Well well well google must be red with all that copy and paste.Just send it the army with all they can get armed with and let it be done with IS are just a joke now.
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.You’ve gone too far now carryfast. Justifying everything the IRA did? Have you completely lost the plot? Just because they didnt hijack planes doesn’t make them any different to any other terrorist group,and that’s all they were. There is NO difference from planting live bombs in a crowded market place to opening fire with a sub machine gun. Any “group” who use devices with the sole aim of killing as many innocent people as possible all fall under the same umbrella. Terrorists. There is NO justification for purposfully targeting innocent people going about their daily lives, no matter what your beliefs or what you think your “fighting” for.
If your saying the IRA were justified in their actions then your saying ISIS are justified also. Which is it?
You seem to have deliberately missed the finer points of detail that I was referring to the Nationalist side in the Irish fight for Independence and the resulting Anglo Irish treaty of 1921.‘Not’ the anti treaty continuity factions which followed which is what you’re referring to.Unless you’re saying that our alliance with America,which also came into being by exactly the same process,also justifies support of Jihad. 
moomooland:
You can all rant on a much as you like on here but at the end of the day multiculturalism does not work.Over a century ago Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem called “The Ballad of East & West” whose initial line reads: “East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.”
Why do muslims even want to live here in the West and force their religion on us.
They hate everything we stand for, our women, music, dancing, drinking, freedom of speech etc etc etc etc.
I agree in principle about why do they want to live here.
Ask our resident historian about their connections with the old British Empire, I’m confident and in no doubt thst he will be an authority on that subject also.
The rest is again generalising, I remember regularly going in a dodgy strip bar parked up in Birmingham area about 15 yrs ago, the first ones in were young Asians, presumably Muslim, I also see them all the time in pubs and music bars regularly, live gigs, and see them with White girls on their arms.
Granted maybe the ones you are on about are in the majority, but saying all is just not accurate, and as I said a generalisation.
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
I don’t think there’s any point in arguing “ethics” of the terrorism in the troubles vs Jihadists. Its all hideous as people were then and are now being murdered.I’d imagine from an intelligence and defence point of view it is viewed very differently. Fundamentally most terrorists in the troubles had no active desire to die. They were willing to if it came down to it but it wasn’t part of a target. They still had self preservation. These Jihadist nutters consider it an honour.
Also the various factions involved in the troubles had no desire for globalisation. Their focus was Ireland/Northern Ireland. The Jihadists state that anyone who is however tenuously linked to an entity or country that has tenuously taken steps against Islam is a soldier of the enemy. Therefore, most of the western world!
Being prepared to die and killing for a cause isn’t limited to Jihad.It applies wether it’s a Lancaster crew over Germany or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.
It all gets a bit more of a grey area when you’ve got people doing that to impose their foreign expansionist aims,or whatever other type of unjustifiable agenda, on others.Let alone then using the tactics of the Jihadists or the nazis to do it.For Billy’s information I’d include the anti treaty continuity/provisional IRA type factions among those fitting the description of unjustifiable agenda.But on balance,as I’ve said,I don’t think they can be blamed for resorting to the tactics of the Jihadists.
However I’d also include the British Army’s actions in Ireland as often fitting that description and arguably also fitting the tactics of the nazis at least in the period before and shortly after the signing of the Anglo Irish treaty.IE personal knowledge of summary execution of mid teenaged kids by British forces on the basis of reprisals for activeties/sympathies with the Irish Nationalist cause ( I’d add not the anti treaty continuity factions of that cause ).Not to mention the details of the original Bloody Sunday in 1920.
Having sorted all that out we’re then left with the totally different issue of the undoubted expansionist agenda of the Islamic world and the type of society it prefers.With examples like Saudi,Iran and Pakistan to go by.With the undoubted issue of Jihad and its tactics based on unarguable values of those backward vicious societies.On that note the question remains how can anyone possibly justify our and the French and now Germans immigration policies and definitions of nationality based on place of birth,in view of all that.
