# Politics and News > UK, Canada, Oz, NZ >  Sussex-ese

## UKSmartypants

Over the past month, a new English dialect has mysteriously sprung into existence: let us call it _Sussex-ese_. It was first spotted in the British press in February, when its creator  who shall remain unnamed for now  wrote:  We all lose when misinformation sells more than truth, when moral  exploitation sells more than decency, and when companies create their  business model to profit from peoples pain. But, for today, with this  comprehensive win on both privacy and copyright, we have all won.

 Typified by its remarkable tendency to sound both sincere _and_ insincere simultaneously, this _Sussex-ese_ appeared again in a separate news story this week.  [We are] saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly  as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply  committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma, the  author wrote. She is determined to continue her work building  compassion around the world and will keep striving to set an example for  doing what is right and doing what is good.


No doubt you will have guessed by now how _Sussex-ese_ was  given its name. Both of the above statements come from the House of  Sussex, specifically from the spokesperson for the Duchess of Sussex  and/or the Duchess herself. And I suspect that they wont be the last   by all accounts, _Sussex-ese_ is here to stay.


As tempting as it may be, it is not enough to dismiss the House of  Sussexs latest statements as bland, sub-Obama pabulum. They almost  always have a certain twist of their own; a style which suggests that  Harry and, more importantly, Meghan are not only surprised, but almost  amazed that anybody might think ill of them. Excerpts from the couples upcoming interview with Oprah Winfrey only confirm this.

History is, of course, rife with examples of princes and their spouses expressing their distaste with the _lèse-majesté_ of their critics. But whats different about _Sussex-ese_  is that it is a creation born not from the Dukes blue blood, so much  as the couples unquestionably golden intentions. And as a result, a  very modern form of deference is demanded: do not criticise me, for I am  doing much good in the world.

Take the first quote above. It relates to the Duchesss recent successful privacy case against the _Mail on Sunday_,  which published excerpts of a private letter sent by Meghan to her  estranged father. Now you could be forgiven for thinking that, even if  she werent a former actress, the relationship between the wife of the  person sixth in line to the British throne and her father is a matter of  public interest. You would, however, be wrong  at least thats the  implication of the judges decision to halt the trial before witnesses  could be called.

But even if you agree with Lord Justice Warby, it is hard to see how  we all won because of it.  For example, you may not approve of the  type of prurient Royal-watcher who wishes to know every detail of the  Duchesss life, but clearly those people dont view the verdict as a  win. More importantly, though, there is something deeply unsavoury  about the attempt to extrapolate Meghans personal victory into a  universal one, particularly since most people will never be in a  position remotely analogous to the one in which the Sussexes find  themselves.

The same can also be said of their response this week to accusations  that Meghan bullied two royal aides out of Kensington Palace. Perhaps  anticipating that the Sussexs Oprah interview will show everyone but  Harry and Meghan in a bad light, the bullying story may well have been a  pre-emptive defence of sorts from London.

Either way, the nature of the Sussexes response  talking about how  saddened they are  was entirely in fitting with the sanctimonious  language used by so many public figures today. What is uncommon,  however, is for a person of such power as Meghan to deflect the harm  caused to her alleged victims by stressing her own victim-credentials.

This is exactly what the Duchess does by saying that she has been the target of bullying herself. And, of course, this _Sussex-ese_  makes almost no sense. There is no reason why someone who has been  bullied cannot themselves be a bully; in fact, were constantly told the  opposite. Yet it isnt until the claim at the end of the statement that  the _Sussex-ese_ becomes completely overpowering. We must assume  that the Sussexes have some idea, at least, of statements put out in  their name. So how could they possibly allow a statement that claims  Meghan is determined to continue her work building compassion around  the world to be published? Try it for yourself. If a person asked if  they could describe you as a person who is busy building compassion  around the world, would you not turn around and suggest that it could  be toned down a bit?

That isnt to say that the Duchess has had an inconsequential career. But appearing in _Suits_,  marrying a Prince and starting a podcast are eccentric ways to make the  world a better place  let alone set an example. Indeed, what kind of  person honestly believes that everyone should look to them as a beacon  for doing what is right and doing what is good? Even the Archbishop of  Canterbury wouldnt claim such moral authority.

Unfortunately, the rise of _Sussex-ese_ suggests that the  Sussexes have drifted away not just from the world that created them  but, particularly in the case of Harry, from the world that grounded  them. The type of service embodied in both the army and the Royal family  is such that you should not have to say that you are saving the world.
  And as we can now see, when you do bestow that authority on yourself,  your inevitable failure is made all the more bitter. For if the latest  bullying allegations are true, they will serve as very public proof that  the Duchess of Sussex has failed at her own self-appointed mission. You  cannot spread love, compassion and understanding around the world if  you are cruel and bullying to the people around you  especially those  who are, in hierarchy terms, unquestionably below you.


And that is why the creation of _Sussex-ese_ was never going  to be convincing. People do not like being told what to do, think or  feel by people they do not admire. As working royals, the Sussexes  accumulated a certain amount of respect  but that all vanished when  they gave up a life of duty for one that enables them to preach from a  number of well-remunerated platforms.

If anything, all _Sussex-ese_ does is allow Harry and Meghan  to remain blissfully unaware of their fall from grace. It means that the  Sussexes can continue to tell us how to all win, how to be good and  how to save the world, oblivious to the fact that the further away from  royal life they drift, the less moral authority they have. And therein  lies the irony of it all: that in trying to escape the Firm, the  Sussexes have ended up demanding more deference and behaving with more  grandiosity than any British royal for generations.

----------

Authentic (09-20-2022),BooBoo (03-06-2021),dinosaur (03-06-2021),Lone Gunman (03-06-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021),TheOneOnly2 (03-06-2021),WVYankee (03-08-2021)

----------


## dinosaur

:Dontknow:   Harry and Meghan ... Us stupid Americans are still trying to figure out if Harry is just a dumbass, or is that Meghan girl really THAT good in bed?

Sussexese??  Hell, with our 700 word vocabularies, us Americans are still trying to figure out English ...  :Dontknow:

----------

Big Wheeler (03-06-2021),BooBoo (03-06-2021),Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),Mr. Claws (04-04-2022),MrMike (03-09-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Harry and Meghan ... Us stupid Americans are still trying to figure out if Harry is just a dumbass, or is that Meghan girl really THAT good in bed?
> 
> 
> 700+ words. Amazing.
> 
> 
> Stan
> 
> Sussexese??  Hell, with our 700 word vocabularies, us Americans are still trying to figure out English ...

----------

BooBoo (03-06-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

i wouldnt know harry or morgan if i ran them over in my prius...


are they important people that have contributed something to mankind?

some new invention, or vaccine?

lets put it this way,,would there ever be any reason i might need one of them, or something they contributed,  ever?


or are they more dancing monkeys for my pleasure?

----------

BooBoo (03-06-2021),dinosaur (03-09-2021),Hillofbeans (03-07-2021),Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Harry and Meghan ... Us stupid Americans are still trying to figure out if Harry is just a dumbass, or is that Meghan girl really THAT good in bed?
> 
> Sussexese??  Hell, with our 700 word vocabularies, us Americans are still trying to figure out English ...


The consensus is he's as thick as two short planks and she a vacuous narcissist  with an ego the size of a small planet.

----------

BooBoo (03-06-2021),dinosaur (03-09-2021),Hillofbeans (03-07-2021),LadyMoonlight (03-06-2021),Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021),Oceander (03-07-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> The consensus is he's as thick as two short planks and she a vacuous narcissist  with an ego the size of a small planet.



Oh, OK, and that makes them somehow important ................ to............ who?

Stan

----------

BooBoo (03-06-2021)

----------


## TheOneOnly2

Wow that was really good.

----------

BooBoo (03-06-2021)

----------


## Dan40

Here in the USA, we neither have royals, nor care.  We have something much worse, celebrities.

----------

BooBoo (03-06-2021),Hillofbeans (03-07-2021),LadyMoonlight (03-06-2021),Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),Longshot (04-04-2022),Mr. Claws (04-04-2022),MrMike (03-09-2021)

----------


## Big Wheeler

Unfortunately over here in the UK we have both.Vacuous slebs infesting every nook and cranny and a royal family about whom I just don't care.

----------

BooBoo (03-06-2021),Hillofbeans (03-07-2021),Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Having now declared war on the RF, the retaliation against the idiot markle woman by the Rf has started. Apart from  starting an investigation into markel bullying staff (which undermines her constant claims of victimhood), its also be revealed shes wearing blood diamond jewellery, despite being advised by palace staff its was a really crap idea...as I said before, this is  war she cant win.  The Palace are experts in dealign with people like her.  Shes also now likely to lose her title. 

Meghan's 'blood money' earrings: Saudi victim Khashoggi's lawyer condemns Duchess for wearing gift | Daily Mail Online

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021),Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021),Oceander (03-07-2021),Rutabaga (03-07-2021)

----------


## Trinnity

Why should the RF be protected at all? They're full of depravity. Prince Andrew has disgraced them beyond repair, imho. Not just recently ether. Imho, it's beyond disgraceful the RF is so progressive. Oh, and Charles telling Camilla he wished he was a tampon inside her. Just really gross. Elizabeth is surrounded by nasty people.

In addition for them to pretend Edward abdicated for love is galling when in fact he had to go for being a nazi collaborator. Plus they moved to Hollywood and indulged endless swinging and other pervy stuff.

The "subjects" of the UK deserve better. The UK govt has been about the most oppressive through the SCAMdemic. Even more oppressive than the despicable US govt.

Boris is two-faced.

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021),dinosaur (03-09-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021),StanAtStanFan (03-08-2021),WVYankee (03-08-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Why should the RF be protected at all? They're full of depravity. Prince Andrew has disgraced them beyond repair, imho. Not just recently ether. Imho, it's beyond disgraceful the RF is so progressive. Oh, and Charles telling Camilla he wished he was a tampon inside her. Just really gross. Elizabeth is surrounded by nasty people.
> 
> In addition for them to pretend Edward abdicated for love is galling when in fact he had to go for being a nazi collaborator. Plus they moved to Hollywood and indulged endless swinging and other pervy stuff.
> 
> The "subjects" of the UK deserve better. The UK govt has been about the most oppressive through the SCAMdemic. Even more oppressive than the despicable US govt.
> 
> Boris is two-faced.



Well they aren't being protected, they can look after themselves.

Secondly, you underestimate the regard in which the RF are held in the UK. You have to grasp they are an inherent part of English history and culture, and the vast majority of the English if not love them, approve of them and are proud of having such a feature  of our history and culture, which is almost unique, and such a feature being totally lacking in the USA is why you cant grasp this fact. 

The next thing to consider is that if you insult the RF, you are insulting the vast majority of the English people. It one thing for an American to have a negative opinion about them, but they are OUR , not yours, so when American celebs set about them, they are in danger of pissing all of us off, which asn a 'celeb' isn't going to be good for your box office takings, or sale of your products in this county.  Thats also part of the problem markle has, her inability to grasp the difference between 'celebrity' and 'royalty'. One of the subtle differences is you keep your opinions to yourself, all the RF do. Markle was and is an unstoppable over opinionated motor mouth.

Third, we are supposed to have a 'special relationship' with the USA, and thats not commensurate with slagging off parts of our culture. If the RF stood up and started  disrespecting parts of american culture and prominent Americans, you wouldn't be impressed. You don't stab your friends in the back. Whatever Boris and the Queen think of Biden, or thought of Trump, they kept it buttoned up out of respect. So we expect prominent Americans to reciprocate.

Plus you have the original sin, the markel woman has totally disrespected our Head of State, the Queen, our culture, our traditions, our history, and frequently stuck two fingers up at the English peoples. So she can fuck off, she's a nasty, self obsessed, vacuous, narcissist delusional bitch and a liar, and deserves all the RF now throws at her. We welcomed her with open arms when she got married, and shes done nothing but throw it back in our faces and stick two fingers up at us - and lets not even start on the constant breath taking hypocrisy of almost everything she does, from claiming to stand up for 'oppressed' people ,(whilst bullying her staff) to mouthing of about saving the planet (whilst flying everywhere in a gas guzzling, polluting jet and driving a 4x4).

Cos the one thing that gets EVERYONES backs up here is hypocritical celebs and their 'do as we say not as we do'  lifestyles.

----------

dinosaur (03-09-2021),LadyMoonlight (03-08-2021),MrMike (03-09-2021),Oceander (03-07-2021),Rutabaga (03-07-2021),WVYankee (03-08-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Having now declared war on the RF, the retaliation against the idiot markle woman by the Rf has started. Apart from  starting an investigation into markel bullying staff (which undermines her constant claims of victimhood), its also be revealed shes wearing blood diamond jewellery, despite being advised by palace staff its was a really crap idea...as I said before, this is  war she cant win.  The Palace are experts in dealign with people like her.  Shes also now likely to lose her title. 
> 
> Meghan's 'blood money' earrings: Saudi victim Khashoggi's lawyer condemns Duchess for wearing gift | Daily Mail Online


Pull her title, and the Queen never sees her great-grandchild, as they seem to already be doing that.

I suppose all the people still receiving Rhodes scholarship's from the monies of Cecil Rhodes fortune, which is built on African Conflict diamonds when he started the Boer War in 1899, to seize, illegally, the Kimberly Diamond mines, should have their degrees revoked ?

What is your hangup with Sparkle? From what little I know of them (and never even saw an episode of "Suits"), both are small fry - far removed from the possibility of rising to the throne. Do you think the Windsor's didn't investigate Sparkle and her background before giving the pedophile prince permission to marry her? They had to know she had her own business, and apparently she is still operating it, instead of using the approved Royal Family's businesses. That means the Queen isn't getting her cut. Sounds like an American Mafia "Soprano's" conspiracy.

Hell, your wonderful Royal Family threw Diana out of the castle, and then had her killed. They are as dangerous as Hillary Clinton's "hit squad" in America.

The tone was set with Charles, one of the smartest Brits ever, the man who threw away Diana for the ravishing 55-year old sex bomb Camala. Bright move, he could have done better picking up street girls.

Kudos to Sparkle for defying them. Apparently on the outs with the Queen, they are not allowing her to see her great-grandchild  - a parents option. I wouldn't introduce any kid to the British Royal Family, their influence in England is always hostile. Why they keep pouring money into that family always surprises me. It is mere celebrity worship.

BTW, with your eye for detail and minutia, good possibility you would make an excellent reporter for CNN. 

Stan

----------

MrMike (03-09-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Pull her title, and the Queen never sees her great-grandchild, as they seem to already be doing that.
> 
> I suppose all the people still receiving Rhodes scholarship's from the monies of Cecil Rhodes fortune, which is built on African Conflict diamonds when he started the Boer War in 1899, to seize, illegally, the Kimberly Diamond mines, should have their degrees revoked ?
> 
> What is your hangup with Sparkle? From what little I know of them (and never even saw an episode of "Suits"), both are small fry - far removed from the possibility of rising to the throne. Do you think the Windsor's didn't investigate Sparkle and her background before giving the pedophile prince permission to marry her? They had to know she had her own business, and apparently she is still operating it, instead of using the approved Royal Family's businesses. That means the Queen isn't getting her cut. Sounds like an American Mafia "Soprano's" conspiracy.
> 
> Hell, your wonderful Royal Family threw Diana out of the castle, and then had her killed. They are as dangerous as Hillary Clinton's "hit squad" in America.
> 
> The tone was set with Charles, one of the smartest Brits ever, the man who threw away Diana for the ravishing 55-year old sex bomb Camala. Bright move, he could have done better picking up street girls.
> ...


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Authentic (04-04-2022),BooBoo (03-09-2021),Rutabaga (03-07-2021)

----------


## Moonie

.
And with a grandmother and others that came from the outskirts of Hayward's Heath I can verify it would be Sussex-esqe.

Harry's minders need to do a better job (big time).
.

----------

MrMike (03-09-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Pull her title, and the Queen never sees her great-grandchild, as they seem to already be doing that.
> 
> I suppose all the people still receiving Rhodes scholarship's from the monies of Cecil Rhodes fortune, which is built on African Conflict diamonds when he started the Boer War in 1899, to seize, illegally, the Kimberly Diamond mines, should have their degrees revoked ?


well thats not really true at all.

Legend has it that the first diamond was discovered by the children  of a Dutch farmer but their accounts could not be verified. Later in  March 1869, a black boy working for a local white farmer discovered a  large diamond (83 carats) and sold it to Schalk van Niekerk. He was paid  500 sheep, 10 herds of cattle and one horse. Van Niekerk then sold it  to for £11,000 sterling. News of this diamond created a digging frenzy  along the banks of the Vaal. In July 1870, they were about 800  prospectors digging in the area but by October, the number had risen to  5,000. Early claims were about 31 square feet and many more diamonds  were found a few miles away from the river in the Bulfontein and  Vooruitzigt farms.

 In July 1871, another large diamond found on the Vooruitzigt created a  new diamond rush and by December of that year about 7,000 prospectors,  both black and white were digging up to 20 meters deep in search of the  precious gem. Prospectors came from all races and nationalities  including African, British, Dutch, German, Swedes, French, Turks,  Norwegians, Russians, Greeks and Africans. This discovery in the Cape  became known as Kimberly, named after the British Secretary of the  colonies.

 In 1861, 16,542 carats of diamonds were exported; 102,500 carats were  exported in 1870 and 269,000 carats were exported in 1871. By 1872,  about 1,080,000 carats were exported from present day South Africa.

 The prospects for high profit created a new concern for property  rights in that area. The diamond fields were located on the northern  boundary of the British Cape Colony in a region claimed by the Griqua,  the Tswana and the Kora. The British Court of Inquiry ruled that the  Griqua had the most valid claim over the territory and consequently the  Griqua sought protection from the British. The Griqua were a multiracial  group in the Cape. The British took this as an opportunity to annex the  territory and by 1871, the world’s richest diamond producing region  became known as the British Colony of Griqualand West.


Nothing illegal going on there, Just victorian imperialism, which everyone was engaged in.








> What is your hangup with Sparkle? From what little I know of them (and never even saw an episode of "Suits"), both are small fry - far removed from the possibility of rising to the throne. Do you think the Windsor's didn't investigate Sparkle and her background before giving the pedophile prince permission to marry her? They had to know she had her own business, and apparently she is still operating it, instead of using the approved Royal Family's businesses. That means the Queen isn't getting her cut. Sounds like an American Mafia "Soprano's" conspiracy.


nothing to do with it

Ive explained in previous posts, she came over here thinking she was the big I Am, and when she found out she wasnt going to be Queen, and actually had to give something back in exchange for sponging off the English  Taxpayers, stuck two fingers up at us, our monarch, our culture, our traditions our history and roundly insulted all the English peoples. So not surprisingly, we started to not like her at all.




> I wouldn't introduce any kid to the British Royal Family, their influence in England is always hostile. Why they keep pouring money into that family always surprises me. It is mere celebrity worship.


markle was welcomed her with open arms and a massive wave of good will, no one at all was hostile to her, goodwill  which she then frittered away by selfish dive behaviour, bullying staff, and insulting every part of our nations, culture and peoples, multiple times.  What hostility she says she felt she brought on herself by behaving like a spoiled  entitled dickhead.


Queen Elizabeth has earned great respect, honour and admiration from the  international community. Her conscientious, commitment to duty over the  past decades has solidified her reputation and status as a world class  leader. And thats why the English largely love her,  you americans have never had a leader of such a nature. She has nothing fear from this couple's"tell-all" interview. The  point is that aside from the interview, Harry has allowed his wife to  abuse HIS family and alienate his relations with them over the course of  a very brief period of years. That is inexcusable, but then hes a pussy whipped gamma male, thats why the gold digger latched onto him.

Meghan Markle is a known liar, plagiarist and  greedy celebrity huckster who has been exposed as a vicious BULLY. She's  a malignant narcissist with sociopathic tendencies who was catapulted  to fame and fortune by hapless, Harry, a dunce with a title. Without  their royal titles, they are nobodies.                  Now, they are nobodies who are not liked--not respected--and  certainly not trusted by the vast majority of the People of Great  Britain and the Commonwealth. Their tired ole' "victim" narratives are  nauseating. Meghan Markle was granted the lavish royal wedding she  demanded; titles, patronages & privileges that she squandered; and  greedily spent vast sums of money on herself for residences, travel  & luxury, designer clothes, jewels, etc. And yet, these hypocritical  grifters, "H" & "M", continue to sponge off of the British  taxpayers who still pay the costs of their security, travel & other  perks--all because these traitors retain royal titles: it's an outrage.  They kicked aside Queen and Country in favour of Tinseltown, Netflix  & Spotify, Oprah and American politicos--and thus, have NO official  role to play within the Monarchy. That said, they should NOT be rewarded  for their appalling "victim"-hood narrative by being allowed to keep  undeserved titles & any official status.

----------

dinosaur (03-09-2021),LadyMoonlight (03-08-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Having now declared war on the RF, the retaliation against the idiot markle woman by the Rf has started. Apart from  starting an investigation into markel bullying staff (which undermines her constant claims of victimhood), its also be revealed shes wearing blood diamond jewellery, despite being advised by palace staff its was a really crap idea...as I said before, this is  war she cant win.  The Palace are experts in dealign with people like her.  Shes also now likely to lose her title. 
> 
> Meghan's 'blood money' earrings: Saudi victim Khashoggi's lawyer condemns Duchess for wearing gift | Daily Mail Online



yes, the crown has had centuries dealing with riff raff, and embarrassing consorts.

morgan is in over her pay grade...

