The British Empire was not the only brutal nation, just the most successful.  Ever heard of the Roman Empire? The Persian Empire? Alexander the Great? Attilla the Hun? Do you know the wars that factions and dynasties fought in China for millennia?

You are looking at history through the prism of today's values. And you have tunnel vision to boot.


----------



## Picaro

PredFan said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.
> 
> 
> 
> Were they using a different bible for guidance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but not much different. Is this the "Bible shame thread" or the "Great Britain" shame thread?
> 
> Their motovation has little to do with anything. You think the Moors conquered Southern Spain because the bible said so? What bible did Attilla the Hun use?
> 
> All the way up to as recent as the early 20th century, life was brutal, rulers were  vicious tyrants, and everyone was at war with somebody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technology made the C20th more brutal than any before it.
> 
> The empire builders were motivated by greed and that hasnt changed since the dawn of time.
> 
> The british empire was supposedly a christian empire and killing and stealing were not allowed back then either. Similarly in the US. Greed and self interest built the country and not christian values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never argued that. I'm only saying that those times weren't like today. The British Empire was not the only brutal nation, just the most successful.  Ever heard of the Roman Empire? The Persian Empire? Alexander the Great? Attilla the Hun? Do you know the wars that factions and dynasties fought in China for millennia?
> 
> You are looking at history through the prism of today's values. And you have tunnel vision to boot.
Click to expand...


Of course Tommy, like the rest of the PC Nazis, will never ever bring up  by far and away the absolute worst of the savagery and brutalisms, ongoing for centuries and still a factor today, the Islamist massacres and savagery, which made the Holocaust look like a schoolyard yelling match. They outdo everybody in history, and there is simply no remotely comparable record of atrocities anywhere, even in China and SE Asia, noted for their 'creativity' in ways to torture each other. Typical.


----------



## Picaro

As for the 'evul Xians' they were far less murderous, despite the sniveling bullshit narratives popular today. So were the Romans as well, when compared to their typical enemy cultures, most of which were into human sacrifices of infants and other wonderful pastimes so admired by hippies and assorted degenerates.

The British at their worst were a bunch of candy assed pacifists compared to the average African and Asian 'cultures', and that is even more true today, no need to go back far at all.


----------



## Mindful

A Sikkimese woman carrying a British man on her back.

Shame on you, Tommy.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Picaro said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case as in the case with the US, ignorant people look at history through the prism of today's values. Those who know true history, know that those times were brutal, life was short and sometimes not valued. This was true throughout the world.
> 
> People today look at the successful countries like GB and the USA, and criticise them for being mean to lesser nations. They don't know or think about how cruel and brutal those nations whereas well. Those countries just weren't as successful, and everyone looks at them as poor innocent victims. Native Americans are a fine example of that. Today, ignorant people think that the "Indians" of those days were peaceful, honorable, trusting inhabitants who lived in harmony with the land, and were innocent of violence and cruelty until the white man came along.
> 
> The truth is very different. There is no shame for GB, no shame for the US. There is just today.
> 
> 
> 
> Were they using a different bible for guidance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but not much different. Is this the "Bible shame thread" or the "Great Britain" shame thread?
> 
> Their motovation has little to do with anything. You think the Moors conquered Southern Spain because the bible said so? What bible did Attilla the Hun use?
> 
> All the way up to as recent as the early 20th century, life was brutal, rulers were  vicious tyrants, and everyone was at war with somebody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technology made the C20th more brutal than any before it.
> 
> The empire builders were motivated by greed and that hasnt changed since the dawn of time.
> 
> The british empire was supposedly a christian empire and killing and stealing were not allowed back then either. Similarly in the US. Greed and self interest built the country and not christian values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never argued that. I'm only saying that those times weren't like today. The British Empire was not the only brutal nation, just the most successful.  Ever heard of the Roman Empire? The Persian Empire? Alexander the Great? Attilla the Hun? Do you know the wars that factions and dynasties fought in China for millennia?
> 
> You are looking at history through the prism of today's values. And you have tunnel vision to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Tommy, like the rest of the PC Nazis, will never ever bring up  by far and away the absolute worst of the savagery and brutalisms, ongoing for centuries and still a factor today, the Islamist massacres and savagery, which made the Holocaust look like a schoolyard yelling match. They outdo everybody in history, and there is simply no remotely comparable record of atrocities anywhere, even in China and SE Asia, noted for their 'creativity' in ways to torture each other. Typical.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could list the *"Islamist massacres and savagery, which made the Holocaust look like a schoolyard yelling match."*
I actually think you are talking through your arse.


----------



## barryqwalsh

Mindful said:


> A Sikkimese woman carrying a British man on her back.
> 
> Shame on you, Tommy.


She was honored to do it!