I don’t think you have a grasp of the fundemental difference. There is nothing grey about it. A man maybe willing to die if he needs to protect his family, beliefs or country. Ultimately he does not want to die. He has self preservation instinct. Not least for the loved ones he left behind. Those young Lancaster crews did not want to die.
A Jihadist actively wishes to die for Allah. It’s an ultimate honour. In fact it is an honour to die for Allah for any Muslim. The will of God. If they die it is the will of Allah. The self preservation is gone. This was explained to me during my time in the ME.
.
Carryfast:
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.You’ve gone too far now carryfast. Justifying everything the IRA did? Have you completely lost the plot? Just because they didnt hijack planes doesn’t make them any different to any other terrorist group,and that’s all they were. There is NO difference from planting live bombs in a crowded market place to opening fire with a sub machine gun. Any “group” who use devices with the sole aim of killing as many innocent people as possible all fall under the same umbrella. Terrorists. There is NO justification for purposfully targeting innocent people going about their daily lives, no matter what your beliefs or what you think your “fighting” for.
If your saying the IRA were justified in their actions then your saying ISIS are justified also. Which is it?You seem to have deliberately missed the finer points of detail that I was referring to the Nationalist side in the Irish fight for Independence and the resulting Anglo Irish treaty of 1921.‘Not’ the anti treaty continuity factions which followed which is what you’re referring to.Unless you’re saying that our alliance with America,which also came into being by exactly the same process,also justifies support of Jihad.
So your saying you DONT agree with the what the IRA did? Because this morning you said something along the lines of “at least didnt fly planes into buildings and gave coded warnings” as if that somehow made their actions justified. Im not interested in what happened when. I want YOUR own opinions. Because maybe im reading what you’ve put wrong but it looks like your almost condoning the IRA. Which,as ive said, means you also condone ISIS. The IRA used bombs to “make their point”. So do ISIS. They are both as bad as each other and before you lecture us anymore about anything, I think we have a right to know your own opinions of the IRA actions because you cant defend ones actions without condoning the others
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.You’ve gone too far now carryfast. Justifying everything the IRA did? Have you completely lost the plot? Just because they didnt hijack planes doesn’t make them any different to any other terrorist group,and that’s all they were. There is NO difference from planting live bombs in a crowded market place to opening fire with a sub machine gun. Any “group” who use devices with the sole aim of killing as many innocent people as possible all fall under the same umbrella. Terrorists. There is NO justification for purposfully targeting innocent people going about their daily lives, no matter what your beliefs or what you think your “fighting” for.
If your saying the IRA were justified in their actions then your saying ISIS are justified also. Which is it?You seem to have deliberately missed the finer points of detail that I was referring to the Nationalist side in the Irish fight for Independence and the resulting Anglo Irish treaty of 1921.‘Not’ the anti treaty continuity factions which followed which is what you’re referring to.Unless you’re saying that our alliance with America,which also came into being by exactly the same process,also justifies support of Jihad.
So your saying you DONT agree with the what the IRA did? Because this morning you said something along the lines of “at least didnt fly planes into buildings and gave coded warnings” as if that somehow made their actions justified. Im not interested in what happened when. I want YOUR own opinions. Because maybe im reading what you’ve put wrong but it looks like your almost condoning the IRA. Which,as ive said, means you also condone ISIS. The IRA used bombs to “make their point”. So do ISIS. They are both as bad as each other and before you lecture us anymore about anything, I think we have a right to know your own opinions of the IRA actions because you cant defend ones actions without condoning the others
+1
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Being prepared to die and killing for a cause isn’t limited to Jihad.It applies wether it’s a Lancaster crew over Germany or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.It all gets a bit more of a grey area when you’ve got people doing that to impose their foreign expansionist aims,or whatever other type of unjustifiable agenda, on others.Let alone then using the tactics of the Jihadists or the nazis to do it.For Billy’s information I’d include the anti treaty continuity/provisional IRA type factions among those fitting the description of unjustifiable agenda.But on balance,as I’ve said,I don’t think they can be blamed for resorting to the tactics of the Jihadists.