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021),LadyMoonlight (03-08-2021),StanAtStanFan (03-08-2021),WVYankee (03-08-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Well they aren't being protected, they can look after themselves.
> 
> Secondly, you underestimate the regard in which the RF are held in the UK. You have to grasp they are an inherent part of English history and culture, and the vast majority of the English if not love them, approve of them and are proud of having such a feature  of our history and culture, which is almost unique, and such a feature being totally lacking in the USA is why you cant grasp this fact. 
> 
> The next thing to consider is that if you insult the RF, you are insulting the vast majority of the English people. It one thing for an American to have a negative opinion about them, but they are OUR , not yours, so when American celebs set about them, they are in danger of pissing all of us off, which asn a 'celeb' isn't going to be good for your box office takings, or sale of your products in this county.  Thats also part of the problem markle has, her inability to grasp the difference between 'celebrity' and 'royalty'. One of the subtle differences is you keep your opinions to yourself, all the RF do. Markle was and is an unstoppable over opinionated motor mouth.
> 
> Third, we are supposed to have a 'special relationship' with the USA, and thats not commensurate with slagging off parts of our culture. If the RF stood up and started  disrespecting parts of american culture and prominent Americans, you wouldn't be impressed. You don't stab your friends in the back. Whatever Boris and the Queen think of Biden, or thought of Trump, they kept it buttoned up out of respect. So we expect prominent Americans to reciprocate.
> 
> Plus you have the original sin, the markel woman has totally disrespected our Head of State, the Queen, our culture, our traditions, our history, and frequently stuck two fingers up at the English peoples. So she can fuck off, she's a nasty, self obsessed, vacuous, narcissist delusional bitch and a liar, and deserves all the RF now throws at her. We welcomed her with open arms when she got married, and shes done nothing but throw it back in our faces and stick two fingers up at us - and lets not even start on the constant breath taking hypocrisy of almost everything she does, from claiming to stand up for 'oppressed' people ,(whilst bullying her staff) to mouthing of about saving the planet (whilst flying everywhere in a gas guzzling, polluting jet and driving a 4x4).
> ...




i fully understand that unless you grew up in a monarchy and had a king/queen/royals you would not understand how important those figures are to you...
and i do not disagree...

i cannot think of an equal here except to say some would say the dancing monkeys in entertainment/sports etc. are put on pedestals for various reasons...

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> well thats not really true at all.
> 
> Legend has it that the first diamond was discovered by the children  of a Dutch farmer but their accounts could not be verified. Later in  March 1869, a black boy working for a local white farmer discovered a  large diamond (83 carats) and sold it to Schalk van Niekerk. He was paid  500 sheep, 10 herds of cattle and one horse. Van Niekerk then sold it  to for £11,000 sterling. News of this diamond created a digging frenzy  along the banks of the Vaal. In July 1870, they were about 800  prospectors digging in the area but by October, the number had risen to  5,000. Early claims were about 31 square feet and many more diamonds  were found a few miles away from the river in the Bulfontein and  Vooruitzigt farms.
> 
>  In July 1871, another large diamond found on the Vooruitzigt created a  new diamond rush and by December of that year about 7,000 prospectors,  both black and white were digging up to 20 meters deep in search of the  precious gem. Prospectors came from all races and nationalities  including African, British, Dutch, German, Swedes, French, Turks,  Norwegians, Russians, Greeks and Africans. This discovery in the Cape  became known as Kimberly, named after the British Secretary of the  colonies.
> 
>  In 1861, 16,542 carats of diamonds were exported; 102,500 carats were  exported in 1870 and 269,000 carats were exported in 1871. By 1872,  about 1,080,000 carats were exported from present day South Africa.
> 
>  The prospects for high profit created a new concern for property  rights in that area. The diamond fields were located on the northern  boundary of the British Cape Colony in a region claimed by the Griqua,  the Tswana and the Kora. The British Court of Inquiry ruled that the  Griqua had the most valid claim over the territory and consequently the  Griqua sought protection from the British. The Griqua were a multiracial  group in the Cape. The British took this as an opportunity to annex the  territory and by 1871, the world’s richest diamond producing region  became known as the British Colony of Griqualand West.
> ...



Sounds like you have some sexual attraction or perversion for the sparkle eh? LOL.


Stan

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> yes, the crown has had centuries dealing with riff raff, and embarrassing consorts.
> 
> morgan is in over her pay grade...




So was an innocent Princess Diana and the Crown threw her out of the kitchen, then had her killed while Charles walked away with his sex bomb.
Nice innocent, respected family them.



Stan

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021),Rutabaga (03-08-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> So was an innocent Princess Diana and the Crown threw her out of the kitchen, then had her killed while Charles walked away with his sex bomb.
> Nice innocent, respected family them.
> 
> Stan


yes, idk why you keep flogging this point. Diana as used as breeding stock to produce the next in succession, because Camilla was too old.  The issue was the RF didnt want the heir to the throne's mother marrying a raghead, which what was as going to transpire.  Diana knew this and was playing with fire, and it wasnt the first time shed opened her legs, add to the list a Royal protection officer, and two members of the Scots Guards  at least. . Markle has made exactly the same error as Diana also made, by blabbing to the press. Had Diana been a good girl and kept her head down she would probably have been ok. Ditto Markle. Unfortunately motor mouth has decided to declare war. So be its, its a war she cant win.

----------

LadyMoonlight (03-08-2021),Rutabaga (03-08-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Sounds like you have some sexual attraction or perversion for the sparkle eh? LOL.
> 
> 
> Stan


Idiot.  Are you getting upset because I can tear your idiot points to pieces?. Best stop posting then, moron, your contributions are now dropping below the required IQ level for me to bother with.  If your best response has become "Nah nah you fancy megan", then  find a 9 year old to talk to, for that sort of banal level of conversation.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Idiot.  Are you getting upset because I can tear your idiot points to pieces?. Best stop posting then, moron, your contributions are now dropping below the required IQ level for me to bother with.  If your best response has become "Nah nah you fancy megan", then  find a 9 year old to talk to, for that sort of banal level of conversation.



Your speculation about Princess Diana's flirtations, true, but she apparently didn't engage in them until she discovered Charles had already broken the marriage up. He never cared a wit about her. Yes - from the Royal Family, she was used as breeding stock for an heir, and provided same. Eventually, they threw her out. The Queen not wanting an Arab in the Royal Family - also probably true - but kicking Diana out, withdrawing her title, nothing but pure spite, the British people never considered her as anything but a Princess, even AFTER the Queen took her title away.

Your wonderful Queen is one prejudiced bitch whenever she wants to be, and she wants to be a lot of times over many things she doesn't agree with. One of the many reasons America decided no royalty when we wrote our Constitution. She isn't alone, that entire collection of Queens; Kings; Counts; Dukes; and other various hangers on - all across Europe from the mid-1800's to the start of World War II, were useless.

Now - it obviously appears I am getting under your skin - as you explode and start calling a VIP poster an idiot and nine-year old. I am far, far from that. Some may not like my style, many do. But try to stick to the facts, past and present. You haven't refuted anything that I wrote yet, and apparently you can't, or as you posted, my post was too long for you to answer. So my apologies for your inability to discuss topics due to a reading comprehension problem.

Let me make it real easy for you. The only thing I like about England; London, the Queen, or your history, is the Beatles. The rest of Wally World on the Thames is nothing more than PR show, serving no purpose IMO.


Stan

----------


## WVYankee

> yes, idk why you keep flogging this point. Diana as used as breeding stock to produce the next in succession, because Camilla was too old.  The issue was the RF didnt want the heir to the throne's mother marrying a raghead, which what was as going to transpire.  Diana knew this and was playing with fire, and it wasnt the first time shed opened her legs, add to the list a Royal protection officer, and two members of the Scots Guards  at least. . Markle has made exactly the same error as Diana also made, by blabbing to the press. Had Diana been a good girl and kept her head down she would probably have been ok. Ditto Markle. Unfortunately motor mouth has decided to declare war. So be its, its a war she cant win.


Bingo!!!!

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Your wonderful Queen is one prejudiced bitch  
> 
> Stan



Show me one demonstrably provable example of the Queen being racist. The only racist prejudice in this thread is coming from you, you nasty little bigot.

I think the conversation with you is over, its not a debate or discussion  any more, its just a bitter twisted yankee - turd spouting unsupported racist hate. Not at all interested in this garbage. .

----------


## Oceander

Just my two cents' worth:  Diana knew what she was getting into, she knew that the only reason Charles wanted to marry her was to get his family off his back, and she still went forward with it.  Then, after the bride-buzz of the wedding wore off, she got buyer's remorse - poo widdle Diana - and tried to make herself the witness victim.  She came from upper class family, she had a grandmother who schooled her in the finer arts of navigating the RF, and she had more than enough warning about what was likely to come down the road.

She was her own worst enemy.  Just like Markle, she suffered from too much onanistic self-pity.

I would spare as much sympathy for her as I would for Charles, which is to say:  not much.  Charles is a dog, but then, he always has been, always will be, and never made any real bones about it in the first place.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Show me one demonstrably provable example of the Queen being racist. The only racist prejudice in this thread is coming from you, you nasty little bigot.
> 
> I think the conversation with you is over, its not a debate or discussion  any more, its just a bitter twisted yankee - turd spouting unsupported racist hate. Not at all interested in this garbage. .



Wow! I haven't read vocabulary like that since, well, when I taught 7th grade. So now that I know your intellect level, understand your juvenile, bombast over a really silly, unimportant matter. The Queen of England - and her prejudiced family. You Brits really, actually, think you occupy some important position in the world order of things - you don't, haven't since 1939. The last decent people to arise in that family are Andrew and Kate, and you better hope they can right the sinking ship of Elizabeth and England. BTW, nobody will miss you. Maybe some South American or African nation will seize an atoll claimed by the Queen, and you can send the fleet to war to regain respect against some harmless opponent instead of infighting with each other, which is about all the RF does daily anyways.


Stan

----------

Authentic (04-04-2022)

----------


## WVYankee

My opinion on this whole disgraceful "happening" within the British Royal family? A horny prince meets and marries a slutty, gold digging bitch who afterward thinks her newfound "influence" is somehow going to propel her into having her lolly every time she wants one, now that she's so "special and everything." 

Her complete ignorance (not to mention a complete lack of intelligent planning--or more succinctly ANY shade of intelligence, truth be known) immediately served to remind not only WHO she was dealing with, but her idiot husband (obviously mesmerized by the powers generated from her nether regions), is spellbound for a lifetime. 

As for the aforementioned Dianna, she got what was coming to her. If allowed to continue unchecked, she would have changed the landscape of Great Britain and its allies forever, with the scum she was sleeping with. "Princess" or not, a slut is a SLUT. And when a kingdom is at stake with such choices, it's magnified more times than a run-of-the mill Japanese calculator has the capacity to spit out.

Now on to Doperah--well, is there REALLY any need to expound on this bitch's intentions???

----------


## WVYankee

My opinion on this whole disgraceful "happening" within the British Royal family? A horny prince meets and marries a slutty, gold digging bitch who afterward thinks her newfound "influence" is somehow going to propel her into having her lolly every time she wants one, now that she's so "special and everything." 

Her complete ignorance (not to mention a complete lack of intelligent planning--or more succinctly ANY shade of intelligence, truth be known) immediately served to remind not only WHO she was dealing with, but her idiot husband (obviously mesmerized by the powers generated from her nether regions), is spellbound for a lifetime. 

As for the aforementioned Dianna, she got what was coming to her. If allowed to continue unchecked, she would have changed the landscape of Great Britain and its allies forever, with the scum she was sleeping with. "Princess" or not, a slut is a SLUT. And when a kingdom is at stake with such choices, it's magnified more times than a run-of-the mill Japanese calculator has the capacity to spit out.

Now on to Doperah--well, is there REALLY any need to expound on this bitch's intentions???

----------


## WVYankee

> Wow! I haven't read vocabulary like that since, well, when I taught 7th grade. So now that I know your intellect level, understand your juvenile, bombast over a really silly, unimportant matter. The Queen of England - and her prejudiced family. You Brits really, actually, think you occupy some important position in the world order of things - you don't, haven't since 1939. The last decent people to arise in that family are Andrew and Kate, and you better hope they can right the sinking ship of Elizabeth and England. BTW, nobody will miss you. Maybe some South American or African nation will seize an atoll claimed by the Queen, and you can send the fleet to war to regain respect against some harmless opponent instead of infighting with each other, which is about all the RF does daily anyways.
> 
> 
> Stan



Careful where you tread.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> My opinion on this whole disgraceful "happening" within the British Royal family? A horny prince meets and marries a slutty, gold digging bitch who afterward thinks her newfound "influence" is somehow going to propel her into having her lolly every time she wants one, now that she's so "special and everything." 
> 
> Her complete ignorance (not to mention a complete lack of intelligent planning--or more succinctly ANY shade of intelligence, truth be known) immediately served to remind not only WHO she was dealing with, but her idiot husband (obviously mesmerized by the powers generated from her nether regions), is spellbound for a lifetime. 
> 
> As for the aforementioned Dianna, she got what was coming to her. If allowed to continue unchecked, she would have changed the landscape of Great Britain and its allies forever, with the scum she was sleeping with. "Princess" or not, a slut is a SLUT. And when a kingdom is at stake with such choices, it's magnified more times than a run-of-the mill Japanese calculator has the capacity to spit out.
> 
> Now on to Doperah--well, is there REALLY any need to expound on this bitch's intentions???


I believe Diana was only 19-years old when she married Charles. How mature were you at 19?
So the Queen condoned adultery in her son, but chastised it in her daughter-in-law ???
Charles is the one who should have been thrown out of the Royal Family. What do you think was going to be the legal and public relations fallout had Charles ascended to the throne while married to Diana, and banging Camila? The end result would have been the same, he would have had her eliminated, which he did. That is why I posted the Queen is one prejudiced bitch. Her "we are not pleased" attacks are not important, in fact, really, she is not important, at least to Americans. 

Now, we have a pretty lenient view toward adultery - we have infected Bill Clinton among us, and the Witch Hillary. One a pedophile bastard, the other a cold bloody murderer. Fortunately, every four or eight years, we get to throw the bastards out of office - not so with the Queen, wearing soap on a rope around her neck as a necklace and stamping her feet on the ground when somebody asks her age. The Brits are stuck with her for life. I never understood what makes them the moral arbitrators of others, when they are so obviously corrupt morally, themselves.

Anyways, the expulsion of Diana was neither necessary, nor fitting for royal action. She could have survived just fine as a Princess, removed from the line to the throne, without them eliminating her title or her. Charles could go on with his sex exploits with the wrinkled Camila and Harry, like father like son, with his American trophy. Actually sparkle has added a new sense of excitement and interest in the British Royal Family, they are so old and stodgy, nobody seems to take them seriously anymore. Sparkle is doing an Academy Award performance, but watch out driving down that high, twisting Mulholland Road in Hollywood, she could easily end up like Princess Grace of Monaco. The Queen's reach is long and deadly.


Stan

----------


## WVYankee

Stan, obviously you're an intelligent man. Given some of your posts, you're also a student of history. That imparted, I'm guessing you're aware of not only the histories of the many monarchies of Europe, but the only one that's survived (in part) today. There's a reason for that.

And with that, the importance of the congruence of the English speaking peoples and how important, especially in a world that seeks to rip us apart, that we stick together more than ever, for our collective survival.

Diplomacy with other nations, while aimed at preventing things such as open war is necessary; is much more so that we not openly attack each other, but realize that we are borne of England and each sport our own warts and ignore them, in the spirit of comradery--not tearing ourselves to pieces.

The British are quirky. They think the same of us. But they are our best, most staunch ally. 

You and I , as Americans, do care about topics such as these, or we wouldn't be responding in threads such as these. So allow our British friend to unburden himself. Besides, he DOES make some very good points in a very articulate fashion...

----------

Authentic (04-04-2022),Big Wheeler (03-09-2021),Call_me_Ishmael (03-15-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Stan, obviously you're an intelligent man. Given some of your posts, you're also a student of history. That imparted, I'm guessing you're aware of not only the histories of the many monarchies of Europe, but the only one that's survived (in part) today. There's a reason for that.
> 
> And with that, the importance of the congruence of the English speaking peoples and how important, especially in a world that seeks to rip us apart, that we stick together more than ever, for our collective survival.
> 
> Diplomacy with other nations, while aimed at preventing things such as open war is necessary; is much more so that we not openly attack each other, but realize that we are borne of England and each sport our own warts and ignore them, in the spirit of comradery--not tearing ourselves to pieces.
> 
> The British are quirky. They think the same of us. But they are our best, most staunch ally. 
> 
> You and I , as Americans, do care about topics such as these, or we wouldn't be responding in threads such as these. So allow our British friend to unburden himself. Besides, he DOES make some very good points in a very articulate fashion...


Your last line has to be a joke, right? We are not engaged in diplomacy here - he is welcome to criticize us at anytime on TPF, and has. 
Thanks for the second lecture. Yea, I have been reading just how articulate his vocabulary and contentions happen to be.
Notice he hasn't said anything about the quirky Mayor of London, or the balloons flying over that city with Trump's likeness as a pig. Nor the idiot Roger whatever his last name was, think it is Waters, last of Pink Floyd, who comes to America, and has a huge balloon similar, floating over the American arena, lettered Trump is a pig, his entire show. I worked his concerts and people walked out in droves - and refused to work it again, thankfully Covid cancelled his appearance this year.

No, we have to chalk that up to British being quirky that they can publicly make money and insult 75.5 million Americans routinely, while on our soil. And wasn't it an American medical visa that got Keith Richards, heading for 7-years in jail in Canada (one of the Queen's possessions), that brought him into our country to get clean and saved his life? Naw, that couldn't have happened to a rocker and stoner like him. Queen didn't lift a finger for the guy, but our State Department did, without any conditions and out of the blue. 

So what is the problem with me having fun with the old Queen? Obviously she is a born hypocrite, spends thousands on ugly dawgs, held out to the very last moment flying the Windsor family flag from Buckingham Palace for Diana's funeral (public anger and pressure forced her to do it, even Blair couldn't talk her into doing it) and likes to ride horses - got more attention in America when she attended the Kentucky Derby (no, she wasn't entered to run), when she came to see it.

We bitch about how bad our Congress spends money, but this lady gets millions poured over to her all the time, and I never see that it changes British ideas or attitudes. I am still waiting for our UK poster to answer the historical evidence I posted about England, yet he can't or won't. As for your warnings and lectures, I am not out of bounds in teasing him or the British, so, perhaps you should stay out of the discussion yourself if you find it so distasteful.

BTW, my jokes about the Queen? Compliments of American female comedian Joan Rivers.


Stan

----------


## MrMike

> .
> And with a grandmother and others that came from the outskirts of Hayward's Heath I can verify it would be Sussex-esqe.
> 
> Harry's minders need to do a better job (big time).
> .


lol I used to live just down from you just below the Ditchling Beacon...  :Smiley ROFLMAO:    small world.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Notice he hasn't said anything about the quirky Mayor of London, or the balloons flying over that city with Trump's likeness as a pig. Nor the idiot Roger whatever his last name was, think it is Waters, last of Pink Floyd, who comes to America, and has a huge balloon similar, floating over the American arena, lettered Trump is a pig, his entire show. I worked his concerts and people walked out in droves - and refused to work it again, thankfully Covid cancelled his appearance this year.
> 
> Stan



Because the thread isnt about any of those things, you dimwitted, vindictive, racist, english hating nazi....

There wil be no further replies from me to any of your previous posts, because they arent made in the spirit of debate, they are intentionally  vindictive hate filled stabs at me and my country.  You do the old trick most bullies do, engage in some nasty, hateful  actions, then try and cover it up with "Oh im only teasing, its just a joke". Well, no, that one wore out at school. There's a vast difference between good-natured leg pulling and hateful poison, and your posts ooze hate for the English out of every full stop.   Now, if I wanted to engage in flame wars with a moron, I'd have stayed on twitter, except i didn't, i came here to engage in discussion with what is a group of very pleasant, reasonable, sensible people, and all lacking in malice.

Apart from the couple of bad apples in the barrel like you. Not interested in your bile. Dont expect me to engage in debate with you anymore.

----------


## Big Wheeler

> Wow! I haven't read vocabulary like that since, well, when I taught 7th grade. So now that I know your intellect level, understand your juvenile, bombast over a really silly, unimportant matter. The Queen of England - and her prejudiced family. You Brits really, actually, think you occupy some important position in the world order of things - you don't, haven't since 1939. The last decent people to arise in that family are Andrew and Kate, and you better hope they can right the sinking ship of Elizabeth and England. BTW, nobody will miss you. Maybe some South American or African nation will seize an atoll claimed by the Queen, and you can send the fleet to war to regain respect against some harmless opponent instead of infighting with each other, which is about all the RF does daily anyways.
> 
> 
> Stan


Would that be the Andrew?Prince Andrew?Air miles Andy?Alleged friend of several young ladies and a major suspected paedophile who is sadly no longer among us?

----------


## UKSmartypants

Camilla Tominey - Daily Telegraph
'It was probably the most astonishing royal interview I've ever watched in my life. 'And  I say that on the back of Panorama, and indeed, Prince Charles speaking to Jonathan Dimbleby. Even the Duchess of York's Oprah outing had  nothing on this...

'...I think most people acknowledge that the Royal Family is quite dysfunctional. It's not nuclear, it's thermo-nuclear. And I think we've seen that over the course of the last few decades. 

'But they'll be wondering: well *you've got Megxit and by your own admission the fairytale has ended happily. You are now thriving as opposed to just surviving.  'Why then did you feel you needed to unleash on people with whom you are struggling to maintain a relationship?*

Celia Walden - Daily Telegraph  
'Meghan   was so guileless, she assures Oprah, that she knew nothing about either the royal family or what she was getting herself into. 'She has never looked up Prince Harry online. She 'never researched what it  would mean' to be his girlfriend or become his wife. 'She 'honestly' thought The Firm was looking out for her best interests – it was left to Meghan's friends to inform her, again, how naïve she was. 'She 'didn't have a plan', and 'genuinely hadn't thought of' profiting from her royal title with whopping Netflix and Spotify deals.'Journalists  famously ask leading questions.* Meghan is the only celebrity interviewee I've ever seen to give such leading answers she might as well have been pulling poor Oprah along by a leash.'