----------



## barryqwalsh

Tory MP sparks backlash claiming 'British Empire' won the Olympics


----------



## ThirdTerm

Britain withdrew from Asia only after the myth of British invincibility was completely shattered after the fall of Singapore and the British could no longer believe that British rule could be sustained in Asia in the post-war era. Subject peoples under British rule were under the illusion that white troops would never be defeated and they did not even think about rising up against British rule. As a result, the British rarely committed atrocities to maintain the empire, such as the Mau Mau massacre in the 1950s. Moreover, local ruling elites were in cahoots with the British, working as colonial administrators on their behalf. Overall, it was a benign and liberal empire.


----------



## Yarddog

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.





Well, its good to not be Brittish!  I thank my lucky stars.


----------



## Yarddog

Tommy Tainant said:


> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.





Rotten British teeth are the laughing stock of the world, TV doctor says


----------



## Tommy Tainant

barryqwalsh said:


> View attachment 86830
> 
> Tory MP sparks backlash claiming 'British Empire' won the Olympics


Breathtaking. These people actually do exist.


----------



## Mindful

Yarddog said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotten British teeth are the laughing stock of the world, TV doctor says
Click to expand...


You should take a look at the state of the swamp people in Louisiana.


----------



## Mindful

Yarddog said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, its good to not be Brittish!  I thank my lucky stars.
Click to expand...


So do I. 

More so that you can't even spell it properly.


----------



## Tommy Tainant




----------



## Meathead

Tammy has no idea how far the British Empire has fallen. Conquerors, great thinkers and law-givers have given way to fudge-packers with Muslim boyfriends.


----------



## Yarddog

Mindful said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotten British teeth are the laughing stock of the world, TV doctor says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the state of the swamp people in Louisiana.
Click to expand...



Sure,   but take note of the strong French influence there,  and if You had to cross all those gators and pythons, you wouldn't be going to make it to Walgreens for floss right quickly on a regular basis!   

meanwhile the British have exported bad teeth around the globe


----------



## Mindful

Yarddog said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotten British teeth are the laughing stock of the world, TV doctor says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the state of the swamp people in Louisiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,   but take note of the strong French influence there,  and if You had to cross all those gators and pythons, you wouldn't be going to make it to Walgreens for floss right quickly on a regular basis!
> 
> meanwhile the British have exported bad teeth around the globe
Click to expand...


They're saying now that floss doesn't work.


----------



## Mindful

It's a big myth.

British teeth are no worse than US smiles, say researchers


----------



## Tilly

Tommy Tainant said:


> View attachment 86857


Some kids in Wales have never even owned a toothbrush, Going by the General state of Tammy, I suspect he was one of them.  How they drag us down. Lol.

*Two-thirds of Welsh children have tooth decay, warns worrying new report*

Wales is lagging behind England when it comes to the proportion of children suffering tooth decay, a new survey has revealed.

The Children’s Dental Health (CDH) Survey 2013 found that 63% of 15-year-olds in Wales have tooth decay compared with 41% across the border.

And 22% of Welsh children aged between five and 15 showed severe or extensive decay – 10% more than English children in the same age bracket.

It also found that one in nine Welsh children has lost a tooth due to decay by the age of 15, with just one in three children in Wales of all ages having good oral health.

Two-thirds of Welsh children have tooth decay, warns report


----------



## Yarddog

Mindful said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotten British teeth are the laughing stock of the world, TV doctor says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the state of the swamp people in Louisiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,   but take note of the strong French influence there,  and if You had to cross all those gators and pythons, you wouldn't be going to make it to Walgreens for floss right quickly on a regular basis!
> 
> meanwhile the British have exported bad teeth around the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're saying now that floss doesn't work.
Click to expand...


the water pic does work better


----------



## Tilly

Yarddog said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Australia Day, Google is giving the country a reminder of its dark history
> 
> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> 
> I am sure that you can find other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotten British teeth are the laughing stock of the world, TV doctor says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the state of the swamp people in Louisiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,   but take note of the strong French influence there,  and if You had to cross all those gators and pythons, you wouldn't be going to make it to Walgreens for floss right quickly on a regular basis!
> 
> meanwhile the British have exported bad teeth around the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're saying now that floss doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the water pic does work better
Click to expand...

I love my water pic.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.
> I am sure that you can find other examples.



Blaming the Turks for the slaughter of British troops at Balaclava.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> There are several points but I suppose the main one is that people are very quick to condemn one group in society for the actions of a few whilst ignoring the actions of others.


Too true.



Tommy Tainant said:


> Are the awful actions of ISIS any worse than those of the British, or American governments ?


No.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> View attachment 86857


And your cousins across the pond:


----------



## eflatminor

Tommy Tainant said:


> The actions of the British Empire brought shame on Britain.



I agree.  If a group that never evolved out of the stone age do not wish to embrace modernity, they ought to be left alone.  Personally, I would welcome things like indoor plumbing, but it's their choice.  Let 'em shit in woods.


----------



## Picaro

Tommy Tainant said:


> I actually think you are talking through your arse.



You wouldn't read it, so why ask such pointless questions of people? You haven't read the bible, yet you're in here babbling some 'point' or other with zero context or any indication you've read it, Tommy.

We suggested a nice hobby to keep you occupied and in line with your abilities, *Flatten Wales*, so stay focused on that instead of starting threads on topics you have no background at all in.