However I’d also include the British Army’s actions in Ireland as often fitting that description and arguably also fitting the tactics of the nazis at least in the period before and shortly after the signing of the Anglo Irish treaty.IE personal knowledge of summary execution of mid teenaged kids by British forces on the basis of reprisals for activeties/sympathies with the Irish Nationalist cause ( I’d add not the anti treaty continuity factions of that cause ).Not to mention the details of the original Bloody Sunday in 1920.
Having sorted all that out we’re then left with the totally different issue of the undoubted expansionist agenda of the Islamic world and the type of society it prefers.With examples like Saudi,Iran and Pakistan to go by.With the undoubted issue of Jihad and its tactics based on unarguable values of those backward vicious societies.On that note the question remains how can anyone possibly justify our and the French and now Germans immigration policies and definitions of nationality based on place of birth,in view of all that.
I don’t think you have a grasp of the fundemental difference. There is nothing grey about it. A man maybe willing to die if he needs to protect his family, beliefs or country. Ultimately he does not want to die. He has self preservation instinct. Not least for the loved ones he left behind. Those young Lancaster crews did not want to die.
A Jihadist actively wishes to die for Allah. It’s an ultimate honour. In fact it is an honour to die for Allah for any Muslim. The will of God. If they die it is the will of Allah. The self preservation is gone. This was explained to me during my time in the ME. .
It’s a very fine line between the mindset 'of I’m probably going to die or be executed in this fight but if I’m lucky I won’t,as opposed to ‘I’m going to die doing this but I don’t care’. 
As for the latter mindset the fate of the Waffen SS and the result of the Arab Israeli wars at least suggest that the latter mindset is no more effective v the former.While it isn’t unheard of for opposing forces to switch between the two types of mindset by necessity I think the strategy of the BAOR during the cold war was actually based on the idea of accepting suicide as a normal battle tactic.Just as we ( rightly ) accepted the idea of MAD as part of that strategy end game at home.
The-Snowman:
I want YOUR own opinions.
It may take a while. He is now doing a Google search on ‘‘YOUR OPINIONS’’ and can not understand why he is drawing a blank
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.You’ve gone too far now carryfast. Justifying everything the IRA did? Have you completely lost the plot? Just because they didnt hijack planes doesn’t make them any different to any other terrorist group,and that’s all they were. There is NO difference from planting live bombs in a crowded market place to opening fire with a sub machine gun. Any “group” who use devices with the sole aim of killing as many innocent people as possible all fall under the same umbrella. Terrorists. There is NO justification for purposfully targeting innocent people going about their daily lives, no matter what your beliefs or what you think your “fighting” for.
If your saying the IRA were justified in their actions then your saying ISIS are justified also. Which is it?You seem to have deliberately missed the finer points of detail that I was referring to the Nationalist side in the Irish fight for Independence and the resulting Anglo Irish treaty of 1921.‘Not’ the anti treaty continuity factions which followed which is what you’re referring to.Unless you’re saying that our alliance with America,which also came into being by exactly the same process,also justifies support of Jihad.
So your saying you DONT agree with the what the IRA did? Because this morning you said something along the lines of “at least didnt fly planes into buildings and gave coded warnings” as if that somehow made their actions justified. Im not interested in what happened when. I want YOUR own opinions. Because maybe im reading what you’ve put wrong but it looks like your almost condoning the IRA. Which,as ive said, means you also condone ISIS. The IRA used bombs to “make their point”. So do ISIS. They are both as bad as each other and before you lecture us anymore about anything, I think we have a right to know your own opinions of the IRA actions because you cant defend ones actions without condoning the others
There’s a big difference here dude.and anyway what did the British use at war? fireworks and stink bombs ! Come on think !