* Carole Malone - Daily Express  
*'Meghan and Harry have chosen to go as low as possible – trashing his father, his brother William, and Catherine who he used to call his 'big sister'.'Instead of going high*, they've chosen the scorched earth route.'They've  chosen division, destruction and to hurt people – in Harry's case the people he loved most in the world after his wife and child.'He told Oprah he feared that what happened to his mother would happen to his wife, that 'history would repeat'.*'What tosh! Meghan did the royal role for 20 months. Diana was at it for 17 years, the last four without security or protection. So yes, she was besieged. Meghan was not.'  * 


Allison Pearson - Daily Telegraph 
'The most shocking moment came when the Duchess confessed to having had suicidal thoughts and not wanting to go on in the face of relentless media scrutiny. 'She and Harry gave a convincing account of the crazy, constricted cage that is being Royal, and their decision to bend the bars and fly away seems totally  understandable – admirable, even. 'But why give this deeply destructive interview now when Prince Philip,  within three months of his century, is in hospital and the Queen waits at Windsor for her 'liege man of life and limb' who has been by her side for 73 years?  *It looks vengeful, self-absorbed and attention-seeking...
*

*'...Above all, many of us will have felt the insult to the Queen.* However loudly Harry and Meghan may have proclaimed their affection for the monarch there is no question that their interview was a devastating act of  lèse-majesté. 'The couple unleashed demons which could destabilise her beloved Commonwealth and threaten the future of the monarchy itself.'

 Melanie McDonagh - The Spectator 
'The  person who comes out really badly from all this is Prince Harry, not his wife. He is absent from the first part of the interview and poisonous in the second. 'It was he who should have tried to explain to his intended about the nature of the royal role, though it's hard to think of anything he could have said that would have deterred Meghan. '*His assertion that they would have remained with their role had they been given greater support is malign to the people who did try to help them. 'His declaration that Prince Charles and his brother are trapped inside the institution is ostensibly sympathetic and actually spiteful.'*

 Quentin Letts - The Times  
'This was Semtex in swaddling bands. Cyanide en gelee.* The biggest act of strategic self-harm since the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow.* 'Although presented as schmaltz, this two-hour gloopathon was politically ruinous.'Life is about telling stories, right?' said la Markle, all high-resolution lip gloss. 'Telling stories through a truthful lens.' Her eyes sparkled behind lashes long as ravens' wings.'Stories were duly delivered, a steaming dump of indiscretions: whinges about money and titles and bodyguards and the rotten tabloid press (presumably  quite different from tabloid television). 'That Kate Cambridge? A B*I*T*C*H! 'But I have forgiven her,' purred Meghan with her truthful lens.'


 Bel Mooney - Daily Mail
'Watching Oprah's interview, I tried to feel furious with those hugely rich, pampered people, living in a gated paradise while whinging about how badly they have been treated.'But I'm afraid I couldn't help but pity the couple as two surprisingly naïve, youngish souls who know astonishingly little about real life — and have  instead revealed just how damaged they both are.'Was the decision to spill the beans to Oprah part of a strategy to promote their lucrative brand — or yet another yelp in one long cry for help?'This isn't so much a case of 'their own truth' (as Winfrey would put it, in that wince-inducing phrase) as *a painful revelation of how little they  understand of what they are really saying.'They present themselves as truth-tellers, more sinned against than sinning. Yet they seem ignorant of the fact that 'truth' is a double-edged sword, and that by stating one thing you can reveal something quite different.' * 

Richard Kay - Daily Mail
*'What  concerns those who have the goodwill of the monarchy at heart is how Meghan and Harry have wrought such damage on its image and reputation oversea with their wilful and groundlessly vindictive remarks.* 'A reputation, remember, cultivated over almost 70 years of tireless service by Harry's grandmother, the Queen.'How tragic that at almost 95, she should see her life's work jeopardised by such thoughtlessness. In Britain many with far fewer material advantages than this pampered, privileged pair will not have been bedazzled by their attempt to secure sympathy while at the same time attempting to destroy an institution that has, by and large, served us  well for centuries.  'For the picture they painted of life inside the House of Windsor is scarcely believable... 
 '...  *The barbs and insults aimed with precision at William, Kate, Charles and the Queen are one thing, but their implication that our island nation is a country where racist attitudes flourish is a travesty.* All this has been grist to the mill for those republican sympathisers to jump in gleefully and attack the monarchy.'


The fact is The RF will survive, this is nothing to them really, the Queen is Queen, Charles will soon be king then William will be King, by that time the  dopey twosome will have separated, Harry will on his own wondering where it all went wrong and she will be on her fifth marriage and flogging  tat on QVC, and Archie will be shooting coke with some hoe in a tenement in NY.

----------

Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),Oceander (03-09-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Because the thread isnt about any of those things, you dimwitted, vindictive, racist, english hating nazi....
> 
> There wil be no further replies from me to any of your previous posts, because they arent made in the spirit of debate, they are intentionally  vindictive hate filled stabs at me and my country.  You do the old trick most bullies do, engage in some nasty, hateful  actions, then try and cover it up with "Oh im only teasing, its just a joke". Well, no, that one wore out at school. There's a vast difference between good-natured leg pulling and hateful poison, and your posts ooze hate for the English out of every full stop.   Now, if I wanted to engage in flame wars with a moron, I'd have stayed on twitter, except i didn't, i came here to engage in discussion with what is a group of very pleasant, reasonable, sensible people, and all lacking in malice.
> 
> Apart from the couple of bad apples in the barrel like you. Not interested in your bile. Dont expect me to engage in debate with you anymore.



"Does this mean we are not friends anymore? Why Ed - if I thought you were not my friend, I don't think I could bear it." 
Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in "Tombstone" movie. 

Cool you jets kid - nobody wants you to have a heart attack - least of all me, over internet chat.


Stan

----------


## LadyMoonlight

Harry and his handler.jpg

----------


## LadyMoonlight

Harry and his handler.jpg 

When a spoilt, whinging brat met and married trash, did anyone seriously believe there would be different outcome? That would be a tad naive!

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021),Lone Gunman (03-09-2021),Oceander (03-09-2021),WVYankee (03-09-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> Your last line has to be a joke, right? We are not engaged in diplomacy here - he is welcome to criticize us at anytime on TPF, and has. 
> Thanks for the second lecture. Yea, I have been reading just how articulate his vocabulary and contentions happen to be.
> Notice he hasn't said anything about the quirky Mayor of London, or the balloons flying over that city with Trump's likeness as a pig. Nor the idiot Roger whatever his last name was, think it is Waters, last of Pink Floyd, who comes to America, and has a huge balloon similar, floating over the American arena, lettered Trump is a pig, his entire show. I worked his concerts and people walked out in droves - and refused to work it again, thankfully Covid cancelled his appearance this year.
> 
> No, we have to chalk that up to British being quirky that they can publicly make money and insult 75.5 million Americans routinely, while on our soil. And wasn't it an American medical visa that got Keith Richards, heading for 7-years in jail in Canada (one of the Queen's possessions), that brought him into our country to get clean and saved his life? Naw, that couldn't have happened to a rocker and stoner like him. Queen didn't lift a finger for the guy, but our State Department did, without any conditions and out of the blue. 
> 
> So what is the problem with me having fun with the old Queen? Obviously she is a born hypocrite, spends thousands on ugly dawgs, held out to the very last moment flying the Windsor family flag from Buckingham Palace for Diana's funeral (public anger and pressure forced her to do it, even Blair couldn't talk her into doing it) and likes to ride horses - got more attention in America when she attended the Kentucky Derby (no, she wasn't entered to run), when she came to see it.
> 
> We bitch about how bad our Congress spends money, but this lady gets millions poured over to her all the time, and I never see that it changes British ideas or attitudes. I am still waiting for our UK poster to answer the historical evidence I posted about England, yet he can't or won't. As for your warnings and lectures, I am not out of bounds in teasing him or the British, so, perhaps you should stay out of the discussion yourself if you find it so distasteful.
> ...



I've no quarrel with you. None whatsoever--just to be clear. But you do come across in this thread as an antagonist. That is undeniable.

That imparted, if smartypants, whomever he really is, would like to expound on whether or not he supported or hated our President (the very one who had as second term STOLEN from him last Novermer), then that may support your insinuations about him. Furthermore, I'd love to know what he thinks of his former PM, Margaret Thatcher, and her relationship with one of our greatest former presidents, Ronald Reagan--sans the five dollar words, and without dodging the question. 

Were the three of us to sit down at a table and look each other in the eye as MEN, it would take me all of 5 minutes to see through the bullshit and come to terms with it, right there. Unfortunately, with this medium, that's impossible. So, words from here out become even more important, even if only with words. Because even words matter(eventually), even in this format.

To borrow a line from my favourite movie, "Amadeus," "well, there it is!"

----------

Big Wheeler (03-10-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I've no quarrel with you. None whatsoever--just to be clear. But you do come across in this thread as an antagonist. That is undeniable.
> 
> That imparted, if smartypants, whomever he really is, would like to expound on whether or not he supported or hated our President (the very one who had as second term STOLEN from him last Novermer), then that may support your insinuations about him. Furthermore, I'd love to know what he thinks of his former PM, Margaret Thatcher, and her relationship with one of our greatest former presidents, Ronald Reagan--sans the five dollar words, and without dodging the question. 
> 
> Were the three of us to sit down at a table and look each other in the eye as MEN, it would take me all of 5 minutes to see through the bullshit and come to terms with it, right there. Unfortunately, with this medium, that's impossible. So, words from here out become even more important, even if only with words. Because even words matter(eventually), even in this format.
> 
> To borrow a line from my favourite movie, "Amadeus," "well, there it is!"



1. I was all for Trump, he was a renegade, and anti global elite. 
2. Maggie did several good things and a couple of cock ups
-she vastly increased house ownership in the Uk. by giving council house tenants the legal right to buy the house they rented from the council,  which therefore vastly increased the personal family wealth of millions and thus the wealth of the country
-and then ballsed it up by not letting councils use the proceeds of sales of council houses to build more houses. Had she done that we would not now be 2 million houses short, having had to house the 5 million immigrants Blair let in.
-Maggie gets vilified by the left, and falsely accused of closing all the coal mines. Fact  was  the cost of coal was far too high because of the excessive pay the Unions had extorted from previous Labour Governments, and it was cheaper to buy it from Poland. As for closing the pits, Maggie simply finished off what the previous Labour government started  - she closed 196 pits, the previous Labour government closed 462.  The Left neglect to mention that.
-Maggie also had no time for the Eu, she knew it was a scam, and they were out to destroy us. She kicked ass and got us a £5B a year rebate on our contribution ,which Blair then gave away for nothing.

I liked Regan, he was old fashioned politician with good old fashioned Protestant values, and the West was built on Protestant values and work ethic. He wasn't the sharpest knife in the box, but he was a decent man and did a good  job in office.   He revived his party after the catastrophe of Nixon and Watergate,  he tackled the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold  War, and he unified the people, and created 20 illion new jobs with Reaganomics. And being an actor, he was a master Orator, id put him close the Churchill in that respect.  he made a great team with Maggie, because they wer both Conviction Politicians, people who believed in the policies they propounded, and people who were not in if for the money or to line their own pockets. Such politicians are practically extinct nowadays

----------

Big Wheeler (03-10-2021),LadyMoonlight (03-09-2021)

----------


## BooBoo

> Attachment 57145 
> 
> When a spoilt, whinging brat met and married trash, did anyone seriously believe there would be different outcome? That would be a tad naive!



A 2 hour(TV Time) interview, was it Worth Watching...?!?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> A 2 hour(TV Time) interview, was it Worth Watching...?!?



no , it was 2 hours of the usual markle 'poor me' whining and bile.

----------


## UKSmartypants

Most Britons think Markle was wrong to have given their explosive interview, in a poll. A majority of the public believes they have let down the Queen – and should be stripped of their royal titles.  The survey was conducted after millions watched the Oprey Winfrey interview on ITV on Monday.


It reveals the monarchy has been damaged, with even the Queen's personal popularity taking a hit – though not as much as that of Harry and Prince Charles.  But asked about the couple's incendiary accusations of racism within the Royal Family, more people disbelieved Meghan's claims than believed her.  


She is now the least popular royal after Prince Andrew.  And being less popular than Air Miles Andy is no mean feat.

----------


## Authentic

My favorite royal is Princess Charlotte. You go, girl!

----------


## Authentic

> My favorite royal is Princess Charlotte. You go, girl!


I should reconsider. She might be Biden's favorite royal too.

----------


## Authentic

Not doing it. Charlotte has caught me in her web.

----------


## UKSmartypants

*Meghan Markle blasted by Trump allies over Oprah interview – ‘No one believes you’**MEGHAN MARKLE has been harshly criticised on social media by Donald Trump's allies following her no-holds-barred interview with Oprah Winfrey.*Meghan and Prince Harry issued scathing claims about their time as working members of the Royal Family during the two-hour long conversation. Friends of the former US President took aim at the couple in a series of Twitter posts, with one accusing them of performing a “publicity stunt”.


Former White House senior adviser Stephen Miller wrote: “Here’s the question Oprah should have asked Harry & Meghan: isn’t the whole point of the Royal Family that it’s not about you but about your country?“It’s about service to the UK and the Commonwealth.”



He  also seemed to defend the Royal Family, adding: “During President Trump’s head of state visit to the UK, I had the privilege of getting to  meet several members of the Royal Family.“They were unfailingly gracious & deeply committed to preserving the traditions and heritage of the UK.”

Meghan Markle blasted by Trump allies over Oprah interview â âNo one believes youâ | World | News | Express.co.uk

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> I've no quarrel with you. None whatsoever--just to be clear. But you do come across in this thread as an antagonist. That is undeniable.
> 
> That imparted, if smartypants, whomever he really is, would like to expound on whether or not he supported or hated our President (the very one who had as second term STOLEN from him last Novermer), then that may support your insinuations about him. Furthermore, I'd love to know what he thinks of his former PM, Margaret Thatcher, and her relationship with one of our greatest former presidents, Ronald Reagan--sans the five dollar words, and without dodging the question. 
> 
> Were the three of us to sit down at a table and look each other in the eye as MEN, it would take me all of 5 minutes to see through the bullshit and come to terms with it, right there. Unfortunately, with this medium, that's impossible. So, words from here out become even more important, even if only with words. Because even words matter(eventually), even in this format.
> 
> To borrow a line from my favourite movie, "Amadeus," "well, there it is!"



Shesh! He writes me up as a dimwit, vindictive, racist Nazi, and you think I am coming across as the antagonist?

This is the internet, people disagree, sometimes fight, criticize, and occasionally, as our UK boy here does, goes berserk. 

Do you work for CNN or fake news?


Stan

----------


## Authentic

The Royal Family works?

----------


## Authentic

How do Harry and Meghan support themselves in Montecito?

----------


## Authentic

Meghan was an actress before she became a royal. Maybe they live off whatever she did before she became a household name. Women have to wear the pants in the family, y'know.

----------


## Authentic

White privilege means marrying a black woman before you are relevant, even if you are the grandson of the Queen of England.

----------


## Authentic

> A 2 hour(TV Time) interview, was it Worth Watching...?!?


 I saw it in passing and once I saw that it was two black women talking race, I walked away. I vaguely recognized Oprah. I didn't recognize the Dutchess of Sussex at all, until it all blew up in the media yesterday.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> How do Harry and Meghan support themselves in Montecito?



they just got a wodge of cash off Netflix and Spotify, they scrounge off their celeb mates (living rent free in  amates house atm), and up till a couple of months ago Charles was sending them cheques out of his own pocket.

----------

Authentic (03-09-2021)

----------


## Authentic

I never saw Prince Harry in that brief glimpse. Didn't know that he was present. Nice camera work.

----------


## Authentic

What is the difference between a princess and a dutchess?

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> I've no quarrel with you. None whatsoever--just to be clear. But you do come across in this thread as an antagonist. That is undeniable.<br>
> <br>
> That imparted, if smartypants, whomever he really is, would like to expound on whether or not he supported or hated our President (the very one who had as second term STOLEN from him last Novermer), then that may support your insinuations about him. Furthermore, I'd love to know what he thinks of his former PM, Margaret Thatcher, and her relationship with one of our greatest former presidents, Ronald Reagan--sans the five dollar words, and without dodging the question. <br>
> <br>
> Were the three of us to sit down at a table and look each other in the eye as MEN, it would take me all of 5 minutes to see through the bullshit and come to terms with it, right there. Unfortunately, with this medium, that's impossible. So, words from here out become even more important, even if only with words. Because even words matter(eventually), even in this format.<br>
> <br>
> To borrow a line from my favourite movie, "Amadeus," "well, there it is!"


<br><br><br>Shesh! He writes me up as a dimwit, vindictive, racist Nazi, and you think I am coming across as the antagonist?<br><br>This is the internet, people disagree, sometimes fight, criticize, and occasionally, as our UK boy here does, goes berserk. <br><br>Do you work for CNN or fake news?<br><br><br>Stan<br>
<br>

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The Royal Family works?



They do public service - the Queen acts as ambassador for the UK, support charities and other good works, patronise the Arts and Sport, you have stuff like the Princes Trust, which encourages  and strengthens the characters of young people through achievement,  visit and open places such as hospitals...other members of the Royal Family support The Queen in her many State and national duties, as well as carrying out important work in the areas of public and charitable service, and helping to strengthen national unity and stability. The Royal Family costs the nation £1  per person per year, the benefit to the nation is immeasurable in both goodwill and trade.


markel didnt want to have to shake hands with the riff raff, that was one of the issues.

----------

Authentic (03-09-2021),Oceander (03-09-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> They do public service - the Queen acts as ambassador for the UK, support charities and other good works, patronise the Arts and Sport, you have stuff like the Princes Trust, which encourages  and strengthens the characters of young people through achievement,  visit and open places such as hospitals...other members of the Royal Family support The Queen in her many State and national duties, as well as carrying out important work in the areas of public and charitable service, and helping to strengthen national unity and stability. The Royal Family costs the nation £1  per person per year, the benefit to the nation is immeasurable in both goodwill and trade.
> 
> 
> markel didnt want to have to shake hands with the riff raff, that was one of the issues.


That is cool.

I like America without royalty, but I will not criticize your appreciation of the RF.

There were many Loyalists in 1776 and 1783.

Due to events that have happened more recently, us Yanks have a "special relationship" with Great Britain.

Being of Irish descent, I won't say much about the British presence in Northern Ireland except that I can see both sides, kind of, and since 1998, the problem seems to be resolving itself 

You have an American named Mitchell to thank for that.

We got along with President Trump, who worked for free.

----------

BooBoo (03-09-2021),Oceander (03-09-2021),WVYankee (03-10-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> What is the difference between a princess and a dutchess?


Rank and birth.

You get to be a Princess or Prince by being born to a King or a Queen, or by marrying another Prince or Princess  (of the opposite sex). Thus people born a Prince/Princess cannot have their title stripped of them.  Not so for all the others.


The top three ranks  are 'Royalty Ranks':

King/Queen
Prince/Princess
Duke/Duchess

The lower ones are 'Nobility' Ranks

Marquess (Marchioness)
Earl (Countess)
Viscount (Viscountess)
Baron (Baroness)
Baronet (Baronetess)
Knight

All are addressed as 'Lord/Lady' except Knight, which is 'Sir'

You cannot buy a British rank, and the Queen has the absolute say on the entire matter of who gets what. She has the sole right to strip Markle of the title Duchess should she so wish.  She stopped them using the title Sussex in the first charity they set up.

----------

Authentic (03-09-2021),BooBoo (03-09-2021),WVYankee (03-10-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Rank and birth.
> 
> You get to be a Princess or Prince by being born to a King or a Queen, or by marrying another Prince or Princess  (of the opposite sex). Thus people born a Prince/Princess cannot have their title stripped of them.  Not so for all the others.
> 
> 
> The top three ranks  are 'Royalty Ranks':
> 
> King/Queen
> Prince/Princess
> ...


Thank you!

----------


## Oceander

> Rank and birth.
> 
> You get to be a Princess or Prince by being born to a King or a Queen, or by marrying another Prince or Princess  (of the opposite sex). Thus people born a Prince/Princess cannot have their title stripped of them.  Not so for all the others.
> 
> 
> The top three ranks  are 'Royalty Ranks':
> 
> King/Queen
> Prince/Princess
> ...


I dunno.  On the buying part, Harry got pwned.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Being of Irish descent, I won't say much about the British presence in Northern Ireland except that I can see both sides, kind of, and since 1998, the problem seems to be resolving itself


Ireland is  acockup that goes back to 1688  and William of Orange.

Blair surrendered tothe IRA just to get peace, it was worth it though, but its a fragile arrangement.  The Eu nearly fucked things up last month and almost started a a new civil war by trying to block vaccine exports to NI from  Eire. thus creating a hard border between the two, something the IRA threw a major wobbly about just at the mere suggestion.  The only person who believes the IRA and UDF got rid of their guns was Sir John Chastelaine. The rest of us know perfectly well both sides have lots of guns buried in fields and hidden in barns, just in case.

----------

Authentic (03-09-2021),LadyMoonlight (03-09-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Ireland is  acockup that goes back to 1688  and William of Orange.
> 
> Blair surrendered tothe IRA just to get peace, it was worth it though, but its a fragile arrangement.  The Eu nearly fucked things up last month and almost started a a new civil war by trying to block vaccine exports to NI from  Eire. thus creating a hard border between the two, something the IRA threw a major wobbly about just at the mere suggestion.  The only person who believes the IRA and UDF got rid of their guns was Sir John Chastelaine. The rest of us know perfectly well both sides have lots of guns buried in fields and hidden in barns, just in case.


The USA and Soviet Union had a policy of "trust, but verify" for our nuclear disarmament treaties.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I dunno.  On the buying part, Harry got pwned.



The Queen granted him the title Duke of Sussex, and thus by marriage she became the duchess. The Queen can strip them of the title, but cant strip him of 'Prince', its  a fact of birth.  She shes the Head of the Armed Forces, she can grant ranks as well, Harry was Commander in Chief of the Royal Marines, hes already been stripped of that.  She was Patron of the Royal Ballet, thats also been removed.