----------



## Picaro

ThirdTerm said:


> Britain withdrew from Asia only after the myth of British invincibility was completely shattered after the fall of Singapore and the British could no longer believe that British rule could be sustained in Asia in the post-war era. Subject peoples under British rule were under the illusion that white troops would never be defeated and they did not even think about rising up against British rule. As a result, the British rarely committed atrocities to maintain the empire, such as the Mau Mau massacre in the 1950s. Moreover, local ruling elites were in cahoots with the British, working as colonial administrators on their behalf. Overall, it was a benign and liberal empire.



Don't know that the first points are true; most armies know they aren't 'invincible', and in the case of the British their colonial presence was pretty small as far as white Brits presence; India had maybe 10,000 Brits running around on average for most of its rule there, hardly a fearsome presence in so large a country. But yes, they were indeed very benign relative to the kind of rulers the locals were before the Brits came along. As for China, the Euros and Yanks were all concentrated in tiny seaboard enclaves, and didn't actually 'rule' much at all.


----------



## ThirdTerm

That point was made in this book and his latest publication also touched on the subject. In old days, coloured peoples were so used to be ruled by European colonists that they could never imagine that European troops would be defeated and expelled from Asia someday, thus ushering in a new era without European colonialism. It could have been much uglier, if there had been frequent uprisings and IRA-type terrorism targeting the British.


----------



## Picaro

ThirdTerm said:


> That point was made in this book and his latest publication also touched on the subject. In old days, coloured peoples were so used to be ruled by European colonists that they could never imagine that European troops would be defeated and expelled from Asia someday, thus ushering in a new era without European colonialism. It could have been much uglier, if there had been frequent uprisings and IRA-type terrorism targeting the British.




I've read those; they both like to ignore the point that the Brits, as well as the Dutch and Portuguese, and even Spain to a lesser extent, could 'dominate' their respective colonies with so few soldiers and administrators is because for those peoples the colonials were a far better option than their usual local fare of rulers.


----------



## GLASNOST

ThirdTerm said:


> Britain *withdrew* from Asia only after the myth of British invincibility was completely shattered after the fall of Singapore and the British could no longer believe that British rule could be sustained in Asia in the post-war era. Subject peoples under British rule were under the illusion that white troops would never be defeated and they did not even think about rising up against British rule. As a result, the British rarely committed atrocities to maintain the empire, such as the Mau Mau massacre in the 1950s. Moreover, local ruling elites were in cahoots with the British, working as colonial administrators on their behalf. Overall, it was a benign and liberal empire.


You are using WITHDRAWAL in a voluntary sense. I honestly do not think that Britain was all that keen on giving up their accesses to both Asian resources and strategic advantages. I am sure you are right, but I am more inclined to give credit to the indigenous population who - just as with those in Indochina - began to see British nationalism and loyalty as something that they (the Asians) too could acquire. This was particularly true after having fought and died in the service of Britain against Japan and Nazi Germany. To die *"For King and country!"* must have had a profound affect upon them. Whose King ... Whose country?


----------



## Picaro

GLASNOST said:


> You are using WITHDRAWAL in a voluntary sense. I honestly do not think that Britain was all that keen on giving up their accesses to both Asian resources and strategic advantages. I am sure you are right, but I am more inclined to give credit to the indigenous population who - just as with those in Indochina - began to see British nationalism and loyalty as something that they (the Asians) too could acquire. This was particularly true after having fought and died in the service of Britain against Japan and Nazi Germany. To die *"For King and country!"* must have had a profound affect upon them. Whose King ... Whose country?



It was clear to those who had been around that the colonial era was at an end, and FDR was committed to supporting the development of stable independent governments in the post-WW II world, as were the more progressive Brits and Euros; the Soviets and Mao were equally committed to just the opposite.

As  'indigenous' populations learned how the British administrative and legal models worked, and likely having a pool of British and European educated 'Native Sons' around, it was the logical move to adopt what they saw worked best; some were never going to be happy with that, but is a fact of life everywhere.

Many colonials served in British armies willingly and loyally, Sikhs, and Indian engineers in the Italian campaigns and the ME, etc., etc., and some also opposed supporting the war effort. So what? A majority of India did, and the Indian troops under William Slim had one of the worst environments and logistical hurdles of the entire war, and triumphed. Most of their units didn't have a single European in them.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

The History Thieves by Ian Cobain review – how Britain covered up its imperial crimes
Up in a puff of smoke.


----------



## whitehall

Why are British subjects so convoluted about their patriotism and core beliefs? In 1648 or so the Brits executed the freaking King and established government of the people. But wait, the timid Brits weren't ready for self government so they called the son of the king they executed, a freaking teenager Chuck #2,  to show them the way. I't's possible that Americans are in the same dilemma these days. For the last hundred years Americans have been complaining about the elitist government that didn't give a damn about the common man and now they get a chance at a real change of government by the people but the radical left and moderate right are really afraid of change and so they might chose the safe corrupt establishment.


----------