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Being prepared to die and killing for a cause isn’t limited to Jihad.It applies wether it’s a Lancaster crew over Germany or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.It all gets a bit more of a grey area when you’ve got people doing that to impose their foreign expansionist aims,or whatever other type of unjustifiable agenda, on others.Let alone then using the tactics of the Jihadists or the nazis to do it.For Billy’s information I’d include the anti treaty continuity/provisional IRA type factions among those fitting the description of unjustifiable agenda.But on balance,as I’ve said,I don’t think they can be blamed for resorting to the tactics of the Jihadists.
However I’d also include the British Army’s actions in Ireland as often fitting that description and arguably also fitting the tactics of the nazis at least in the period before and shortly after the signing of the Anglo Irish treaty.IE personal knowledge of summary execution of mid teenaged kids by British forces on the basis of reprisals for activeties/sympathies with the Irish Nationalist cause ( I’d add not the anti treaty continuity factions of that cause ).Not to mention the details of the original Bloody Sunday in 1920.
Having sorted all that out we’re then left with the totally different issue of the undoubted expansionist agenda of the Islamic world and the type of society it prefers.With examples like Saudi,Iran and Pakistan to go by.With the undoubted issue of Jihad and its tactics based on unarguable values of those backward vicious societies.On that note the question remains how can anyone possibly justify our and the French and now Germans immigration policies and definitions of nationality based on place of birth,in view of all that.
I don’t think you have a grasp of the fundemental difference. There is nothing grey about it. A man maybe willing to die if he needs to protect his family, beliefs or country. Ultimately he does not want to die. He has self preservation instinct. Not least for the loved ones he left behind. Those young Lancaster crews did not want to die.
A Jihadist actively wishes to die for Allah. It’s an ultimate honour. In fact it is an honour to die for Allah for any Muslim. The will of God. If they die it is the will of Allah. The self preservation is gone. This was explained to me during my time in the ME. .
It’s a very fine line between the mindset 'of I’m probably going to die or be executed in this fight but if I’m lucky I won’t,as opposed to ‘I’m going to die doing this but I don’t care’.
As for the latter mindset the fate of the Waffen SS and the result of the Arab Israeli wars at least suggest that the latter mindset is no more effective v the former.While it isn’t unheard of for opposing forces to switch between the two types of mindset by necessity I think the strategy of the BAOR during the cold war was actually based on the idea of accepting suicide as a normal battle tactic.Just as we ( rightly ) accepted the idea of MAD as part of that strategy end game at home.
There’s nothing fine about the difference. A man seeking to die is a far more dangerous animal than a man who is willing to risk death but ultimately values his life and seeks to live.
These Jihadists don’t believe “I’m going to die doing this but I don’t care”. They believe “I WANT to die doing this, I DO care, I seek to die”.
Try using any deterrent of violence on that mindset. The fear of death and fear of pain has historically been the mediator in many campaigns, including the Second World War. No one WANTS to be killed.
The face of terrorism changed when it was realized terrorists moved from hijacking jets, parking them up and holding hostages to taking themselves and everyone on board. These terrorists don’t seek to live.
Talking of MAD. This fundamental difference is why in the history of the nuclear stand off we are all still here. If one entity in that conflict was seeking to die rather than willing to die. And that entity held “the button” then there would have been one ending.
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Being prepared to die and killing for a cause isn’t limited to Jihad.It applies wether it’s a Lancaster crew over Germany or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.It all gets a bit more of a grey area when you’ve got people doing that to impose their foreign expansionist aims,or whatever other type of unjustifiable agenda, on others.Let alone then using the tactics of the Jihadists or the nazis to do it.For Billy’s information I’d include the anti treaty continuity/provisional IRA type factions among those fitting the description of unjustifiable agenda.But on balance,as I’ve said,I don’t think they can be blamed for resorting to the tactics of the Jihadists.
However I’d also include the British Army’s actions in Ireland as often fitting that description and arguably also fitting the tactics of the nazis at least in the period before and shortly after the signing of the Anglo Irish treaty.IE personal knowledge of summary execution of mid teenaged kids by British forces on the basis of reprisals for activeties/sympathies with the Irish Nationalist cause ( I’d add not the anti treaty continuity factions of that cause ).Not to mention the details of the original Bloody Sunday in 1920.