Theres two sorts of Knights - Hereditary Knights, created by the Queen, where the title passes to your descendants down the male line. and Life Peers, created by the Government, which only applies to you and your wife , and you dont pass it on.  Having said that you cant buy a title, if you make a big enough cash donation to Labour or the Tories a Life Peerage  title may magically appear in your postbox one day, by coincidence.....

----------

Oceander (03-09-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

Drama on a global level. And just a reminder that everyone should mind their p's and q's.... and careful what you say and do.

I fail on all accounts, but somehow avoid the drama.  :Dontknow:

----------


## LadyMoonlight

> A 2 hour(TV Time) interview, was it Worth Watching...?!?


I would not waste my time watching either of them, ever!

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> The USA and Soviet Union had a policy of "trust, but verify" for our nuclear disarmament treaties.



If I followed the history correctly, William Of Orange or Cromwell, moved the native Irish off of their land, and awarded it to his soldiers for payment for their loyalty in battle. It pushed the Irish peasants up into the hills, on the worst ground for farming on the island. The religious differences between the Catholic and Protestant's was automatically a problem. It also separated the Irish from their true natural allies, the Scotch farmers in Ireland. Divide and rule always was a successful tactic for the British. The Norman royalty in Ireland produced some surprising Republicans over the centuries, most of who got hanged when discovered. Ireland fought with the Irish Republican Brotherhood throughout the 1800's, the original parent of the Irish Republican Army. 

Irish patriot Charles Stewart Parnell stupidly agreed to allow his Home Rule Party members to accept a British offer to join Parliament, believing he could resolve Irish home rule through negotiation - wasn't possible. The tiny Home Rule Party of Parnell (who later was disgraced by the British), was loud and noisy, but their voices were drowned out routinely in Parliament because there were insufficient numbers to make a difference. Other than the British going back on their promise to grant Home Rule to the Irish if they fought for England during World War I, Home Rule dominated most of England's politics once they got their members in a position to vote. But the British Army had no interest nor did Randolph Churchill, of relenting and granting Home Rule to the Irish. 

Eventually, in 1916 on Easter Sunday, Irish patriots (or revolutionaries), depending on which side of the coin one was on, took it upon themselves to stage a rising (silly idea). They fought the British to a standstill in many public buildings in Dublin, but the British Army, still strong from the war, moved massive troops into Ireland, including the disgraceful Black & Tans, and put down the patriots, and then shot most of them by firing squad without trial. Fortunately, Michael Collins and Eamon DeValera were not among those executed. They served some time, then were released, the Brits already had committed a thundering, disgusting blunder in executing a bunch of writers and poets. It was a clarion call for recruitment, with many Irish joining the IRB, and also, with such rapid enlistments occurring, the informants that joined kept the IRB from accomplishing their task.

Collins led a street fight with the British which was as bloody and nasty as any war. No major battles, just assassinations, surprise attacks, he even managed to wipe out the entire British Secret Service sent to capture of kill him. The British retaliation to that mass attack was just as violent. That street war brought the English government to a position where they asked for a cease fire, and negotiated a peace treaty with Ireland, which didn't include Northern Ireland (Ulster - mostly Protestant and loyal to the crown and still a member of the UK).

That treaty met resistance from Ireland, even though it got the British to leave the Republic of Ireland which was established. Following British abandoning the major portion of what they called the Orange Free State, the treaty split the Irish Republican Brotherhood in two, pro and con, Irish Republicans murdered Michael Collins in his own county. DeValeria, who was born in America, and thus wasn't shot with the other patriots in the Easter Rising, took control of Irish affairs - he actually was still in charge of their government when Kennedy was elected in 1960. The internal war between those in favor of, and those opposed to the treaty, eventually resulted in the creation of the Irish Republic, around 1920 I think, didn't look it up.

The later 1970's trouble with the Irish Republican Army, came about in their effort, through hunger strikes in prison, to bring attention to their affairs and suffering under British rule in Northern Ireland (Derry and Belfast). The carnage continued for years and years, eventually ending in a cease fire, and Ulster remaining British. It is a tense situation, always, because as posted before, neither side ever decided to disarm. When the time might come for shooting again, both the IRA and the Ulster Volunteers, have access to all of their weapons. It has been quiet for a long time, but the religious differences are almost impossible to reconcile. The only way Ulster joins its natural ally of the Irish Republic, is something that has to be done through negotiation - not violence.


Stan

----------

Authentic (03-10-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> The Queen granted him the title Duke of Sussex, and thus by marriage she became the duchess. The Queen can strip them of the title, but cant strip him of 'Prince', its  a fact of birth.  She shes the Head of the Armed Forces, she can grant ranks as well, Harry was Commander in Chief of the Royal Marines, hes already been stripped of that.  She was Patron of the Royal Ballet, thats also been removed.
> 
> Theres two sorts of Knights - Hereditary Knights, created by the Queen, where the title passes to your descendants down the male line. and Life Peers, created by the Government, which only applies to you and your wife , and you dont pass it on.  Having said that you cant buy a title, if you make a big enough cash donation to Labour or the Tories a Life Peerage  title may magically appear in your postbox one day, by coincidence.....


Are Paul McCartney and Elton John Life Peers, or Hereditary Knights. I think they are the former. McCartney also holds duel citizenship as an American.



Stan

----------


## WVYankee

> If I followed the history correctly, William Of Orange or Cromwell, moved the native Irish off of their land, and awarded it to his soldiers for payment for their loyalty in battle. It pushed the Irish peasants up into the hills, on the worst ground for farming on the island. The religious differences between the Catholic and Protestant's was automatically a problem. It also separated the Irish from their true natural allies, the Scotch farmers in Ireland. Divide and rule always was a successful tactic for the British. The Norman royalty in Ireland produced some surprising Republicans over the centuries, most of who got hanged when discovered. Ireland fought with the Irish Republican Brotherhood throughout the 1800's, the original parent of the Irish Republican Army. 
> 
> Irish patriot Charles Stewart Parnell stupidly agreed to allow his Home Rule Party members to accept a British offer to join Parliament, believing he could resolve Irish home rule through negotiation - wasn't possible. The tiny Home Rule Party of Parnell (who later was disgraced by the British), was loud and noisy, but their voices were drowned out routinely in Parliament because there were insufficient numbers to make a difference. Other than the British going back on their promise to grant Home Rule to the Irish if they fought for England during World War I, Home Rule dominated most of England's politics once they got their members in a position to vote. But the British Army had no interest nor did Randolph Churchill, of relenting and granting Home Rule to the Irish. 
> 
> Eventually, in 1916 on Easter Sunday, Irish patriots (or revolutionaries), depending on which side of the coin one was on, took it upon themselves to stage a rising (silly idea). They fought the British to a standstill in many public buildings in Dublin, but the British Army, still strong from the war, moved massive troops into Ireland, including the disgraceful Black & Tans, and put down the patriots, and then shot most of them by firing squad without trial. Fortunately, Michael Collins and Eamon DeValera were not among those executed. They served some time, then were released, the Brits already had committed a thundering, disgusting blunder in executing a bunch of writers and poets. It was a clarion call for recruitment, with many Irish joining the IRB, and also, with such rapid enlistments occurring, the informants that joined kept the IRB from accomplishing their task.
> 
> Collins led a street fight with the British which was as bloody and nasty as any war. No major battles, just assassinations, surprise attacks, he even managed to wipe out the entire British Secret Service sent to capture of kill him. The British retaliation to that mass attack was just as violent. That street war brought the English government to a position where they asked for a cease fire, and negotiated a peace treaty with Ireland, which didn't include Northern Ireland (Ulster - mostly Protestant and loyal to the crown and still a member of the UK).
> 
> That treaty met resistance from Ireland, even though it got the British to leave the Republic of Ireland which was established. Following British abandoning the major portion of what they called the Orange Free State, the treaty split the Irish Republican Brotherhood in two, pro and con, Irish Republicans murdered Michael Collins in his own county. DeValeria, who was born in America, and thus wasn't shot with the other patriots in the Easter Rising, took control of Irish affairs - he actually was still in charge of their government when Kennedy was elected in 1960. The internal war between those in favor of, and those opposed to the treaty, eventually resulted in the creation of the Irish Republic, around 1920 I think, didn't look it up.
> ...


Hard to dissect your post, given names I do not recognize. However, curious, nonetheless, as a friend of the family (now deceased) hailed from southern Ireland, and explained to me in no uncertain terms that the IRA's activities had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Catholics vs protestants as Americans were (are) lead to believe, but ALL about British rule in their island nation. As he explained, the north of it rebelled and took up arms, while the south were in accordance to terms. An aside, this man held a degree from MIT and chaired a position as a leading professor in the chemistry department at a major university--and married his Canadian sweetheart while attending there. Therefore I put a lot of stock into his remarks, "history" aside.

Personally, I've always considered the IRA's tactics to be brutal and what *defines* a terrorist. It's to me, deplorable and without honour.

Also, if I recant correctly, the Scots were a staunch ally of England, and fully on board with them. The whole "religion" notion being completely false, but was somehow used (carefully executed, truth be known) as an excuse to excite the masses into riotous behaviour--as is the same trick employed over the centuries.

----------

Big Wheeler (03-10-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Hard to dissect your post, given names I do not recognize. However, curious, nonetheless, as a friend of the family (now deceased) hailed from southern Ireland, and explained to me in no uncertain terms that the IRA's activities had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Catholics vs protestants as Americans were (are) lead to believe, but ALL about British rule in their island nation. As he explained, the north of it rebelled and took up arms, while the south were in accordance to terms. An aside, this man held a degree from MIT and chaired a position as a leading professor in the chemistry department at a major university--and married his Canadian sweetheart while attending there. Therefore I put a lot of stock into his remarks, "history" aside.
> 
> Personally, I've always considered the IRA's tactics to be brutal and what *defines* a terrorist. It's to me, deplorable and without honour.
> 
> Also, if I recant correctly, the Scots were a staunch ally of England, and fully on board with them. The whole "religion" notion being completely false, but was somehow used (carefully executed, truth be known) as an excuse to excite the masses into riotous behaviour--as is the same trick employed over the centuries.


Your Irish friend and professor from the Republic of Ireland isn't familiar with Michael Collins, one of the top leaders of the Irish Republican Brotherhood which led the fight for Irish independence from the British from 1916 on? Collins was the most wanted man in Ireland to the British occupation troops. Using informants, his members discovered the locations of all of Churchill's elite Secret Service members trying to capture him, and executed all of them in their apartments and on the streets in one night. British retaliation was instant and horrific. I believe they used a tank with a machine gun and opened fire at a rugby game on the Irish patrons of the crowd killing hundreds. This was an internecine fight, no major battles, just assassinations, brother against brother, Irish against British military in surprise ambushes, they even captured and hung a few British ranking officers in the ugly fight. 

Eventually, England tired of the bother, and called a cease-fire and went to negotiation. The IRB sent Michael Collins to London to negotiate, and like Parnell's Home Rule Party, he was overwhelmed by the British negotiating team. He couldn't get an Irish Republic from them, but he did get a withdrawal agreement, and agreement to something called the Orange Free State. But, the treaty didn't include Ulster (Northern Ireland), and also included the British maintaining foreign relations on behalf of that state, and an oath of allegiance to the Crown, something that after 700-years of classic misrule, was unacceptable to Irish citizens. But, the treaty went forth - the British withdrew their troops - and an Irish Home Guard army was formed from many members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. So, an oath to the crown was a small price to pay for the withdrawal of the British from the tiny country, even though Northern Ireland was steadfast in maintaining their union with the crown. 

After the British withdrawal, although the Irish people voted in favor of Collins' treaty, the IRB split. Half followed Michael Collins, the other the Irish patriot Eamon de valera, who ordered his IRB members to assassinate Colllins, which they did. A civil war in Ireland ensued, and the eventual result was the formation of the Republic of Ireland, minus Ulster. de valera controlled that countries affairs as President well into the 1960's. What the Irish Republican Brotherhood and the Irish Republican Army, its child, were fighting for, was the removal of all British influence in Ireland, particularly Ulster, but the religious differences were too great to overcome. The bloodletting continued for decades, until eventually the Republic and the British succeeded in maintaining Ulster. Both combatants are in an uneasy peace that could break out in bloodshed at anytime. That is why their weapons cache have never been disclosed to anybody, disarming both sides would be a natural first move to reconciling Ulster with its natural place as part of the Irish Republic, not the British crown.

The IRB and IRA never targeted the British Royal family in their centuries old battles with the UK. To do so would dry up all the monetary support and good will with America. Any donation dropped into a jar in some Irish bar in America, usually labeled "for the children of Ireland" is automatically routed to a bank in Boston, and finds its way into the hands of the Irish Republican Army. They did, however, assassinate Lord Montbatten, a member of the British military, on his boat. The British cabinet also was targeted, six months in advance of a planned summer meeting in a house in England which would have been attended by Margaret Thatcher and her entire political allies, large pipe bombs were discovered to have been placed in the floors of that house, they were willing, and quite capable of wiping out the entire British political apparatus including the Prime Minister. The IRA also ignited pipe bombs in front of Buckingham Palace with thousands of tourist's witnessing a Horse Guards parade, killing four soldiers and nine horses. I have video of that parade a few years later from the exact spot where the bombs were set off. When I mentioned that in passing as an historical incident a whole lot of tourists backed the heck up. The Royal Family never targeted, but the IRA revolutionaries or terrorists, whichever you believe, considered political and all British military to be legitimate targets in their fight to reunite Ulster to the Republic of Ireland.
Stan

----------


## WVYankee

The IRA murdered innocent men, *women and children* caught in the crossfire. In not only England, but to their own. It wasn't war, it was blatant terrorism. They were ANYTHING but "patriots," but outright thugs. Animals that bombed, burned and executed on a whim. Filth.

There is NO way to spin this lie, nor ANY justification for their actions. PERIOD.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> The IRA murdered innocent men, *women and children* caught in the crossfire. In not only England, but to their own. It wasn't war, it was blatant terrorism. They were ANYTHING but "patriots," but outright thugs. Animals that bombed, burned and executed on a whim. Filth.
> 
> There is NO way to spin this lie, nor ANY justification for their actions. PERIOD.



There is an easy way to spin it. The IRA were republican revolutionaries, fighting to eliminate 700 plus years of classic misrule by England. 
Did you ever research what the British did to captured IRB and IRA members? Lashed them; made them eat with their hands tied behind their backs, on their knees. Prison life for a revolutionary was dismal and horrific, that is why many of them, to draw attention to the British misdeeds, went on hunger strikes. 

If you want to label the IRA as terrorists - fine - but the Ulster Volunteers, their opponent, and the British military, particularly the murderous Black And Tan Regiment England sent to Ireland to punish the people, were just the same as the IRA. Both sides committed atrocities against each other, and civilian women and children, caught up in the crossfire. Neither is honorable - but the IRB and IRA fought for 100-years straight to eliminate British rule from their tiny country, and the county of Ulster, Northern Ireland. 

A good friend of mine visited Ireland to show her family their new grandson. They were from Derry. She asked me if I wanted a souvenir from Ireland, and I told her to bring me back a daily newspaper. Like many European countries, the Irish women shop daily for dinner, unlike American's who shop in bulk and freeze everything. France is the same way. 

Well, my friend and her sister went grocery shopping with their bags in Derry, and she picked up a copy of the Belfast Times for me. On their way home, they had to walk through a predominately Protestant neighborhood. My friends sister spotted the newspaper in the shopping bag, pulled it out and threw it in the sewer, then yelled at my friend. Apparently the Belfast Times wrote articles supporting the IRA. She thew the paper in the sewer and told my friend that if the newspaper was spotted in her bag in that Protestant neighborhood, there was an excellent chance she would have got a bullet to the head. That is how dangerous the battle between the iRA and Ulster Volunteers was. My friend told me this story as she handed me a copy of the Derry daily newspaper, apologizing that she couldn't bring me the Belfast Times. You read about these things happening, but they are in the abstract. Until you are faced with evidence and the danger, one doesn't understand the passion and murderous intentions of both sides.

Both sides are terrorists, who label themselves revolutionaries. You can't pin that label on the IRA and ignore the atrocities of the Ulster Volunteers and the British military against civilian targets over the years. America tends to support the Irish Republic over the Northern Ireland claim as British, but the Ulster population is just as equally able, and has, murdered men, women and children, to maintain their status as members of England. The British military has been in Ireland for decades trying to keep the fight from exploding into a major civil war - without much success.

Michael Collins, the late head of the IRB is a beloved figure in Irish history. He got the British out of Ireland and was murdered while trying to eliminate the gun from the Irish-British political debate.


Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

And heres the other side of the coin  to the bigotted anti british  hate posted above

It is a strange quirk of history that the IRA’s early practice of  extreme torture on its abducted and soon-to-be murdered prisoners  occurred just as its political wing and proxies were protesting about  the treatment of the very first internees back in 1971 who were later  termed ‘the hooded men’. The IRA quickly developed its own hooded men  and women who were not merely to be interned, but also tortured and then  murdered and more than a few ‘disappeared’ for decades.

 Following the predictable nationalist objection to the use of  ‘inhuman and degrading’ interrogation techniques on the internees,  including beatings, the self-declared freedom fighters of the IRA set  about the use of limitless torture techniques with a vengeance and  continued the use of extreme torture for the rest of its violent ‘armed  struggle’.
 It was not just the IRA’s infamous ‘nutting squad’  (McGee/Scappaticci) that used extreme torture on victims whose executed  and maimed bodies were dumped along the South Armagh border during the  1980s/90s. ‘Brigades’ not associated with this horror unit also applied  torture apparently without hesitation, induction or training from 1971  onwards, at least a full decade before the ‘nutting squad’ was formed.
Abducted and murdered UDR Private Ken Newell’s body dumped at the border by the IRA While the Irish government hastened to instigate a case before the  European Court of Human Rights about British maltreatment of the  internees – whose judgment of ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ was  issued following exhaustive hearings in Stavanger, Norway – it did not  ever record or publish the horrific details of the scores of torture  cases practiced by the IRA largely within the territory of the Republic  of Ireland with the corpses then dumped just inside Northern Ireland  beginning in 1971.
 How is it that many young Catholic men who now point back to the  Civil Rights movement as their springboard to IRA membership – or to  Bloody Sunday – could suddenly find the ability to contravene all civil  rights, human rights and Geneva Conventions in applying torture to  abducted civilians and captured UDR or RUC Reserve members before they  further contravened the Geneva Conventions in shooting them in the back  of their hooded heads? Who can imagine the last 24hrs of a UDR or RUC  reserve member abducted by the IRA and waiting to be murdered?
 Neither the Belfast, Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh nor South Armagh  Brigades of the IRA had any difficulty in finding volunteers who were  prepared to engage in torture of captured military prisoners and also of  abducted civilians, and all this four years before the notorious  Shankill Butchers became active in 1975.
Alleged informer’s naked body showing evidence of extreme torture by the IRA How was it that the IRA could easily find young men instantly willing  and able to torture a man – or a woman – to an extreme degree and then  to hood him, bind his hands behind his back and transport him to a  border road – sometimes naked – and shoot him a number of times in the  back of the head? How was it that young men and women were willing to  participate in this maltreatment of Jean McConville, a mother of ten  children? The degree of torture inflicted on Jean McConville in 1972 to  extract a confession will never be known since her body was  ‘disappeared’ to Shelling Hill beach, County Louth, and not discovered  until thirty-one years later after she was shot in the back of the head  and buried.
 Let’s forget all about the Geneva Conventions – the IRA had no  interest in these except as they might apply to its own members captured  by the RUC or British Army. From the IRA’s point of view – supported by  its cadre of willing lawyers – the Enemy had to play by the Marquis of  Queensberry rules while it played by none at all.
 The same IRA members who challenged their convictions of many years  before on the grounds of ‘forced confessions’ – and a lot of other IRA  members – still appear to have no problem rationalizing worse forced  confessions (and brutal torture) that were used by the IRA to justify  murdering persons alleged to have been informers.
Alleged informer’s naked body showing evidence of extreme torture by the IRA It is no surprise that IRA leaders – some now transmuted into Sinn  Féin worthies in expensive suits – don’t wish to be reminded of past  torture horrors and human rights’ violations which have escaped justice,  prosecution and punishment and even any scrutiny by the brash new cadre  of self-proclaimed ‘human rights lawyers’ who have grown wealthy on the  legacy of The Troubles but only see human rights violations by one  side, that side which pays most of their incomes. Who ever said that you  shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you?
 It is incredible that governments believed that a true peace process  might be successfully built on a foundation of grand lies and gross  injustices where thousands of human rights violations by one side – the  IRA side – are totally ignored and victims shafted in the name of  ‘prosecuting the peace’. Don’t mention the OTR letters!
 Northern Ireland is already a byword for lawyers brazenly adopting  the nomenclature of ‘human rights lawyers’ alongside rights’ groups who  cannot find it anywhere in their remit to acknowledge and scrutinise the  IRA’s horrific human rights’ record.
 To borrow a phrase from Alex Maskey, the ‘putrid little secret’ of the IRA’s torture record hasn’t gone away, you know.
Tortured corpse of alleged informer dumped at border, covered in bin bags and a milk crate by the IRA executioners How the former torturers and their Godfather commanders can now  parade virtuously in victims’ rights marches in Belfast and Derry is  beyond belief and the silence of those in Sinn Féin who know about their  past crimes against humanity is absolutely deafening.
 There is no state in America or democracy in Europe that would  tolerate such a situation, as ETA has discovered to its cost in Spain  where its former leaders are facing charges of crimes against humanity  even after ETA has been disbanded, its weapons decommissioned and its  prisoners continue to serve their sentences.
Alfredo  Scappaticci, self-confessed leader of the IRA’s ‘nutting squad’ –  allegedly aka Steak Knife – with his friend and republican colleague,  Gerry Adams

----------

WVYankee (03-12-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

*IRA Shoot to Kill Murders* There were a number of different reasons why the IRA decided to  deliberately murder civilians, but a primary purpose was to achieve  terror, shock and publicity. While the optics of these murders clearly  showed a bias toward murdering Protestant Unionist civilians, murders of  Catholic Nationalist civilians also occurred in order to similarly  terrorise and to stem opposition in areas the IRA wished to control.
 On 02.02.77, in Martin McGuinness’ home town, the IRA decided to  carry out the spectacular murder of a totally innocent civilian and  businessperson, Jeffrey Agate, prominent MD of the American Du Pont  chemical plant, which was one of the biggest and best employers of both  Protestants and Catholics in the North West. To murder him, the IRA had  to change its rules of engagement temporarily to suddenly make business  persons targets in order to inflict more damage on the economy of  Northern Ireland. Two IRA gunmen shot unarmed Agate when he arrived home  from work in the evening, after which the brave patriots ran away.
Respected MD of Du Pont in Derry, Jeffrey Agate The people of Derry were horrified and a mass protest against the  murder occurred in Guildhall Square . Dr Raymond McClean, former Mayor  of Derry and civil rights’ activist, noted in his book ‘The Road to  Bloody Sunday’ that “Jeff Agate was an honest and just human being of  the highest calibre. His assassination by the IRA left me in total  disbelief and disgust.” Once more, Martin McGuinness pretended ignorance  of a War Crime he and his Army Council colleagues had authorised.
Joanne Mathers with son Shane (2) On 07.04.81, the IRA decided on another shocking civilian murder,  this time of 29 year old unarmed Protestant mother, Joanne Mathers, who  was supplementing her family’s income by collecting census forms.
 As she was chatting to a householder in Anderson Crescent,  Gobnascale, in the Waterside area, a masked IRA gunman ran up to her,  grabbed at her census forms and shot her through the neck. Wounded, she  ran into the hallway of the house and the householder slammed the door  shut to try to defend her.
 The IRA gunman smashed through the glass door, grabbed at more census  forms and ran off brandishing his weapon to deter people from  approaching him.
 Joanne died from her wound. Initially, the IRA and INLA denied her  murder, but the IRA was forced to admit it shortly afterwards.
 McGuinness pretended in a most cowardly fashion that he had left the  IRA before this war crime and knew nothing about it, although he had in  fact authorised it.
 He was once more telling huge lies ‘for the cause’.
 On 07.12.83, 29 year old human rights’ lawyer, law lecturer and  Ulster Unionist member of Stormont for South Belfast, Edgar Graham, was  chatting in Queen’s University to colleague Dermot Nesbitt when, without  any warning, an IRA gunman approached and shot him a number of times in  the back of the head, killing him instantly.
 Graham’s War Crime murder was intended to terrorise and intimidate  Unionism and Protestants in general. The IRA’s Army Council ordered his  murder because his opinions were deemed to be mortal to its armed  struggle, a murder since defended by Sinn Fein.
Edgar Graham’s body in Queen’s University after his murder The IRA also murdered a total of six members of the judiciary and  almost murdered a seventh – but neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein sees any  hypocrisy in the creation of a wholly biased Pat Finucane Human Rights  centre.

----------

WVYankee (03-12-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

*IRA Murders of Family Members* The IRA had decided long before on a terrorist tactic which involved  exceeding the murder of the main target – who was usually a male – by  deliberately murdering his wife or other family members.
 On 21.09.72, a six-man IRA team arrived at the isolated home of  Thomas Bullock, a member of the UDR, in Aghalane, Derrylin, County  Fermanagh.
 When his wife Emily answered the front door, she was blasted to death  and the gang climbed over her body and entered the living room where  they shot Thomas in the head and killed him.
Niece Dianne Woods visits the grave of Thomas and Emily Bullock, murdered together by the IRA Neighbours reported that as the gang left the area they sounded their car horns and cheered at the job well done.
 On 04.02.79, the IRA murdered Catholic civilian and retired prison  officer, Patrick Mackin, as he sat in his chair at home in Ardoyne; to  increase the shock and terror factor to prison officers, they also  murdered his Protestant wife, Violet, as she sat in her chair.
 On 27.08.79, the IRA exploded a remote control bomb on a boat at  Mullaghmore in County Sligo to murder Lord Louis Mountbatten who was in  his 79th year. The IRA was aware that a party of civilians  was aboard the boat, including women and children, but the bomber –  Thomas MacMahon – had been authorised by the IRA Army Council to proceed  with the bombing without regard for civilian casualties.
 As a result, 83 year old Doreen Lady Brabourne was murdered, as were  Mountbatten’s grandson, 14 year old Nicholas Knatchbull and 15 year old  crew member Paul Maxwell from Fermanagh.
Remains of a child are brought ashore at Mullaghmore following the IRA bombing In response to this War Crime, Gerry Adams stated, “The IRA gave  clear reasons for the execution… What the IRA did to him is what  Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people and with his war  record I don’t think he could have objected to dying in what was  clearly a war situation. In my opinion, the IRA achieved its objective.”  Adams entirely disregarded the civilian casualties.
Lord Louis Mountbatten’s body is brought ashore after the IRA bombing On 21.01.81, an eight-man IRA gang murdered former leading Ulster  Unionist MP and member of the RUC Reserve, James Stronge of Tynan Abbey  allegedly in response to various loyalist attacks on nationalists. For  good measure, they also murdered his 86 year old father, Sir Norman,  former Speaker of the Stormont parliament who had fought at the Somme  and had been awarded the Military Cross and the Belgian Croix de Guerre  for bravery.
 Unlike his cowardly murderers, Sir Norman Stronge had worn a uniform,  had fought according to the laws and customs of war and had abided by  Geneva conventions. By any stretch of the imagination, the deliberate  murder of an 86 year old pensioner constituted a War Crime. For full  effect, the IRA also burned down Tynan Abbey.
The burnt remains of Tynan Abbey, following the IRA’s murders of the Stronge family The Republic of Ireland Supreme Court later rejected an appeal by  Seamus Shannon against his extradition to Northern Ireland to face  charges of involvement in the Stronge double murder. The Court rejected  the defence that these were political offences, saying that they were  “so brutal, cowardly and callous that it would be a distortion of  language if they were to be accorded the status of a political offence”.  Shannon was extradited but later acquitted.
Gerry Adams with Alfredo Scappaticci, aka ‘Steaknife’, head of the IRA’s ‘nutting squad’ Regarding Sir Norman Stronge’s murder, Gerry Adams said: “The only  complaint I have heard from nationalists or anti-unionists is that he  was not shot 40 years ago.” Adams evidently had no problem with the War  Crime murders of civilians.
 On 08.04.84, two IRA gunmen attacked Catholic magistrate Tom Travers  and his family as they were coming out of Mass. One gunman shot his  daughter, Mary, in the spine and she and her mother fell to the ground.
Mary Travers (22), shot in the back and murdered by the IRA in front of her mother and father The second gunman shot Tom Travers first in the shoulder, which  caused him to fall, and then shot him five more times as he lay on the  ground. The gunman who had shot Mary Travers then put his gun to her  mother’s head and pulled the trigger twice – the gun misfired both  times.
 Mary Travers, twenty-two years old, died in her mother’s arms. Tom  Travers miraculously survived. The IRA claimed afterwards that Mary  Travers had been accidentally hit by a bullet that passed through Tom  Travers.
Scene of the IRA’s attack on the Travers family coming home from Mass Forensics and witness accounts disproved the IRA lies. A woman member  of the IRA, Mary McArdle, was arrested nearby after the shooting and  was found to be carrying two guns, a wig and a black sock attached to  her thighs. She was sentenced to life in prison and served fourteen  years.
 Tom Travers identified a well-known Belfast republican, Joseph  Haughey from Unity Flats, as the gunman who stood over him and shot him,  but Haughey was acquitted. [Haughey was later accused of being a  Special Branch informer.]
 Travers believed that Gerry Adams personally ordered the attack on his family.
 The details of the Travers’ attack proved that the IRA had  deliberately intended to kill all of the Travers’ family as a ‘shock and  awe’ message to other judges.
 On 25.04.87, the IRA murdered Chief Justice Maurice Gibson, 74 years  of age, and for good measure murdered his Protestant wife, Cecily, who  was 67 years old.
 By authorising the deliberate murder of these innocent family  members, the IRA Army Council had made itself liable to prosecution –  even now – for crimes against humanity.

----------

WVYankee (03-12-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

*IRA Volunteer and Civilian Bomb Casualties* Within months of its creation, the Provisional IRA discovered that it  was unable to plant bombs in a manner safe for either the bomb makers  or the civilian population.
 On 26.02.70, a powerful incendiary bomb exploded prematurely at  Dunree Gardens in the Creggan estate in Derry killing three senior IRA  men, Tommy McCool, Tommy Carlin and Joseph Coyle, but also two innocent  children, Carol Ann McCool (4) and Bernadette McCool (9).
Remains of an IRA civilian bomb victim The following is a list of the dead caused by IRA bombs in just  eighteen months from February 71 until August 72 with some surprising  conclusions.
 On 02.11.71, the IRA exploded two bombs on the Ormeau Road in  Belfast, one at a drapery shop and the other at the Red Lion bar, and  murdered three Protestant civilians, John Cochrane (67), Mary Gemmell  (55) and William Jordan (31).
 On 22.11.71, IRA man Michael Crossey, was killed in a premature bomb explosion in Lurgan, County Armagh.
 On 11.12.71, The IRA bombed a furniture shop on the Shankill Road in  Belfast, murdering four Protestant civilians, two of whom were children:  Hugh Bruce (70), Harold King (29), Tracey Munn (2) and Colin Nicholl  (1).
1 year old Colin Nicholl’s body is carried away after the IRA bomb on the Shankill Road On 18.12.71, three IRA men, James Sheridan, John Bateson and Martin  Lee were killed by a premature explosion on King Street, Magherafelt,  County Derry.
 On 30.12.71, IRA GHQ Quartermaster Jack McCabe was killed in Dublin while mixing black powder explosives for use in Belfast.
 On 26.01.72, IRA man Peter McNulty was killed in a premature bomb explosion at Castlewellan RUC base, County Down.
 On 05.02.72, two IRA men, Phelim Grant and Charles McCann, were killed in a premature bomb explosion on a barge in Lough Neagh.
 On 21.02.72, four IRA men, Joseph Magee, Robert Dorrian, Gerard  Steele and Gerard Bell were killed in a premature bomb explosion while  driving on the Knockbreda Road in Belfast.
 On 09.03.72, four IRA men, Anthony Lewis, Gerard Crossen, Sean  Johnson and Thomas McCann, were killed in a premature bomb explosion in  Clonard Street, Belfast.
 On 20.03.72, the IRA exploded a car bomb in Lr Donegall Street,  Belfast, killing seven people, two RUC officers, a UDR soldier and four  Protestant civilians, James Macklin (30), Ernest Dougan (39), Sydney  Bell (65) and Henry Miller (79). Hundreds of people were injured.
Soldiers comfort a dying bomb victim after the IRA’s Donegall Street attack On 07.04.72, three 17 year old IRA volunteers, Charles McCrystal,  Samuel Hughes and John McErlain, were killed in a premature explosion in  Bawnmore Park, Greencastle, Belfast.
 On 28.05.72, four IRA volunteers and four civilians were killed in a  premature bomb explosion in a house in Anderson Street, Short Strand,  Belfast. The IRA members included two seventeen year olds, Joseph  Fitzsimmons and John McIlhone, a nineteen year old, Martin Engelen, and  Edward McDonnell. The four civilians included a seventeen year old,  Geraldine McMahon, and Mary Clarke, Henry Crawford and John Nugent.
 On 21.07.72, which became known as ‘Bloody Friday’, the IRA exploded  twenty bombs in Belfast and, entirely predictably, murdered nine  persons, injured seventy-seven women and girls and fifty-five men and  boys.
Human remains of Bloody Friday IRA bomb victim The dead were Protestants Stephen Parker (14), William Crothers (15),  William Irvine (18), Thomas Killops (39) and Jackie Gibson (45) and  Catholics Margaret O’Hare (34) and Brigid Murray (65) and two British  soldiers, Stephen Cooper (19) and Philip Price (27).
 On 31.07.72, the IRA exploded three car bombs in Claudy, nine miles  from Derry, to coincide with Operation Motorman when the British Army  ended republican ‘no go’ areas by smashing barricades and occupying them  with high troop concentrations.
Aftermath of the IRA’s Claudy bombings The IRA’s bombs in Claudy murdered nine civilians – four Protestants,  Kathryn Eakin (8), William Temple (16), David Miller (60) and James  McClelland (65), and five Catholics, Joseph Connolly (15), Joseph  McCloskey (38), Arthur Hone (38), Rose McLaughlin (52) and Elizabeth  McElhinney (59).
 On 26.08.72, two IRA volunteers, James Carlin and Martin Curran, were  killed in a premature bomb explosion at Downpatrick racecourse  grandstand.
*Conclusions* In just eighteen months, the Provisional IRA – using ordinary time  bombs intended to attack commercial targets – killed at least at least  33 civilians, at least 28 of its own volunteers and 2 RUC officers, 1  UDR soldier and 2 British soldiers.
 These statistics alone proved beyond any doubt that the IRA’s bomb  technology and protocols could never safeguard either civilians or its  own volunteers.
 The IRA Army Council’s decision to cynically continue this type of  bombing campaign was taken in the full knowledge that it would continue  to attack and murder innocent civilians – and kill a large number of its  own cannon fodder ‘volunteers’ – which is exactly what happened for  many years.
Child killed by the IRA’s Warrington bombing The IRA later graduated to such War Crimes as:

the Birmingham Pub bombings (21.11.74) which murdered 21 civilians and injured 182the La Mon bombing (17.02.78) which murdered 12 civilians and injured 30the Harrods bombing (17.12.83) which murdered 3 civilians,  journalist Philip Geddes (24), a U.S. citizen, Kenneth Salvesen (28) and  Jasmine Cochrane-Patrick (25) and 3 police officers, and injured over  100 others.the Enniskillen Remembrance Day bombing (08.11.87), which murdered 12 civilians and injured 63the Teebane bombing (17.01.92) which murdered 8 civilians and injured 6the Warrington bombing, (20.03.93) which murdered two children,  Johnathan Ball (3) and Tim Parry (12) and injured 56 other civilians.the Shankill Road bombing (23.10.93) at Frizzells fish and chip shop which killed the IRA bomber and 9 Protestant civilians
 The IRA’s Army Council had evidently decided in the early 1970s that  it needed the regular civilian death toll produced by its bombing  campaign to pressurize democratically elected British governments to  surrender to its terrorist demands.
 It does not appear to have ever considered the likelihood that it  would face trial for crimes against humanity, unlike its cousin, ETA,  whose leaders are now arraigned on these very charges.
No, Gerry, just Decommissioned, Disbanded and Despised for its Crimes Against Humanity

----------

WVYankee (03-12-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Make no mistake, despite the attempts of Stan  to portray the IRA are romantic revolutionaries , they were a bunch of murdering thugs who bomb, shot , murdered, torture, and crippled anyone they wanted to, with compunction. And if you want to paint them as a military unit, then they are also responsible for a whole list of war crimes along the lien OD Radovan Karawitz.  They are no better than the PLO or Hezbollah, hiding behind women and kids, shooting fro schools and churches, and bombing and killing people willy nilly.

----------

WVYankee (03-12-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

You can post up the entire history of the IRB and IRA, and their atrocities in fighting to eliminate British rule of Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland, but you can't then stand back and justify 700 years of classic misrule of the tiny island of Ireland by England. The English murdered Catholic priests as soon as they found them; attempted to outlaw the Catholic religion in Ireland, and tried to lobotomize the population. They jailed thousands and thousands of suspected Irish Republicans, tortured them in prisons as bad as what you are posting, for a lot longer than the IRA ever fought them in the 1970s. You can't overlook the British killing the Irish writers and poets responsible for the Easter Rising in 1916 by firing squad without trial or convictions, or the routine hangings of Irish that went on for hundreds of years. 

When your brother, or mother, father, sister, or children were captured by the British, usually on flimsy evidence, and jailed, they were routinely tortured continuously. The Black & Tans record of murders and oppression in Ireland is one of the ugliest chapters in British military history. The Royal Irish  Constabulary was complicit in all the atrocities committed by the British in Ireland for centuries, an arm of the Crown. As he led the Irish Republican Brotherhood in the street battles after the Easter Rising, Michael Collins had one famous quote - "Which side will give in first, the body or the lash."

You can post up hideous photos of atrocities of crimes attributed to the IRA, but you can't discount 700 years of imprisonment, starvation, and murder committed by the British Crown representatives in Ireland. We can post up thousands of photographs and debate the Nazi Holocaust in World War II, but it will never be forgotten. But at least in the case of Germany, anti-semitisn was outlawed, and the German government went after every terrorist organization that advocated violence against the Jews and still does. The English Crown has attempted no reconciliation to the Irish question ever.

When in a war, both sides commit atrocities against their foes and citizens. Remember that England drove more Irishmen and women out of their native country to America and Australia, then occupy that country today, particularly during the Irish Famine. There was plenty of food in the country to feed the population, but the British nobility there had rents to pay, gambling debts on their books, and paid them off with food and no help from Parliament, the British military or the Crown, while the Irish population ate grass and died. The Crown, King and Queen, never even considered coming to the aid of a starving Ireland. When America and England occupied Germany after World War II, they established common law and order to that nation, hung a few top Nazi's, and brought that country back into the respected nations of Europe. England has never attempted anything like that in Ireland or Northern Ireland. They did it for Germany - why not for Ireland?   

There are no "war crimes" committed in this back and forth hate-filled battle - one doesn't bring in the Geneva Convention when fighting against terror, a terror England began hundreds of years ago against tiny Ireland. If you are unwilling to accept the Ulster Volunteers; the British military (particularly the Black & Tans reign there) they were sent solely to kill and punish Ireland for opposing the Crown; the Royal Irish Constabulary; the Protestant church and their hate screaming political ministers, which keep the population enraged there for decades, BEFORE the IRA ever started fighting back, then your postings are not valid. Murder and torture is murder and torture no matter who uses it, and it was used by both sides for political purposes routinely. 

You are trying to make it sound like the authorities of Northern Ireland, which isn't recognized by the Republic of Ireland or the IRA, as the sole victims in an uprising against tyranny. Both sides are guilty - accept that, and understand that even if the IRA fought on for another 100 years, however brutally, they wouldn't even come close to the savage murders, hangings, imprisonments, and tortures the British authorities committed against Ireland. BTW, we already have had a discussion of the British military and Crown methods of the Boer War in 1899-1901, and the atrocities they committed there, against women and children and summary executions - all of which would be violations of the Geneva Convention in modern times. 

Just because the IRA attacks come later in history, doesn't excuse the disgusting behavior and torture England has used on the Boers in a war the Boers had no part in starting. Or the crimes in Ireland, that they continued for 700 years, doesn't make the Crown, which has never done anything to help solve the Ulster-Republic question, cleansed. 

The only way to start back on the path to peace in Northern Ireland would be for the Queen to disown Northern Ireland and impeach their representatives in Parliament - blockade any weapons import into the county, pull out the British military, and let the Irish decide for themselves what they want - war or peace.


Stan

----------


## Authentic

Ireland is being overrun by migrants. The IRA and UDA are going to have to unite in the North to keep some semblance of culture intact.

----------

StanAtStanFan (03-12-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

Well done, smartypants. Not exactly been born yesterday, I have felt throughout my entire life that America was hearing what the terrorists from Ireland WANTED us to hear. (Sound somewhat familiar with the BS American "journalists poop pit of their pieh-oles today" Hmmm? Just a "wee bit?"

*"some now transmuted into Sinn  Féin worthies in expensive suits – don’t  wish to be reminded of past  torture horrors and human rights’  violations which have escaped justice,  prosecution and punishment and  even any scrutiny by the brash new cadre  of self-proclaimed ‘human  rights lawyers’ who have grown wealthy on the  legacy of The Troubles  but only see human rights violations by one  side, that side which pays  most of their incomes"

*
Out of all of these truths, THIS one statement caught my eye. THIS is what I had felt as a young American kid, who had no understanding of the atrocities that were happening during my upbringing in the 70's and 80's, much less any sort of connection, despite what the complicit, American liberal a-holes pooped out on any one of the three available American networks of that time. Even then, it was obvious to me, _even_ at that age. And there's no need to reiterate my earlier post of my professor friend's truth--someone who actually LIVED through these times and had a FIRM grasp of Irish history, actually BEING an Irishman.

Terrorists are TERRORISTS. They are ALL the same, employing the very same tactics, over and over again. They're dishonourable cowards, that in truth, are better suited to wear a skirt.

The thing about what I've emboldened from smartypants' well articulated synopsis of events, is that it angers me that these POS's won't receive the justice they so very truly deserve in the courts of men. But DO trust me when I say this: They *WILL* face true judgement from the God they never knew, fancy suits or not!*




*

----------

UKSmartypants (03-12-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> Ireland is being overrun by migrants. The IRA and UDA are going to have to unite in the North to keep some semblance of culture intact.


Migration is a normal process. It almost always has roots in those fleeing political or religious persecution. It's actually a good thing when it is of benefit to the nation that's open to immigration. When it's done as a way of infecting a nation, or weakening it economically--or through state sponsored invasion, then it most definitely IS a problem (act of war).

Europe is rife with immigration. It has been for centuries. Its borders have waxed and waned like the moon and its affect on Earth's oceans. America, surrounded by water, not so much (and much more tolerant)--until the past few decades, where it is at a crisis level.--most especially with liberal open border policies that not only welcome undesirables such as drug and human traffickers, but the diseased--and THEN insist on according them the same "rights" as its own citizens...at their expense.

Don't know much about NZ policies, but Oz does it very well (also benefiting from water). They put the clamps on migrants, and screen them well.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The only way to start back on the path to peace in Northern Ireland would be for the Queen to disown Northern Ireland and impeach their representatives in Parliament - blockade any weapons import into the county, pull out the British military, and let the Irish decide for themselves what they want - war or peace.
> 
> 
> Stan


Just shows how little you have grasped the cause of the Troubles. Let me spell it out.