Having sorted all that out we’re then left with the totally different issue of the undoubted expansionist agenda of the Islamic world and the type of society it prefers.With examples like Saudi,Iran and Pakistan to go by.With the undoubted issue of Jihad and its tactics based on unarguable values of those backward vicious societies.On that note the question remains how can anyone possibly justify our and the French and now Germans immigration policies and definitions of nationality based on place of birth,in view of all that.
I don’t think you have a grasp of the fundemental difference. There is nothing grey about it. A man maybe willing to die if he needs to protect his family, beliefs or country. Ultimately he does not want to die. He has self preservation instinct. Not least for the loved ones he left behind. Those young Lancaster crews did not want to die.
A Jihadist actively wishes to die for Allah. It’s an ultimate honour. In fact it is an honour to die for Allah for any Muslim. The will of God. If they die it is the will of Allah. The self preservation is gone. This was explained to me during my time in the ME. .
It’s a very fine line between the mindset 'of I’m probably going to die or be executed in this fight but if I’m lucky I won’t,as opposed to ‘I’m going to die doing this but I don’t care’.
As for the latter mindset the fate of the Waffen SS and the result of the Arab Israeli wars at least suggest that the latter mindset is no more effective v the former.While it isn’t unheard of for opposing forces to switch between the two types of mindset by necessity I think the strategy of the BAOR during the cold war was actually based on the idea of accepting suicide as a normal battle tactic.Just as we ( rightly ) accepted the idea of MAD as part of that strategy end game at home.
There’s nothing fine about the difference. A man seeking to die is a far more dangerous animal than a man who is willing to risk death but ultimately values his life and seeks to live.
These Jihadists don’t believe “I’m going to die doing this but I don’t care”. They believe “I WANT to die doing this, I DO care, I seek to die”.
Try using any deterrent of violence on that mindset. The fear of death and fear of pain has historically been the mediator in many campaigns, including the Second World War. No one WANTS to be killed.
The face of terrorism changed when it was realized terrorists moved from hijacking jets, parking them up and holding hostages to taking themselves and everyone on board. These terrorists don’t seek to live.
Talking of MAD. This fundamental difference is why in the history of the nuclear stand off we are all still here. If one entity in that conflict was seeking to die rather than willing to die. And that entity held “the button” then there would have been one ending.
Here here.
switchlogic:
Well, isn’t this thread a jolly old barrel of laughs.
Well it’s not a barrel of laughs what happened either. Should it not be discussed?
I am horrified by the attacks in Paris tonight(13.11). My thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones. I stand in solidarity with the people of France.
Dolph:
I am horrified by the attacks in Paris tonight. My thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones. I stand in solidarity with the people of France.
Totally agree.100%
They have put the fear of allah into us all.which is what they wanted!
■■■■■■■ savages.
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.You’ve gone too far now carryfast. Justifying everything the IRA did? Have you completely lost the plot? Just because they didnt hijack planes doesn’t make them any different to any other terrorist group,and that’s all they were. There is NO difference from planting live bombs in a crowded market place to opening fire with a sub machine gun. Any “group” who use devices with the sole aim of killing as many innocent people as possible all fall under the same umbrella. Terrorists. There is NO justification for purposfully targeting innocent people going about their daily lives, no matter what your beliefs or what you think your “fighting” for.
If your saying the IRA were justified in their actions then your saying ISIS are justified also. Which is it?You seem to have deliberately missed the finer points of detail that I was referring to the Nationalist side in the Irish fight for Independence and the resulting Anglo Irish treaty of 1921.‘Not’ the anti treaty continuity factions which followed which is what you’re referring to.Unless you’re saying that our alliance with America,which also came into being by exactly the same process,also justifies support of Jihad.