The Catholics want a United Ireland, because the south is Catholic and they are a minority in the North.

The UDF represent the Protestants. who are  majority in the North, but in a United Ireland would be a minority. Over thier dead bodies.

"Letting the Irish decide for themselves"  LOLOL, you clearly havent grasped that left to their own devices the Catholics and Protestants will set about each other in a civil war that won't stop until one side or the other in the North has been decimated.  It'll be a bloodbath that would make the Balkans look like a skirmish.  The whole point of the British being in NI was to stop the two sides trying to annihilate each other and killing thousands of innocent people in the process. After a coupe of years NI would look like Beiruth.

----------


## Authentic

> Just shows how little you have grasped the cause of the Troubles. Let me spell it out.
> 
> The Catholics want a United Ireland, because the south is Catholic and they are a minority in the North.
> 
> The UDF represent the Protestants. who are  majority in the North, but in a United Ireland would be a minority. Over thier dead bodies.
> 
> "Letting the Irish decide for themselves"  LOLOL, you clearly havent grasped that left to their own devices the Catholics and Protestants will set about each other in a civil war that won't stop until one side or the other in the North has been decimated.  It'll be a bloodbath that would make the Balkans look like a skirmish.  The whole point of the British being in NI was to stop the two sides trying to annihilate each other and killing thousands of innocent people in the process. After a coupe of years NI would look like Beiruth.


That is the whole point? Northern Ireland didn't exist until the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 and partition. Or you can go back to King William in 1690 and the Battle of the Boyne.

----------


## Authentic

Drogheda is a cool word.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Just shows how little you have grasped the cause of the Troubles. Let me spell it out.
> 
> The Catholics want a United Ireland, because the south is Catholic and they are a minority in the North.
> 
> The UDF represent the Protestants. who are  majority in the North, but in a United Ireland would be a minority. Over thier dead bodies.
> 
> "Letting the Irish decide for themselves"  LOLOL, you clearly havent grasped that left to their own devices the Catholics and Protestants will set about each other in a civil war that won't stop until one side or the other in the North has been decimated.  It'll be a bloodbath that would make the Balkans look like a skirmish.  The whole point of the British being in NI was to stop the two sides trying to annihilate each other and killing thousands of innocent people in the process. After a coupe of years NI would look like Beiruth.



I actually don't disagree with this assessment, but eventually, a peace would come about between the Catholic and Protestant majorities in each area.

The partition of Northern Ireland from Ireland proper was part of the original treaty negotiated by Michael Collins which created the Orange Free State, and forced England out of Ireland and allowed it to become a republic. 

Allowing the two sides to settle their differences, without British protection, animosity, favoritism is really the only way to solve the problem, and a disarmament would have to be the very first step. The Crown could set up a royal commission with specific aims, as long as it was willing to release Ulster from being a part of the UK. Whether the two sides would accept such an agreement? Questionable. But, Ulster isn't part of the UK for logical reasons, its existence is based on Protestant loyalty to the crown. 

If they ever could settle their differences, Ulster would be a welcome return edition to the Republic of Ireland and certainly not penalized by the government of the republic. How much blood are Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland willing to sacrifice to maintain the status quo? The fight is bound to break out again in the troubles. A bad economy curses Northern Ireland, because companies are unwilling to settle there due to the animosity (to the level of terrorism and murder), that could easily take place between, and has before, between the Catholic and Protestant work force.

What you fail to take into account is the fact that, for every act of terrorism committed by the IRA, the British government and Crown, and the Ulster forces and Irish constabulary have committed probably 100-times more horrific crimes throughout their history of occupation. The only way England was ever going to leave Ireland was when the IRB bloodied their nose enough, and the cost became too high in military forces and death, that they had to go to the negotiation table to settle the differences. Ireland was never ever going to conquer England, nor did it ever want to - they just wanted to be left alone, and England to leave. 

The same situation that existed in 1916 in Dublin, exists today in Derry and Belfast. How you work it out, complicated, but both sides blood on their hands. 

Give peace a chance - there has to be some pacifist minds in Northern Ireland that see the advantage of joining the Republic instead of remaining an armed camp with the British Crown. How much blood has to be spilled to accomplish that - unknown - but I don't think a tiny entity like Northern Ireland can stand the test of time in open combat and terrorism with the minority Catholic community or vice versa. Not like Israel has, being surrounded by nine countries that hated them, and have tried many times to obliterate the country.

What is the problem with trying? Are Queen and England that important to you? I would think Ulster would be welcomed back to the Irish Republic with open arms, eventually.


Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Give peace a chance -  
> Stan


You are delusional. You are talking about a religious war that been going on since the Battle if the Boyne in 1690. These are religious fanatics, no better than ISIS, who will kill you because your great great-grandfather insulted or slighted thier  great great-grandfather in 1725 or 1830 or 1916. The aims of both groups are entirely irreconcilable, as has been shown time and time again.

The Catholics minority want a unified Ireland. The Protestant majority dont. So the catholic minority set about trying to impose its will on the majority by violence. Even the Good Friday Accord has broken down three times. These people are no more able to live harmoniously then the Shi'ias and the Sunnis.

Apart from that, Eire doesnt want them either, its a can of worms they dont want to open, because they have seen how toxic it is.

The fact is had the British not been in NI there would have been a civil war and a bloodbath. And whats more, the IRA is responsible for far more and worse war crimes than the British.  And before you bleat, since the IRA describes itself in military terms, and describe sits cause as a 'war' , then it CAN be accused of War Crimes.

The IRA became the worlds leading experts on making bombs , and killing and murdering innocent civilians. The spread their know how and 'expertise' to the PLO, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and trained the rest of the worlds terrorists. They are entirely responsible for a large percentage of the worlds deaths to terrorism, and it was done because they couldnt accept the fact they were ea minority, and no one except them wanted what they wanted.

So GTFO, the mess in NI was made far worse because the IRA resorted to violence, and because these people are religious zealot nut jobs. And the British ended up stuck with the mess and taking the shit. If there was any way the British could have walked away before Good Friday, without a bloody civil war erupting ,they would have done so. You think we enjoyed wasting the blood of our youth on a bunch of thick paddy tinkers blinded by sectarian hate?

----------

WVYankee (03-13-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> You are delusional. You are talking about a religious war that been going on since the Battle if the Boyne in 1690. These are religious fanatics, no better than ISIS, who will kill you because your great great-grandfather insulted or slighted thier  great great-grandfather in 1725 or 1830 or 1916. The aims of both groups are entirely irreconcilable, as has been shown time and time again.
> 
> The Catholics minority want a unified Ireland. The Protestant majority dont. So the catholic minority set about trying to impose its will on the majority by violence. Even the Good Friday Accord has broken down three times. These people are no more able to live harmoniously then the Shi'ias and the Sunnis.
> 
> Apart from that, Eire doesnt want them either, its a can of worms they dont want to open, because they have seen how toxic it is.
> 
> The fact is had the British not been in NI there would have been a civil war and a bloodbath. And whats more, the IRA is responsible for far more and worse war crimes than the British.  And before you bleat, since the IRA describes itself in military terms, and describe sits cause as a 'war' , then it CAN be accused of War Crimes.
> 
> The IRA became the worlds leading experts on making bombs , and killing and murdering innocent civilians. The spread their know how and 'expertise' to the PLO, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and trained the rest of the worlds terrorists. They are entirely responsible for a large percentage of the worlds deaths to terrorism, and it was done because they couldnt accept the fact they were ea minority, and no one except them wanted what they wanted.
> ...




Just musing through your hate-filled post above, and it is obvious that you are an Ulsterman, or supporter, and incapable of seeing both sides of the coin.

The British Crown, not the Ulster Volunteers, or the IRA, or any of the para-military names used in this long, long fight, are responsible for the situation in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Protestant majority kept the Catholic minority under wraps for almost 100-years now, and hasn't let up one bit. You also ignore the part of the Protestant church and their rabble rousing ministers, who have kept the hatred against Catholics at a fever pitch since - well - back to the 1600's. 

That the British don't want the mess they created, understandable, but they invented it, created it, allowed it to happen, and established it as part and parcel of the UK in 1920 when they signed the cease fire agreement and treaty Collins negotiated. The Irish people accepted that treaty, even though it lopped off an entire major county of their territory, simply to get the British out of Ireland proper. The ensuing civil war established the Irish Republic. 

But - no matter how many times you post as to the responsibility of the IRA for "The Troubles" - you refuse to accept they came about due to British interference for 700 years of misrule of Ireland. Ireland is a tiny country, Ulster is a small county in that country, they couldn't fight on long before destroying one another. The Titanic was built in the Belfast shipyards, and they all thought it was unsinkable. Its end is a metaphor for the end of Northern Ireland, actually, I am surprised the EU hasn't walked in and taken control there, where the Crown has failed miserably for 40+ years of doing nothing to solve the problem. 

All problems are solvable, but the Northern Ireland radical terrorists won't have it. Let em destroy each other if they want - but the blame will fall directly on Parliament, the Queen and the British military for the bloodbath, no matter which side succeeds. Remember - Northern Ireland's politicians sit in Parliament, that makes them responsible on behalf of the Queen and Crown. 

To me, it is apparent they will fight to the death over - which way one worship's Jesus. That is one of the dumbest ideas in world history, and has always failed. Ulster can't even be compared to Berlin from 1945 until the occupation American and British troops departed - and it was a flash point in the Cold War until the reunification of Germany occurred. No matter how brutal and disgusting the fight between Catholics and Protestants is, or continues to be in Ulster, reunification IS possible. 

Perhaps gawd has looked down on Ulster and decided that is the one place in human history and relations that even HE doesn't want to become involved with, where Satan has defeated him, and decided to ignore it. As valid a point as anything. Yet both sides claim religion as their standard and cloak themselves in the grace of gawd to justify their terrorism. 

You have made your point that the IRA is brutal, but you never accept that the same brutality exists by the Ulster Protestants toward the Ulster Catholics. A bullet always tells the truth, and they have been flying in Ulster for decades - somewhere, somehow, it has to end in a reunification or pacification.


Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

If you'd bothered to read any of my posts of the last six months you know I'm from Lincolnshire, and my family have lived there for the last 1000 years, and I have no direct interest or vested interest in what happened or may happen in NI.. Just shows you aren't as smart or well-informed as you think you are ,.


And its pretty clear you are an IRA supporter, and your posts ooze hate for the British out of every full stop. .You fall into the same category as Shemima Begim, who isnt phased by heads in buckets and thinks the Manchester Arena Bombing were 'fair retaliation'.

----------


## jirqoadai

^^^doesnt think scotland produces oil ^^^

----------

Authentic (04-04-2022)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> If you'd bothered to read any of my posts of the last six months you know I'm from Lincolnshire, and my family have lived there for the last 1000 years, and I have no direct interest or vested interest in what happened or may happen in NI.. Just shows you aren't as smart or well-informed as you think you are ,.
> 
> 
> And its pretty clear you are an IRA supporter, and your posts ooze hate for the British out of every full stop. .You fall into the same category as Shemima Begim, who isnt phased by heads in buckets and thinks the Manchester Arena Bombing were 'fair retaliation'.



I just started reading your posts about two weeks ago - would have no idea where in the UK you are from. 
I know where your head is - buried in the Crown's arse.
As for supporting the IRA? Makes no difference to me whether they go to war, or drink with the Protestants. I am actually Scotch-Irish, and my family line is linked to, of all places, Belfast.

But I do know history - enough to understand you are a freak who supports killers, murderers and terrorists if they are Protestant, but not if they are Catholic, that is clear from your posts. 

Failure to take responsibility for the tragedy that is Northern Ireland is totally a British Crown and military responsibility, and like most controversies with the Crown, the Royal Family cocks things up the instant they get involved. They couldn't handle Diana's independence after Charles threw her in the sewer, and he remains a Royal. They can't handle the sparkle girl or crazy Harry either, let alone the Londoners who, like their Mayor, hate America and particularly Trump. If it wasn't for us, you all would be speaking German today, actually, you probably wouldn't have been born.

BTW, two of my uncles served in World War II in or for England. One was involved in logistics there, with the Army Air Force, directing bomb capacity for the bombers heading
to Germany,. 

The other was on the U.S. Marine contingent assigned to the Lend Lease ships bringing your grandparents food, clothing and weapons to offset a possible Nazi attack. He made nine trips to and back from England on LL ships, five before the navy had the capacity and ships to protect the convoys. He later made eleven trips from America to Russia and back on LL ships and survived that dangerous 900 mile open sea run where the only people around were German U-Boats and the Luftwaffe. It was the Marines job to keep the ships moving through U-Boat infested waters when other ships were torpedoed. The tendency of the Merchant Marines were to stop and recover survivors - the Marines wouldn't allow that. You stopped - you got torpedoed also. An occasional simple thank you might have sufficed - not a "Trump Is A Pig" banner flying over London.

If the IRA and the Ulster Protestants want to skewer each other in blood and tragedy - all for it - let the best side win. Unfortunately, the Crown will step in the pick up the pieces and rule and make the same mistakes over and over again. Like the French aristocracy who regained power after the French Revolution, the British Crown learns nothing from past mistakes, and forgets nothing.

I will continue to drop my American $5 Lincoln faced bill into the jar at the Knights of Equity club, and not worry a hoot where it goes (although I know), or to who, or how they use it. America has enough terror organizations operating on our home turf now, that we don't give a damn about Northern Ireland, or the demented British Royal Family, which I believe probably will be abolished sometime in the future.

My only interest was in Irish history, which you saw from my posts I am overall, well versed in - but I don't follow the UK threads usually, or even click onto this link. 

Now, I know you want to try to drown me down with your insults - but obviously - I got you steamed - and from reading your posts? It was worth it. Nothing like a hypocrite being brought down is more satisfying. 

Frankly Scarlet, "I don't give a damn" what happens to the UK or Northern Ireland, ever.
You can have your last word screed on the thread - know you will be itching to post it. I probably won't even read it.      :Smiley ROFLMAO: 


Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

> My only interest was in Irish history, which you saw from my posts I am overall, well versed in - but I don't follow the UK threads usually, or even click onto this link. 
> 
> 
> Stan


well good all you've done so far in tis forum is troll and insult anyone British, slag off English culture and insult our royal family. Rude doesn't even come into it, you ooze hate for the British which makes your posts pointless

----------

Thom Paine (03-13-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> well good all you've done so far in tis forum is troll and insult anyone British, slag off English culture and insult our royal family. Rude doesn't even come into it, you ooze hate for the British which makes your posts pointless


Does oozing hate for the Irish make your posts have a point?

----------

ruthless terrier (09-15-2022),StanAtStanFan (03-14-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Court 5 Buffalo.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Does oozing hate for the Irish make your posts have a point?


i dont hate the irish at all, i just hate the IRA...and their sympathisers....

----------


## Authentic

> i dont hate the irish at all, i just hate the IRA...and their sympathisers....


Does someone giving both sides of the story of the conflict in question equal an IRA sympathizer in your view?

----------

StanAtStanFan (03-14-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Does someone giving both sides of the story of the conflict in question equal an IRA sympathizer in your view?



When they defend the ira and refuse to acknowledge the ira, (who describe themselves as an army and what they engage in as 'war' in military terms) has perpetrated war crimes, and the vast majority of those responsible have gone unpunished...then yes, that makes you a' IRA sympathizer'

----------


## Authentic

> When they defend the ira and refuse to acknowledge the ira, (who describe themselves as an army and what they engage in as 'war' in military terms) has perpetrated war crimes, and the vast majority of those responsible have gone unpunished...then yes, that makes you a' IRA sympathizer'


I'm not convinced that is what Stan did, but thanks for the clarification.

----------

StanAtStanFan (03-14-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> Just musing through your hate-filled post above, and it is obvious that you are an Ulsterman, or supporter, and incapable of seeing both sides of the coin.
> 
> The British Crown, not the Ulster Volunteers, or the IRA, or any of the para-military names used in this long, long fight, are responsible for the situation in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Protestant majority kept the Catholic minority under wraps for almost 100-years now, and hasn't let up one bit. You also ignore the part of the Protestant church and their rabble rousing ministers, who have kept the hatred against Catholics at a fever pitch since - well - back to the 1600's. 
> 
> That the British don't want the mess they created, understandable, but they invented it, created it, allowed it to happen, and established it as part and parcel of the UK in 1920 when they signed the cease fire agreement and treaty Collins negotiated. The Irish people accepted that treaty, even though it lopped off an entire major county of their territory, simply to get the British out of Ireland proper. The ensuing civil war established the Irish Republic. 
> 
> But - no matter how many times you post as to the responsibility of the IRA for "The Troubles" - you refuse to accept they came about due to British interference for 700 years of misrule of Ireland. Ireland is a tiny country, Ulster is a small county in that country, they couldn't fight on long before destroying one another. The Titanic was built in the Belfast shipyards, and they all thought it was unsinkable. Its end is a metaphor for the end of Northern Ireland, actually, I am surprised the EU hasn't walked in and taken control there, where the Crown has failed miserably for 40+ years of doing nothing to solve the problem. 
> 
> All problems are solvable, but the Northern Ireland radical terrorists won't have it. Let em destroy each other if they want - but the blame will fall directly on Parliament, the Queen and the British military for the bloodbath, no matter which side succeeds. Remember - Northern Ireland's politicians sit in Parliament, that makes them responsible on behalf of the Queen and Crown. 
> ...


Sorry Stan, don't buy what you're selling.

*Both* of you fail to, or simply don't (or won't) understand that the whole Irish "problem," is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic vs protestant issues. Both of you are being completely dishonest if you insist on carrying on with this lie.

One thing abundantly clear though, is that what was borne of this nonsense, is the creation of what emboldens a terrorist, and how very much its lessons have resulted in future events like what we Americans experienced on 9/11. And grown exponentially since. 

Again, the filth that was the IRA can forever rot in hell. They are one of history's examples of what happens when prideful men impose their will on those duped into following them. There are consequences for such actions, as it is for their henchmen. It is as simple as that, but has far reaching implications, further burdening their guilt.

Once more, there will be accountability. That is set in stone.

----------


## Authentic

> Sorry Stan, don't buy what you're selling.
> 
> *Both* of you fail to, or simply don't (or won't) understand that the whole Irish "problem," is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic vs protestant issues. Both of you are being completely dishonest if you insist on carrying on with this lie.
> 
> One thing abundantly clear though, is that what was borne of this nonsense, is the creation of what emboldens a terrorist, and how very much its lessons have resulted in future events like what we Americans experienced on 9/11. And grown exponentially since. 
> 
> Again, the filth that was the IRA can forever rot in hell. They are one of history's examples of what happens when prideful men impose their will on those duped into following them. There are consequences for such actions, as it is for their henchmen. It is as simple as that, but has far reaching implications, further burdening their guilt.
> 
> Once more, there will be accountability. That is set in stone.


Do you have similar words of vitriol for the UDA?

----------

StanAtStanFan (03-14-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

[QUOTE=Authentic;2715715]Do you have similar words of vitriol for the UDA?[/QUOTE



No he doesn't. That is the entire problem with the thread. Northern Ireland is a British invention, a county carved out and away from its natural state of Ireland proper. The fighting started there the moment Collins' treaty creating the Orange Free State was passed. It is like Ohio suddenly deciding it was a colony of Canada instead of the U.S. And the hatred existing between the two combatants isn't based on who rules them - but what religion one uses to worship Jesus. More deaths have been caused by religious differences than any other reason in human history. The history of Islam and Christianity is rife with bloodshed. I certainly wouldn't credit world-wide terrorism to the IRA as their invention, there are plenty of examples of terrorism in history that don't follow their brand. The entire problem lies at the feet of the British Crown, which holds Northern Ireland as a colony and member. The anti-Catholic minority of Northern Ireland has been exploited to the max by the UDA, smarty and WV refuse to acknowledge their complicity in the terrorism, which makes them, and the thread, hypocrites. 

Anyway, Northern Ireland is a tiny province of really no account in world or even British affairs. The Bogside of Belfast was one of the most hideous slums in Europe throughout most of its history, and the screaming, devils that Ulster follows as Protestant ministers, don't preach religion - they preach politics and terrorism keeping the people at fever pitch if anybody suggests Ulster should be reunited with its natural state, the Irish Republic. Think of them as the Vatican suddenly deciding to become an Islamic state - that is how queer the political situation in Ulster is, and how stupid creating it was in 1920.


Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

no stan, it doesn't start at 1920 , it starts at 1690 at the Battle of the Boyne, thats how far back the religious  hatred of NI Catholics and Protestant, and why the IRA dont want a protestant majority north when there is a catholic majority south, but couldnt achieve it by politics.  The violence was frequently triggered by various religious events, such as the Orange Day parade, which was deliberately walked through catholic areas to rub their noses in the defeat at the Battle of the Boyne.  If you don't think its anything to do with religion you don't have the slightest grasp of the back story.

In fact heres a little history lesson, it really goes back to Martin Luthers refusal to renounce all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and then at the Diet of Worms in 1521 he was excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor. 

THATS where it started.

----------

Oceander (03-14-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

And lets just clarify, the British government made strenuous attempts to give NI home rule, in order to avert civil war. It was thwarted three times, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


The First Home Rule Bill of 1886 was defeated in the House of Commons because of a split in the Liberal Party over the principle of Home Rule, while the Second Home Rule Bill of 1893, having been passed by the Commons was vetoed by the House of Lords. The Third Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 by the Irish Parliamentary Party could no longer be vetoed after the passing of the Parliament Act 1911 which removed the power of the Lords to veto bills. They could merely be delayed for two years.


Because of the continuing threat of civil war in Ireland, King George V called the Buckingham Palace Conference in July 1914 where Irish Nationalist and Unionist leaders failed to reach agreement. Controversy continued over the rival demands of Irish Nationalists, backed by the Liberals (for all-Ireland home rule), and Irish Unionists, backed by the Conservatives, for the exclusion of most or all of the province of Ulster.


 In an attempt at compromise, the British government put forward an amending bill, which would have allowed for Ulster to be temporarily excluded from the working of the Act; this failed to satisfy either side, and the stalemate continued until overtaken by the outbreak of World War I. A few weeks after the British entry into the war, the Act received Royal Assent, while the amending bill was abandoned. However, the Suspensory Act 1914 (which received Royal Assent on the same day) meant that implementation would be suspended for the duration of what was expected to be only a short European war. 

Te British did all they could to try and avert a bloody religious civil war.

----------


## Big Wheeler

I've asked the question before but is it normal for someone to be consumed with hate for a country and/or its citizens over events that may/or not have taken place several centuries ago and to allow these events to build up into a hysterical obsession? A man who donates cash money to an organisation knowing that the donation may result in violent death to another human being who could well be doing no more getting on with his life.The same man who dismisses the ethnic cleansing of its day in the mistreatment of native Americans by using the phrase "simply a land grab."  Take a step forward Stan.You know you have mental health issues,don't you?

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> I've asked the question before but is it normal for someone to be consumed with hate for a country and/or its citizens over events that may/or not have taken place several centuries ago and to allow these events to build up into a hysterical obsession? A man who donates cash money to an organisation knowing that the donation may result in violent death to another human being who could well be doing no more getting on with his life.The same man who dismisses the ethnic cleansing of its day in the mistreatment of native Americans by using the phrase "simply a land grab."  Take a step forward Stan.You know you have mental health issues,don't you?



BW you are an azz! I have no mental issues whatsoever. So the Protestants and Catholics have been fighting since the 1600's and still haven't found a way to get along? That tells me more about the mentality of the British who are solely responsible for pushing Ireland into bloodshed than anybody or anything else. Besides, I don't particularly care much for the UK, the Crown or British history as it relates to their horrid conquest of most of the world. 

Northern Ireland is no more relevant on the world stage, or to Americans, than Somalia is. If 1000 citizens of Somalia,  Haiti, Mexico or Cuba are murdered tomorrow, nobody in America will take notice. We have enough bloodshed on the streets of our major cities and are uninterested in Ulster or the Chinese treatment of their citizens, nor the rape epidemic in India. 

Ulster? Most Americans couldn't locate it on a map, and don't care to, that's how unimportant it is. As for America fulfilling Manifest Destiny by moving against the Native American Indian population of the West, the Indians have no word or concept (in that era), of farming, development or ownership, and as I explained previously, so many of those useless European nations who mistreated their populations (particularly England), drove so many immigrants to America, we had to put them somewhere. So Congress sent them to settle the American West. 

Those immigrants arriving had a sense of development and ownership which the Indians did not have. Bleeding heart Americans still bring up that, and the roundup of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, which was due totally to war hysteria. The Japanese-Americans who went to work camps for the duration of that war, Congress issued formal apologies and reparations to, and not one of them died in those camps. The British invented the concentration camps for women and children, and can't make the same claim of protecting them while they incarcerated them illegally. 

America forgave and rebuilt Japan after World War II while forgetting Pearl Harbor, but there are still those who are upset over Truman dropping two atomic bombs on them. The Nazi's were six months or so from the development of the same bomb as the Manhattan Project - and they had the ICBM missile to launch that type of weapon from occupied France and destroy England and America, no thanks to the British Army which in Europe had a permanent case of "the slows." Monty was supposed to take out those missile launching sites - he failed miserably in that task. 

Tell me what reparations England paid to the South African Boers; India; Palestine or Ireland? England treated a conquered Nazi Germany better than they ever treated Ireland. 

It's the same with Ulster, an invented abnormality of the Crown in 1920, and still governed by Britain, and dripping blood throughout its history, based solely on religious differences. The "alleged" special relationship between Britain and America is a totally one-sided affair, and always has been, with America giving the Brits credit for so many things they never accomplished, or contributed to, its shameful. Instead of the queen, you people should be ruled by an Obama, a hypocrite and traitor to America, who would fit in perfectly as your king. Nobody likes the British other than tourists, which are your sole contribution to the world economy. Wally World - Europe is successful, while Disney-France was a flop. On historical perspective, I dislike the UK.

Stan

----------


## Authentic

As an American, I would never discuss the Troubles on the street or in a pub if I were in England, the North of Ireland, or Republic of Ireland.

I sense an undercurrent of resentment from some of our UK members that Americans are discussing the topic here. 

The difference is that we are not in London, Dublin, or Belfast. We are in cyberspace.

----------

Northern Rivers (03-14-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Americans were instrumental in bringing about the current NI power sharing plan. Tim Pat Coogan wrote succinctly (and I may paraphrase), "England and Ireland are both mother countries. There comes a time when parents become dependent on their children."

----------


## Oceander

> BW you are an azz! I have no mental issues whatsoever. So the Protestants and Catholics have been fighting since the 1600's and still haven't found a way to get along? That tells me more about the mentality of the British who are solely responsible for pushing Ireland into bloodshed than anybody or anything else. Besides, I don't particularly care much for the UK, the Crown or British history as it relates to their horrid conquest of most of the world. 
> 
> Northern Ireland is no more relevant on the world stage, or to Americans, than Somalia is. If 1000 citizens of Somalia,  Haiti, Mexico or Cuba are murdered tomorrow, nobody in America will take notice. We have enough bloodshed on the streets of our major cities and are uninterested in Ulster or the Chinese treatment of their citizens, nor the rape epidemic in India. 
> 
> Ulster? Most Americans couldn't locate it on a map, and don't care to, that's how unimportant it is. As for America fulfilling Manifest Destiny by moving against the Native American Indian population of the West, the Indians have no word or concept (in that era), of farming, development or ownership, and as I explained previously, so many of those useless European nations who mistreated their populations (particularly England), drove so many immigrants to America, we had to put them somewhere. So Congress sent them to settle the American West. 
> 
> Those immigrants arriving had a sense of development and ownership which the Indians did not have. Bleeding heart Americans still bring up that, and the roundup of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, which was due totally to war hysteria. The Japanese-Americans who went to work camps for the duration of that war, Congress issued formal apologies and reparations to, and not one of them died in those camps. The British invented the concentration camps for women and children, and can't make the same claim of protecting them while they incarcerated them illegally. 
> 
> America forgave and rebuilt Japan after World War II while forgetting Pearl Harbor, but there are still those who are upset over Truman dropping two atomic bombs on them. The Nazi's were six months or so from the development of the same bomb as the Manhattan Project - and they had the ICBM missile to launch that type of weapon from occupied France and destroy England and America, no thanks to the British Army which in Europe had a permanent case of "the slows." Monty was supposed to take out those missile launching sites - he failed miserably in that task. 
> ...


Wow.  You take the Brits to task for over-sanitizing the English role on Northern Ireland, and then go and do exactly that with the relationship of the U.S. govt and the Native Americans.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> As an American, I would never discuss the Troubles on the street or in a pub if I were in England, the North of Ireland, or Republic of Ireland.
> 
> I sense an undercurrent of resentment from some of our UK members that Americans are discussing the topic here. 
> 
> The difference is that we are not in London, Dublin, or Belfast. We are in cyberspace.


That's a good and valid assay.....

Australia's somewhere between the US and Old Limey in temperment. To my mind, that's because of our year-round outdoor activities, and the fact that anyone get get a piece of land large enough to have an inviolable personal space.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Wow.  You take the Brits to task for over-sanitizing the English role on Northern Ireland, and then go and do exactly that with the relationship of the U.S. govt and the Native Americans.



Yea, you are probably correct in the assumption that America treated the Native American Indian tribes much like the British treated Ireland for 700 years. I keep posting that, but never get any acknowledgement of the length of time England oppressed Ireland from our English posters. 

America was receiving hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the 1800's, particularly 1846 (when the Irish Famine hit), onward, and many of them were Irish, along with German, Poles Italians and Russians. They had to go somewhere. Manifest Destiny was a long-standing policy of the American government in the 1800's. The Congress passed the Homestead Act for thousands of them to settle the West with free land; the railroads aided in connecting the country, and moving the cattle from Texas and Oklahoma to the railroad terminals in Kansas for transfer to Chicago and the stockyards. Thousands of immigrants went to work building those railroads, and from the West to East, Japanese and particularly Chinese labor built it. All of Manifests Destiny was progress which could not be stopped. 

Also, many of those immigrants from Europe went straight in to the Union Army on arrival and stayed to fight in the Indian wars. When they started moving westward, the U.S. Army Cavalry was a support and protective role for the settlers. Not all the Indian tribes were hostile to the westward movement of the whites. Some were, and went to war, and lost and were relocated to some of the worst real estate on American soil, the reservations. Their activities on those reservations are still controlled by Congress at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Nothing could have stopped Manifest Destiny in America, neither the Indians or the Mexicans. Open immigration existed at the time, and they poured in from European nations, particularly Italy, Poland, Germany and England.

Those being the facts of American treatment of the Natives - acknowledged - but we haven't kept the Indians oppressed through our entire history as England has done to the Irish. The only reason England ever had for moving on Ireland was the tiny country could control the sea lanes to them, England being a maritime nation. That was their justification for conquest. William of Orange? Gave most of his soldiers free land in Ireland that Irish and Scotch farmers had been living on for a thousand years. Their methods of conquest and rule was horrific, always was in every country the British occupied while they built their empire. But of all their conquests - tiny Ireland was the only one they attempted to eradicate the entire culture of. They instituted star chamber courts; executions and hangings without trial; murdered the Catholic priests; outlawed the Catholic religion from being practiced ; outlawed education for the Irish; allowed the Irish people to starve for no reason, and kept the Crown's heel on Ireland for 700 years without letup, or any effort to rule through Irish natives, like they allowed, say, India, to rule through their warlords, while England maintained control of the country. 

All I have merely done is point out the terrible misrule England has, and still conducts against Ireland. The difference is, Ireland fought back, and our two UK posters think that is not "sporting." Irish retaliation methods were and are terrible, but come nowhere near the retaliation England has imposed upon that tiny country. The history of Ireland and England is strained for hundreds of years. 

Of all England's colonies, they treated the Irish the worst. The situation in Ireland is, and remains, a terrible beauty for such a quaint and lovely land.


Stan

----------

Authentic (03-15-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> BW you are an azz! I have no mental issues whatsoever. So the Protestants and Catholics have been fighting since the 1600's and still haven't found a way to get along? That tells me more about the mentality of the British who are solely responsible for pushing Ireland into bloodshed than anybody or anything else. Besides, I don't particularly care much for the UK, the Crown or British history as it relates to their horrid conquest of most of the world. 
> 
> Northern Ireland is no more relevant on the world stage, or to Americans, than Somalia is. If 1000 citizens of Somalia,  Haiti, Mexico or Cuba are murdered tomorrow, nobody in America will take notice. We have enough bloodshed on the streets of our major cities and are uninterested in Ulster or the Chinese treatment of their citizens, nor the rape epidemic in India. 
> 
> Ulster? Most Americans couldn't locate it on a map, and don't care to, that's how unimportant it is. As for America fulfilling Manifest Destiny by moving against the Native American Indian population of the West, the Indians have no word or concept (in that era), of farming, development or ownership, and as I explained previously, so many of those useless European nations who mistreated their populations (particularly England), drove so many immigrants to America, we had to put them somewhere. So Congress sent them to settle the American West. 
> 
> Those immigrants arriving had a sense of development and ownership which the Indians did not have. Bleeding heart Americans still bring up that, and the roundup of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, which was due totally to war hysteria. The Japanese-Americans who went to work camps for the duration of that war, Congress issued formal apologies and reparations to, and not one of them died in those camps. The British invented the concentration camps for women and children, and can't make the same claim of protecting them while they incarcerated them illegally. 
> 
> America forgave and rebuilt Japan after World War II while forgetting Pearl Harbor, but there are still those who are upset over Truman dropping two atomic bombs on them. The Nazi's were six months or so from the development of the same bomb as the Manhattan Project - and they had the ICBM missile to launch that type of weapon from occupied France and destroy England and America, no thanks to the British Army which in Europe had a permanent case of "the slows." Monty was supposed to take out those missile launching sites - he failed miserably in that task. 
> ...


Such hypocrisy! You stole the lands of the native Indians, massacred hundreds and thousands of them, herded them into 'reservations' like cattle, only slightly obetter from a Concentration camp,  reneged on treaty after treaty, and ruined their lifestyle and culture. You decimated their hunting grounds, built on thier burial grounds,  and made half their ancient practices illegal.  You need to hang YOUR head in shame, people who live in glass houses, Stan, and we havent even started on the USA in the 20th century.


I apologise to the decent Americans here for the above, but the bigoted racist idiot Stan  really needs to wind his nasty odious offensive neck in.

----------

Big Wheeler (03-15-2021),Oceander (03-15-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Yea, you are probably correct in the assumption that America treated the Native American Indian tribes much like the British treated Ireland for 700 years. I keep posting that, but never get any acknowledgement of the length of time England oppressed Ireland from our English posters. 
> 
> America was receiving hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the 1800's, particularly 1846 (when the Irish Famine hit), onward, and many of them were Irish, along with German, Poles Italians and Russians. They had to go somewhere. Manifest Destiny was a long-standing policy of the American government in the 1800's. The Congress passed the Homestead Act for thousands of them to settle the West with free land; the railroads aided in connecting the country, and moving the cattle from Texas and Oklahoma to the railroad terminals in Kansas for transfer to Chicago and the stockyards. Thousands of immigrants went to work building those railroads, and from the West to East, Japanese and particularly Chinese labor built it. All of Manifests Destiny was progress which could not be stopped. 
> 
> Also, many of those immigrants from Europe went straight in to the Union Army on arrival and stayed to fight in the Indian wars. When they started moving westward, the U.S. Army Cavalry was a support and protective role for the settlers. Not all the Indian tribes were hostile to the westward movement of the whites. Some were, and went to war, and lost and were relocated to some of the worst real estate on American soil, the reservations. Their activities on those reservations are still controlled by Congress at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Nothing could have stopped Manifest Destiny in America, neither the Indians or the Mexicans. Open immigration existed at the time, and they poured in from European nations, particularly Italy, Poland, Germany and England.
> 
> Those being the facts of American treatment of the Natives - acknowledged - but we haven't kept the Indians oppressed through our entire history as England has done to the Irish. The only reason England ever had for moving on Ireland was the tiny country could control the sea lanes to them, England being a maritime nation. That was their justification for conquest. William of Orange? Gave most of his soldiers free land in Ireland that Irish and Scotch farmers had been living on for a thousand years. Their methods of conquest and rule was horrific, always was in every country the British occupied while they built their empire. But of all their conquests - tiny Ireland was the only one they attempted to eradicate the entire culture of. They instituted star chamber courts; executions and hangings without trial; murdered the Catholic priests; outlawed the Catholic religion from being practiced ; outlawed education for the Irish; allowed the Irish people to starve for no reason, and kept the Crown's heel on Ireland for 700 years without letup, or any effort to rule through Irish natives, like they allowed, say, India, to rule through their warlords, while England maintained control of the country. 
> 
> All I have merely done is point out the terrible misrule England has, and still conducts against Ireland. The difference is, Ireland fought back, and our two UK posters think that is not "sporting." Irish retaliation methods were and are terrible, but come nowhere near the retaliation England has imposed upon that tiny country. The history of Ireland and England is strained for hundreds of years. 
> ...


No, the U.S., and the colonists before them, treated the Native Americans much worse than the English treated the Irish.

----------


## Oceander

> Such hypocrisy! You stole the lands of the native Indians, massacred hundreds and thousands of them, herded them into 'reservations' like cattle, only slightly obetter from a Concentration camp,  reneged on treaty after treaty, and ruined their lifestyle and culture. You decimated their hunting grounds, built on thier burial grounds,  and made half their ancient practices illegal.  You need to hang YOUR head in shame, people who live in glass houses, Stan, and we havent even started on the USA in the 20th century.
> 
> 
> I apologise to the decent Americans here for the above, but the bigoted racist idiot Stan  really needs to wind his nasty odious offensive neck in.


Nothing to apologize for.

----------

Big Wheeler (03-15-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> BW you are an azz! I have no mental issues whatsoever. So the Protestants and Catholics have been fighting since the 1600's and still haven't found a way to get along? That tells me more about the mentality of the British who are solely responsible for pushing Ireland into bloodshed than anybody or anything else. Besides, I don't particularly care much for the UK, the Crown or British history as it relates to their horrid conquest of most of the world. 
> 
> Northern Ireland is no more relevant on the world stage, or to Americans, than Somalia is. If 1000 citizens of Somalia,  Haiti, Mexico or Cuba are murdered tomorrow, nobody in America will take notice. We have enough bloodshed on the streets of our major cities and are uninterested in Ulster or the Chinese treatment of their citizens, nor the rape epidemic in India. 
> 
> Ulster? Most Americans couldn't locate it on a map, and don't care to, that's how unimportant it is. As for America fulfilling Manifest Destiny by moving against the Native American Indian population of the West, the Indians have no word or concept (in that era), of farming, development or ownership, and as I explained previously, so many of those useless European nations who mistreated their populations (particularly England), drove so many immigrants to America, we had to put them somewhere. So Congress sent them to settle the American West. 
> 
> Those immigrants arriving had a sense of development and ownership which the Indians did not have. Bleeding heart Americans still bring up that, and the roundup of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, which was due totally to war hysteria. The Japanese-Americans who went to work camps for the duration of that war, Congress issued formal apologies and reparations to, and not one of them died in those camps. The British invented the concentration camps for women and children, and can't make the same claim of protecting them while they incarcerated them illegally. 
> 
> America forgave and rebuilt Japan after World War II while forgetting Pearl Harbor, but there are still those who are upset over Truman dropping two atomic bombs on them. The Nazi's were six months or so from the development of the same bomb as the Manhattan Project - and they had the ICBM missile to launch that type of weapon from occupied France and destroy England and America, no thanks to the British Army which in Europe had a permanent case of "the slows." Monty was supposed to take out those missile launching sites - he failed miserably in that task. 
> ...


Ah, Stan, You are SO right about so many things, yet you're so wrong about other things. 

Most of this I chalk up to history being rewritten over the decades--and now goes on at a mad pace to seal the deal. I've much more to add to that, but I like to keep things simple, for contemplation's sake. So doing, is where I uncover nugget after nugget, especially in conversations such as these, in this format.

History is a wonderful thing, in its purest form. Problem though, is that it's the easiest way to pollute the mind of man to support the evil intentions of those that have control over it, whether it's centuries old, or the "big tech" poop that is being force fed to our current youth.

Carry on though, brother. But know this: We English speaking peoples are all brothers in the end, despite the atrocities we've carried out against one another. And the very BEST example of this is the American civil war. The common thread is our God. We dare not tempt Him otherwise, for the sake of us all.

This is for you, Stan, and all of us that have exchanged thoughts contained within this thread...

----------


## WVYankee

> No, the U.S., and the colonists before them, treated the Native Americans much worse than the English treated the Irish.



So, WHO were the "native" Europeans?" WHO were the "native" Asians?" Who were the "native" Africans? Why aren't ANY of them being a free pass, OR being accused with the same veracity? WHY is my question ALWAYS bypassed, and never gets a SNIFF of discussion? WHY??

----------

Canadianeye (03-15-2021)

----------


## Canadianeye

> So, WHO were the "native" Europeans?" WHO were the "native" Asians?" Who were the "native" Africans? Why aren't ANY of them being a free pass, OR being accused with the same veracity? WHY is my question ALWAYS bypassed, and never gets a SNIFF of discussion? WHY??


Because of the obvious victim status mentality that is the primary weapon of political correctness to guarantee an agenda narrative victory, by those who use the weapon on the useful idiots to silence those who are not?

Is that about right?

----------

WVYankee (03-16-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> No, the U.S., and the colonists before them, treated the Native Americans much worse than the English treated the Irish.



OMG. There never were hundreds of thousands of Native American Indian tribes in the American West, ever. This is a deflection from the 700 years of misrule of Ireland by England, which began in the 1600's. For decades the Native Indians watched as wagon trains rolled across the Great American Desert, destined for Utah, Oregon and California, without incident. The discovery of gold in the Dakota Black Hills and California brought thousands of prospectors into sacred Indian lands. Nothing could be done to stop it but bloodshed. Some of the Indian tribes fought, some didn't, many were relocated from their native lands to reservations that still exist today - but nothing precludes the modern Indian cultures from living wherever they want. Modern problem is many of them are the wards of the U.S. government which supplies their needs. Other tribes, like the traditional Eastern Iroquois Six Nation Confederation, with their Constitution, which predates America's Constitution by 200 years, like the Senecas, still control their vast Ontario, Western New York, Western Pennsylvania reservation, and are doing fine with gas, liquor and gambling sales. The Seminoles are not native to Florida, and when brought here, were dumped in the Everglades, not a pleasant prospect in the 1800's. Everglades means flowing river of grass. Today the Seminoles, which control the marketing name Hard Rock, are the richest, non-white culture on the continent, with their hotels, restaurants and gambling casino's.

America didn't wipe out any Indian culture, just relocated it. The U.S. Cavalry chased Geronamo and his band of 700 for years before capturing him, holding him then releasing him to noble retirement. Most of the old chiefs, Sitting Bull; Crazy Horse; Chief Joseph, all survived the Indian wars and were released from custody. 

If our UK posters are going to try to compare American atrocities to British ones, the Brits win hands down. The Irish people's condition and problems with England are all associated usually with land. The scourge of Ireland was the landlord, most Irish real estate in possession of the barefoot peasants was less than one acre for entire families. Twice a year rents kept the Irish in poverty. The 1690 victory of William of Orange over deposed King James II and his Catholics was the start of the English atrocities over the Catholics, because to keep them in line, a series of Penal Laws were passed aimed at keeping the native Irish powerless, poor and stupid. Some of the Penal Laws were not repealed until Catholic Emancipation in 1829. 