So your saying you DONT agree with the what the IRA did? Because this morning you said something along the lines of “at least didnt fly planes into buildings and gave coded warnings” as if that somehow made their actions justified. Im not interested in what happened when. I want YOUR own opinions. Because maybe im reading what you’ve put wrong but it looks like your almost condoning the IRA. Which,as ive said, means you also condone ISIS. The IRA used bombs to “make their point”. So do ISIS. They are both as bad as each other and before you lecture us anymore about anything, I think we have a right to know your own opinions of the IRA actions because you cant defend ones actions without condoning the others
Saying at least they didn’t fly planes into buildings,or carry out machine gun massacres of the general population,or generally use bombs as a method of intentionally causing injury or murder,as opposed to material damage,isn’t condoning anything.It is actually stating the difference in the level of the threat.
Evil Crimes Of The British Empire, a few home truths and there are a lot more, God Hitler was a saint, Bless google.
The Boer Concentration Camps
At its height, the British Empire was the largest to have ever existed. Aside from covering most of the globe, it was responsible for some of the greatest advances in engineering, art, and medicine that the world will ever know. The Empire gave us steam engines, penicillin, radar, and even television.
However, life under the British wasn’t all just incredible inventions. Alongside the good stuff the Empire did sat a whole ream of not-so-good stuff, and alongside that a whole load of other stuff so evil it’d make ■■■■ Dastardly balk.
We all now know about the horrors of concentration camps, but during the time of Boer Wars, rounding up tens of thousands of innocent people and detaining them in camps seemed like a stroke of genius. The British needed the South African populace under control and had the means and manpower to detain them. What could possibly go wrong?
Try just about everything. Pitched under the white hot African sun and crawling with flies, the camps were overcrowded, underequipped, and lethally prone to disease outbreaks. Food supplies were virtually non-existent, and the callous guards would dock people’s meager rations for the slightest perceived offense. The result: sickness and death spread like wildfire, killing women by the thousands and children by the tens of thousands. In a single year, 10 percent of the entire Boer population died in the British camps—a figure that gets even worse when you realize it includes 22,000 children.
But the atrocity didn’t stop there. While rounding up the Boers, the British also decided to detain any black Africans they encountered, 20,000 of whom were worked to death in slave labour camps. All told, British policy in the war killed 48,000 civilians. That’s 18,000 more than the number of soldiers lost on both sides.
Aden’s Torture Centers
( 2)
The Aden Emergency was a 1960s scramble to control the once-vital port of Aden in modern Yemen. Although the port had long been under British rule, a nationalist wave sweeping Yemen led to strikes, riots, and a general desire that the Brits leave as soon as possible. A desire the British decided to quell by opening torture centres.
Harsh and brutal, these centres housed the sort of horrors that would make Kim Jong-Un feel ill. Detainees were stripped naked and kept in refrigerated cells, encouraging frostbite and pneumonia. Guards would stub their cigarettes out on prisoner’s skin and beatings were common. But perhaps worst of all was the ■■■■■■ humiliation. Locals who had been detained could expect to have their ■■■■■■■■ crushed by guards’ hands, or to be forced to sit naked on a metal pole; their weight forcing it into their ■■■■.
By 1966, an Amnesty report on these abuses had caused global outrage. Faced with international condemnation, the British apologized. They then kept right on using the torture centres for another full year.
(3) The Chinese “Resettlement”
In 1950, the Empire had a problem. Armed Communist insurgents were trying to take over Malay and most of the population seemed willing to let them do so. Reasoning that their forces stood no chance against a hidden army that could call upon the peasants for supplies, the British hit upon an ingenious solution. Rather than fight, they’d simply imprison all the peasants.
Known as “New Villages,” the camps constructed to house Malay’s poor were heavily fortified and watched over by trigger-happy guards. Inmates were forced to do hard labour in return for scraps of food, and contact with the outside world—including family—was forbidden. Once in a village, you lost all right to freedom and privacy. At night, harsh floodlights flushed out the shadows to stop clandestine meetings. Expressing any political sentiment could get your rations docked.
But perhaps most uncomfortable of all was the racist nature of the camps. Of the 500,000 people detained during the decade-long Emergency, only a handful were anything other than ethnic Chinese. Outside the barbed wire walls, another half a million Chinese were meanwhile being deported, sent into exile, or forced from their homes. In short. it was a racist policy that harmed nearly a million people, all so the British could cut off supplies to a handful of rebels.
4 The Amritsar Massacre
On April 13, 1919, thousands of peaceful protesters defied a government order and demonstrated against British rule in Amritsar, India. Men, women, and children all descended on the walled Jallianwala Gardens, hoping to make their voices heard. What happened next was one of the lowest points in British history.
At 4.30pm, troops blocked the exits to the Garden and opened fire on the crowd. They kept firing until they ran out of ammunition. In the space of ten minutes, they killed between 379 and 1,000 protesters and injured another 1,100. A stampede caused a lethal crush by the blocked exits. Over 100 women and children who looked for safety in a well drowned. Rifle fire tore the rest to shreds.
When the news reached London, Parliament was so shocked it recalled the man who ordered the massacre, Brigadier Reginald Dyer. In a depressing twist of fate, the British public labelled him a hero and raised £26,000 (around $900,000 in today’s money) for “the man who saved India.” He died peacefully, convinced right to the end that his mindless slaughter had been morally justifiable.
5 Crushing The Iraqi Revolution
In 1920, the newly-formed nation of Iraq was tiring of British rule. Charged with guiding the new state towards independence, the Empire had instead installed puppet leaders. turning the place into a de facto colony. Fed up with their imperial overlords, the Iraqis turned to revolution, only for the British to unleash wave after wave of atrocities against them.
First the RAF conducted nighttime bombing raids on civilian targets. Then they deployed chemical weapons against the fighters, gassing whole groups of them. But the real horrors came in the aftermath, when the victorious British decided to use collective punishment against the offending tribes.
From that point on, any tribe that caused a fuss would have one of its villages randomly annihilated. Specific orders were given to exterminate every living thing within its walls, from animals to rebels to children. Other villages were subject to random searches. If the British found a single weapon, they would burn the place to the ground, destroy the crops, poison wells, and kill livestock. They’d sometimes target weddings to terrorize the population. In short, the British deliberately targeted civilians in a campaign that lasted the better part of half a decade, all because a few Iraqis had dared to ask for their country back.
6 The Kenyan Camps
In the 1950s, the people of Kenya decided they wanted their nation back. Unfortunately, the people they wanted it back from just happened to be the same guys responsible for every other atrocity on this list. Fearing a countrywide rebellion, the British rounded up 1.5 million people and placed them in concentration camps. What happened in these camps will turn your stomach.
Under slogans like “labour and freedom” and other variations on ” Arbeit macht frei,” inmates were worked to death as slave labour filling in mass graves. Random executions were not-uncommon and the use of torture was widespread. Men were anally raped with knives. Women had their breasts mutilated and cut off. Eyes were gouged out and ears cut off and skin lacerated with coiled barbed wire. People were castrated with pliers then sodomized by guards. Interrogation involved stuffing a detainee’s mouth with mud and stamping on his throat until he passed out or died. Survivors were sometimes burned alive.
The official body count is under 2,000, but more reliable estimates place the total dead in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Most of them were civilians or children, detained on vague, trumped-up charges of aiding the rebels. And it was all for nothing. Kenya was declared independent in 1963. In using those camps, the British lost both their African outpost and their souls.
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
The-Snowman:
Carryfast:
or the Irish nationalist forces who were justifiably fighting for their country.You’ve gone too far now carryfast. Justifying everything the IRA did? Have you completely lost the plot? Just because they didnt hijack planes doesn’t make them any different to any other terrorist group,and that’s all they were. There is NO difference from planting live bombs in a crowded market place to opening fire with a sub machine gun. Any “group” who use devices with the sole aim of killing as many innocent people as possible all fall under the same umbrella. Terrorists. There is NO justification for purposfully targeting innocent people going about their daily lives, no matter what your beliefs or what you think your “fighting” for.
If your saying the IRA were justified in their actions then your saying ISIS are justified also. Which is it?You seem to have deliberately missed the finer points of detail that I was referring to the Nationalist side in the Irish fight for Independence and the resulting Anglo Irish treaty of 1921.‘Not’ the anti treaty continuity factions which followed which is what you’re referring to.Unless you’re saying that our alliance with America,which also came into being by exactly the same process,also justifies support of Jihad.
So your saying you DONT agree with the what the IRA did? Because this morning you said something along the lines of “at least didnt fly planes into buildings and gave coded warnings” as if that somehow made their actions justified. Im not interested in what happened when. I want YOUR own opinions. Because maybe im reading what you’ve put wrong but it looks like your almost condoning the IRA. Which,as ive said, means you also condone ISIS. The IRA used bombs to “make their point”. So do ISIS. They are both as bad as each other and before you lecture us anymore about anything, I think we have a right to know your own opinions of the IRA actions because you cant defend ones actions without condoning the others
My point exactly, He’s trying to pass off all the atrocities committed by Irish terrorists as different & acceptable because he agrees with their cause, while denouncing attacks by another group of like minded murderers.
Obviously he cannot recall the bombings all over the north of Ireland & England, the gunmen going into pubs & spraying machine guns at anyone inside, the blowing up of nightclubs full of innocent young Irish people He’s just another troll of the worst kind.
So your saying you DONT agree with the what the IRA did? Because this morning you said something along the lines of “at least didnt fly planes into buildings and gave coded warnings” as if that somehow made their actions justified. Im not interested in what happened when. I want YOUR own opinions. Because maybe im reading what you’ve put wrong but it looks like your almost condoning the IRA. Which,as ive said, means you also condone ISIS. The IRA used bombs to “make their point”. So do ISIS. They are both as bad as each other and before you lecture us anymore about anything, I think we have a right to know your own opinions of the IRA actions because you cant defend ones actions without condoning the others
[/quote]
ffs…where would the paddys get hold of a plane to fly in the 1st place…they only put a picture of a shamrock on aer lingus planes so that the pilot knows what end to sit at…when Ireland joined the cod war in the 1970 s they sent in a battalion of tanks…the last time I flew out from Dublin,the checkin asked paddy in front of me…and how many are flying today with you…his reply was…how would I know,its your ■■■■■ plane…
Deeireland:
Dolph:
I am horrified by the attacks in Paris tonight. My thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones. I stand in solidarity with the people of France.Totally agree.100%
They have put the fear of allah into us all.which is what they wanted!
[zb] savages.
No they have not and never will!
L’union fait la force.
Freight Dog:
There’s nothing fine about the difference. A man seeking to die is a far more dangerous animal than a man who is willing to risk death but ultimately values his life and seeks to live.These Jihadists don’t believe “I’m going to die doing this but I don’t care”. They believe “I WANT to die doing this, I DO care, I seek to die”.
Try using any deterrent of violence on that mindset. The fear of death and fear of pain has historically been the mediator in many campaigns, including the Second World War. No one WANTS to be killed.
The face of terrorism changed when it was realized terrorists moved from hijacking jets, parking them up and holding hostages to taking themselves and everyone on board. These terrorists don’t seek to live.
Talking of MAD. This fundamental difference is why in the history of the nuclear stand off we are all still here. If one entity in that conflict was seeking to die rather than willing to die. And that entity held “the button” then there would have been one ending.
The logical conclusion of that would be that Islam is ultimately a suicide cult that either wants Jihad to be victorious or they take out us with them.To which the answer is either surrender or meet fire with fire and carry out a strategic nuclear launch on Saudi and Iran without warning.They’ll obviously welcome the instant sunshine. 
Seriously no I don’t see any difference in the power of being willing/happy/don’t give a zb about dying assuming the cold war had gone hot than meeting the Islamic threat head on with the same/close enough mentality as their’s.Which again I’d guess matches the thoughts of the IDF based on what happened at Massada and which is why Israel is still there surrounded by these nutters. 