Under the Penal Codes, Catholic Irish were barred from serving as officers in the army or navy, or from practising as lawyers, a profession for which they would later prove to have an appetite. They could hold no civic post or office at all under the Crown. At the death of a Catholic landowner, his land was to be divided among all his sons, unless the eldest became a Protestant, in which case he could inherit the whole. A Catholic could not own a horse worth more than five pounds; was prohibited from living closer than five miles of an incorporated village or town, or from attending or keeping schools. The practice of the Catholic faith was outlawed, the Church of England occupied the majority of their larger churches, forcing them to establish outdoor congregations and hold mass on flat rocks. The British hunted priests for sport. The priesthood was finally legalized in 1782. The landlords even had the privilege to deflower the peasant bride, before being handed back to her prospective husband. All cases in courts were ruled in favor of the landlord, who had the tremendous power of eviction without cause. The Irish census of 1841 to 1851 reflected fully one half of the population of Ireland had been deported to Australia, in jail, or hanged. Landlord's carriage footmen would carry whips and whip any pedestrian traffic (the Irish peasant walked, the horse was for farming), out of he way as the landlords passed. All of this occurred BEFORE the 1846 Irish Famine. 

In no other country of the British empire, did they attempt to totally destroy the culture of the original occupants, so the idea that American hostility toward the Native American Indians attempted to destroy their culture is simply not true.

Could go on and on and on of British atrocities, but our imperialist posters will have none of it. They blame the Irish peasants for all of the problems associated with British occupation.

A tiny island nation was subjugated and the entire population almost eliminated, and their religion and culture wiped out, by the British, who still occupy and hold a significant portion of Ireland, illegally.

Stan

----------

Authentic (03-16-2021)

----------


## Big Wheeler

> As an American, I would never discuss the Troubles on the street or in a pub if I were in England, the North of Ireland, or Republic of Ireland.
> 
> 
> I think you'll find that in England,we and the Irish get along just fine.We have numerous Irish clubs for social activity by all nationalities;there are also numerous ordinary pubs and even Paddy's Day coming up next weekend in which many bevvies will be consumed.Even In Spain there are Paddy's Day celebrations which involve all nationalities and are widely enjoyed by all and sundry.It is a myth that both nationalities are at each other's throats.The only Irish that we don't get on with generally are "travellers"who drift about in their mobile homes leaving a crime wave and a shit pit in their wake.Apart from these individuals the myth of hostility is perpetuated by the likes of your buddy Stan and a few Irish from north and south who can't forget events from 300+ years ago.
> I sense an undercurrent of resentment from some of our UK members that Americans are discussing the topic here. 
> 
> The difference is that we are not in London, Dublin, or Belfast. We are in cyberspace.

----------


## Big Wheeler

re post #120 above.    "Authentic's" post is the first line and the last. My comment is the block between the two.I don't know what happened.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> OMG. There never were hundreds of thousands of Native American Indian tribes in the American West, ever.


LIE.

In 1492 the native population of North America north of the Rio Grande was seven million to ten million. These people grouped themselves into approximately six hundred tribes

1600-1754: Native Americans: Overview | Encyclopedia.com






> This is a deflection from the 700 years of misrule of Ireland by England, which began in the 1600's. For decades the Native Indians watched as wagon trains rolled across the Great American Desert, destined for Utah, Oregon and California, without incident. The discovery of gold in the Dakota Black Hills and California brought thousands of prospectors into sacred Indian lands. Nothing could be done to stop it but bloodshed.


LIE.

The US government could have sent the US Army in to enforce the borders on the Indian lands.





> America didn't wipe out any Indian culture, just relocated it. 
> Stan


LIE.

The  presidency of Andrew Jackson saw hundreds of atrocities by the  government of Native Americans. Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830  legalized and glorified ethnic cleansing. Tens of thousands of natives  were displaced, forced off their own land to make more room for the  cotton plantations of the South. It is with legislature passed during  Jackson’s presidency that doomed natives for the future. In 1831, Chief  Justice John Marshall declared that Indian tribes were “domestic  dependent nations” in the case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. Marshall  further made his point by claiming that their “relation to the United  States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.” The decision behind  this case enabled Andrew Jackson to perpetuate a reign of terror on the  native peoples. Despite the fact that this decision was overturned in  another court case the next year, Jackson continued to impose upon the  natives, specifically on the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and  Seminole peoples, with the inhumane Trail of Tears. 


The events that followed contributed  to the bleak future of the natives. In 1851, Congress passed the Indian  Appropriation Act, the first step in officially confining tribes to  small, impoverished reservations. Forced assimilation permitted by the  Dawes Act did not bode well for the tribes, either. *Many tribes were a  part of involuntary assimilation into white cultures: sorted into  boarding schools that taught them to be the eurocentric definition of  civilized. Native youth were taken from their families to learn “proper”  mannerisms, stripped of their culture and everything they knew. Soon  enough, many native cultures were lost to the prejudice and egotism of  the those of European descent.* They saw a loss of their tribal  religions, and now Catholicism and Protestantism is prevalent on  reservations instead. 


Even today, the treatment of Native  Americans by Caucasians is abysmal. Reservations, as an effect of many  laws enacted by the U.S. government, have been relegated to poverty.  According to the Atlantic, Native Americans have a rate of poverty of  almost twice the national average, the highest of all racial groups in  America. This is a problem that originates with the government, as they  make it nearly impossible for those who live on reservations to move  upward in society. To simply receive a permit for energy development on  reservations, companies must go through at least four federal agencies  and 49 steps, according to Forbes. By contrast, off reservation, it  takes only four steps. In addition, legally speaking, tribes are not  capable of owning or managing their lands. Forbes writes that the  government is the legal owner of all land and assets on reservations,  and, because of this, they cannot mortgage their assets for loans like  other Americans. The government agencies in charge and the laws in place  withhold economic growth from occurring on native reservations.


Unfortunately, as a result of the  inability for economic growth, health diminishes and crime persists. As  reported by a 2001 study by the HHS Office of Minority Health, due to  the link between heart disease, diabetes, poverty and quality of  nutrition and health care, 36 percent of Natives with heart disease will  die before age 65, compared to 15 percent of Caucasians. In addition,  infant death rates are 60 percent higher than for Caucasians. Crime  rates are also exceeding high on reservation land. According to a 1997  study by the National Center for Epidemiology and Population Health  (NCEPH), young Native American peoples show higher rates of drinking and  drug use than most other racial or ethnic groups. This has caused a  large problem, as alcohol-related death rates among Native Americans  youth are over 10 times the national average, according to a study by  the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Despite the aforementioned truth  that government agencies are responsible for the maintenance of  reservations, they fail to do their job. The Justice Department, which  is responsible for attending to the most serious crimes on reservations,  only files charges in about half of the murder investigations,  according to the New York Times. In addition, they turn down nearly  two-thirds of sexual assault cases, enabling a high rate of crime to  continue. The federal government’s treatment towards native reservations  is similar to that of an absentee parent: neglecting to attend to their  needs yet refusing to give them the freedom and ability to grow on  their own. 



Throughout history, natives have been  given three dismal choices: assimilation, relocation, or genocide. The  harsh reality of America’s history is the fact that the treatment of  Native Americans is now and always has been grotesque. 


Your version of history is nothing but a pack of bigotted lies, Stan. Ill say it again so we are clear. You're a racist, bigotted liar.

----------


## Authentic

> re post #120 above.    "Authentic's" post is the first line and the last. My comment is the block between the two.I don't know what happened.


You posted inside my quote.

----------


## UKSmartypants

St. Patricks day tomorrow, the bars will be as full  as they can be here, Irish, british, spanish, scots , welsh, French, germans, Italians, swedes...but not many americans....

----------


## Authentic

Damn, they sure teach a distorted version of American history in the UK.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Damn, they sure teach a distorted version of American history in the UK.



Well compare it to the grossly distorted version of UK history being peddle by the anti British racist Stan.


It was a subject we had a negotiated peace about here, you dont criticise our history, and we dont criticise yours. its something ive avoided doing here. 

Now we been forced to argue, because of one racist shit stirring trouble making Irish bigot, Stan. See why NI is such a poison chalice?. Imagine having to handle an entire nation of vindictive shit stirrers like Stan, for 300 years. Then you know why Eire dont want the north back. This forum would be better if he were booted off, in order to maintain the Uk/US truce.  Ive been forced to attack the US, because of the vindictive malicious BS and lies being thrown at me about my country by one idiot.

----------


## Oceander

> OMG. There never were hundreds of thousands of Native American Indian tribes in the American West, ever. This is a deflection from the 700 years of misrule of Ireland by England, which began in the 1600's. For decades the Native Indians watched as wagon trains rolled across the Great American Desert, destined for Utah, Oregon and California, without incident. The discovery of gold in the Dakota Black Hills and California brought thousands of prospectors into sacred Indian lands. Nothing could be done to stop it but bloodshed. Some of the Indian tribes fought, some didn't, many were relocated from their native lands to reservations that still exist today - but nothing precludes the modern Indian cultures from living wherever they want. Modern problem is many of them are the wards of the U.S. government which supplies their needs. Other tribes, like the traditional Eastern Iroquois Six Nation Confederation, with their Constitution, which predates America's Constitution by 200 years, like the Senecas, still control their vast Ontario, Western New York, Western Pennsylvania reservation, and are doing fine with gas, liquor and gambling sales. The Seminoles are not native to Florida, and when brought here, were dumped in the Everglades, not a pleasant prospect in the 1800's. Everglades means flowing river of grass. Today the Seminoles, which control the marketing name Hard Rock, are the richest, non-white culture on the continent, with their hotels, restaurants and gambling casino's.
> 
> America didn't wipe out any Indian culture, just relocated it. The U.S. Cavalry chased Geronamo and his band of 700 for years before capturing him, holding him then releasing him to noble retirement. Most of the old chiefs, Sitting Bull; Crazy Horse; Chief Joseph, all survived the Indian wars and were released from custody. 
> 
> If our UK posters are going to try to compare American atrocities to British ones, the Brits win hands down. The Irish people's condition and problems with England are all associated usually with land. The scourge of Ireland was the landlord, most Irish real estate in possession of the barefoot peasants was less than one acre for entire families. Twice a year rents kept the Irish in poverty. The 1690 victory of William of Orange over deposed King James II and his Catholics was the start of the English atrocities over the Catholics, because to keep them in line, a series of Penal Laws were passed aimed at keeping the native Irish powerless, poor and stupid. Some of the Penal Laws were not repealed until Catholic Emancipation in 1829. 
> 
> Under the Penal Codes, Catholic Irish were barred from serving as officers in the army or navy, or from practising as lawyers, a profession for which they would later prove to have an appetite. They could hold no civic post or office at all under the Crown. At the death of a Catholic landowner, his land was to be divided among all his sons, unless the eldest became a Protestant, in which case he could inherit the whole. A Catholic could not own a horse worth more than five pounds; was prohibited from living closer than five miles of an incorporated village or town, or from attending or keeping schools. The practice of the Catholic faith was outlawed, the Church of England occupied the majority of their larger churches, forcing them to establish outdoor congregations and hold mass on flat rocks. The British hunted priests for sport. The priesthood was finally legalized in 1782. The landlords even had the privilege to deflower the peasant bride, before being handed back to her prospective husband. All cases in courts were ruled in favor of the landlord, who had the tremendous power of eviction without cause. The Irish census of 1841 to 1851 reflected fully one half of the population of Ireland had been deported to Australia, in jail, or hanged. Landlord's carriage footmen would carry whips and whip any pedestrian traffic (the Irish peasant walked, the horse was for farming), out of he way as the landlords passed. All of this occurred BEFORE the 1846 Irish Famine. 
> 
> In no other country of the British empire, did they attempt to totally destroy the culture of the original occupants, so the idea that American hostility toward the Native American Indians attempted to destroy their culture is simply not true.
> ...


With all due respect:  bullshit.  And I say that as an American born and bred.

----------

UKSmartypants (03-16-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> Because of the obvious victim status mentality that is the primary weapon of political correctness to guarantee an agenda narrative victory, by those who use the weapon on the useful idiots to silence those who are not?
> 
> Pretty much, yes.
> 
> Funny thing about all of the finger pointing in today's world, is that it ALWAYS has a way of finding its way back to those that are unabashedly pointing their fingers in the first place, yes?
> 
> To myself, it's like Groundhog day:
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Authentic

> With all due respect:  bullshit.  And I say that as an American born and bred.


Could you be a little more erudite in your analysis then "bullshit"?

----------


## Oceander

> Could you be a little more erudite in your analysis then "bullshit"?



In this case, no, not really.

----------

UKSmartypants (03-16-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> In this case, no, not really.


Its entirely unnecessary. Stans version of history doesn't correspond with any other historical reference source, therefore the faecal content is self evident.

----------

Oceander (03-16-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> Its entirely unnecessary. Stans version of history doesn't correspond with any other historical reference source, therefore the faecal content is self evident.


Agreed.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Well compare it to the grossly distorted version of UK history being peddle by the anti British racist Stan.
> 
> 
> It was a subject we had a negotiated peace about here, you dont criticise our history, and we dont criticise yours. its something ive avoided doing here. 
> 
> Now we been forced to argue, because of one racist shit stirring trouble making Irish bigot, Stan. See why NI is such a poison chalice?. Imagine having to handle an entire nation of vindictive shit stirrers like Stan, for 300 years. Then you know why Eire dont want the north back. This forum would be better if he were booted off, in order to maintain the Uk/US truce.  Ive been forced to attack the US, because of the vindictive malicious BS and lies being thrown at me about my country by one idiot.


H


You have wandered WAY OFF the reservation with this post mister. I am neither a racist or a bigot. I have posted all along that I dislike British military history, how and the manner in which they built the British Empire, and in particular, their atrocities to the Irish. Probably for the 20th time in the thread I have posted how the British misruled Ireland, for over 700-years, yet you think some Irish terrorists or revolutionaries actions are more destructive throughout history, then the Crown actions in Ireland. 

Disagree with me if you want - but your logic and historical knowledge doesn't match Irish history, while my posts clearly define it. You have called me a bigot, a racist, a Nazi in print because you refuse to accept your own sordid history of conquest throughout the world. 

Debate me with the topic, which you don't, and quit making it personal and grossly out-of-line. You won't find any posters on TPF that support your obscene and bigoted attempt to define me. You have resorted to all types of circular non-topics in an attempt to overwhelm what you can't admit to, that England grossly misruled Ireland for 700 years, committing hundreds and thousands of atrocities on the Irish people. Do the math - that is 700 years of atrocities before the Irish Republic was even established. 

England continues to rule Northern Ireland, a bifurcated and invented state that belongs to the Irish Republic. IRA attacks have been used - but can never match English atrocities. Then you post about your happy little island of peace and prosperity for all on St.Patrick's Day. What an obnoxious lie that is. Unless the Crown kicks Northern Ireland out of the UK orbit, peace will never come to Northern Ireland. 

I will thank you in advance to straighten up your posting style to professional debate and conversation in print, instead of your gross attacks on me personally. I am entitled to my opinion, but that opinion doesn't make me any of the things your forested mind comes up with to place in print. I am surprised you haven't been put on probation for your words.


Stan

----------

Authentic (03-17-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Agreed.


Disagreed.

----------

StanAtStanFan (03-17-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> You have wandered WAY OFF the reservation


GREAT choice of words!

----------


## Karl

> Disagreed.


I like totally missed the boat here

Or did somebody get "Shanghai"

----------

Authentic (04-04-2022)

----------


## Authentic

> I like totally missed the boat here
> 
> Or did somebody get "Shanghai"


Just some spirited discussion of Irish history with an English bloke trying to tell Americans about American Indians.

I know that it's a short jaunt to Des Moines, but shouldn't you be getting some shuteye?

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> With all due respect:  bullshit.  And I say that as an American born and bred.




With all due respect you should read occasionally before posting an opinion like this. A one word comment on the true history of Ireland's troubles with England won't do. Highly respected authors who do deep research, like Leon Uris and his "Trinity" novels or Thomas Keneally "The Great Shame" or the history of Michael Collins, who negotiated the treaty that finally got England to abandon Ireland, but had to turn over Ulster to the Crown, will open your eyes. 

The Penal Codes were as ugly a thing as England ever did to a subjugated nation, the cold blooded execution of poets and writers who seized some public buildings in Dublin in 1916, using pistols against thousands of regular British military and artillery was a thundering, disgusting blunder; the betrayal of the Crown refusing to grant Home Rule after thousands of Irishmen fought and died for England in World War I, and the reign of terror the Black & Tans brought to Ireland's shores to punish them, nothing more, those blood stains will never go away and are stuck to the Crown forever.   

They are well documented in the history of Ireland, the UK and note - most of us in America do read. Your poignant comment here displays a clear lack of knowledge of the thread topic. Read your own indices at the bottom of your post and take note of the quote of Jim Hendrix before you insert yourself into a discussion you obviously know nothing about and can contribute nothing worthy of comment.


Stan

----------


## Oceander

> With all due respect you should read occasionally before posting an opinion like this. A one word comment on the true history of Ireland's troubles with England won't do. Highly respected authors who do deep research, like Leon Uris and his "Trinity" novels or Thomas Keneally "The Great Shame" or the history of Michael Collins, who negotiated the treaty that finally got England to abandon Ireland, but had to turn over Ulster to the Crown, will open your eyes. 
> 
> The Penal Codes were as ugly a thing as England ever did to a subjugated nation, the cold blooded execution of poets and writers who seized some public buildings in Dublin in 1916, using pistols against thousands of regular British military and artillery was a thundering, disgusting blunder; the betrayal of the Crown refusing to grant Home Rule after thousands of Irishmen fought and died for England in World War I, and the reign of terror the Black & Tans brought to Ireland's shores to punish them, nothing more, those blood stains will never go away and are stuck to the Crown forever.   
> 
> They are well documented in the history of Ireland, the UK and note - most of us in America do read. Your poignant comment here displays a clear lack of knowledge of the thread topic. Read your own indices at the bottom of your post and take note of the quote of Jim Hendrix before you insert yourself into a discussion you obviously know nothing about and can contribute nothing worthy of comment.
> 
> 
> Stan



Yeah, but those gosh-darned American settlers were just moving peacefully into empty land the Native Americans didn't really need, and the Native Americans just sat there and watched, and yadda, yadda, yadda.

GFY.

You're clearly a one-sided polemicist with obvious biases.  I never said that the English were not vicious to the Irish; I simply disagreed with your contention that the Americans were nothing more than kindly overlords to the child-like Indians.

----------

UKSmartypants (03-17-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> H
> 
> 
> yadda ayadda
> 
> 
> Stan



Your arguments are grossly one sided, biassed and misrepresentative, and at the same time you refuse to acknowledge the US did anything wrong at any stage. You even denied the USA had engaged in cultural destruction of native  Indians , and i was forced to find proof, which you then still denied. You clearly are a troll, and your object is to stir up a flame war between the english and americans on here, who up to now have managed to exist peacefully whilst debating many things. You seek to poison the forum with your biassed view, out of what i assume is pure malice,.

You are an exact embedment with everything thats wrong with the Irish in NI.  Your attitude and motives are why Eire  has refused several times to get involved in NI, they know its a poison chalice.   The US behaviour  in the world is far worse than anything you assign to the Uk, for far far longer, and its what we call 'the pot calling the kettle black'. You're the reason we end up with situations like NI, and people who think like you. You seethe and ooze hate.


So, back to the cultural destruction of the native Indians you hypocritically claim didnt happen.





indians.jpg
Native American children taken from their parents and forced to attend  the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, where they were taught to reject  and abandon Native values, traditions, beliefs, and practices. (U.S.  Army.)       


During the late 19th century, when most Native Americans  were confined to reservations, the federal government engaged in a  cultural assimilation campaign by forcing thousands of Native American  children to attend boarding schools. In 1879, the Carlisle Indian  Industrial School in Pennsylvania was founded by Richard Pratt, who  believed that Native people would not succeed unless their traditions,  habits, and beliefs were eradicated. Based on Pratt’s “kill the Indian  in him and save the man” philosophy, the Carlisle school became a  national model.

 More than 400 day and boarding schools were built near reservations,  most run by religious organizations, while at least 25 off-reservation  boarding schools were established between 1880 and 1902. Some 100,000  Native Americans were forced to attend these schools, forbidden to speak  Native languages, made to renounce Native beliefs, and forced to  abandon their Native American identities, including their names. Many  children were leased out to white families as indentured servants.

 Parents who resisted their children’s removal to boarding schools  were imprisoned and had their children forcibly taken from them. Chief  Lomahongyoma and 18 other Hopi Indians were imprisoned on Alcatraz  Island in the San Francisco Bay for refusing to send their children to  government-run boarding schools and resisting the Bureau of Indian  Affairs’s efforts to force them to adopt farming practices that were  inconsistent with their cultural values.

 A 1928 investigative report commissioned by the Interior Department  condemned the conditions of Native American boarding schools, citing  insufficient food, overcrowded dorms, substandard medical care, and  exploitative child labour practices. By the 1930s most off-reservation  boarding schools were closed.



It fair comment to say for every irishman killed in NI by the British, 10,000 native Indians died at the hands of the US Government.  So daot you dare stand their trying to take the moral high ground by lecturing us. You have gallons of blood on your hands in comparison, as does the IRA.

----------

Oceander (03-17-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Your arguments are grossly one sided, biassed and misrepresentative, and at the same time you refuse to acknowledge the US did anything wrong at any stage. You even denied the USA had engaged in cultural destruction of native  Indians , and i was forced to find proof, which you then still denied. You clearly are a troll, and your object is to stir up a flame war between the english and americans on here, who up to now have managed to exist peacefully whilst debating many things. You seek to poison the forum with your biassed view, out of what i assume is pure malice,.
> 
> You are an exact embedment with everything thats wrong with the Irish in NI.  Your attitude and motives are why Eire  has refused several times to get involved in NI, they know its a poison chalice.   The US behaviour  in the world is far worse than anything you assign to the Uk, for far far longer, and its what we call 'the pot calling the kettle black'. You're the reason we end up with situations like NI, and people who think like you. You seethe and ooze hate.
> 
> 
> So, back to the cultural destruction of the native Indians you hypocritically claim didnt happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Wikipedia article on the Carlisle school:  Carlisle Indian Industrial School - Wikipedia (with citations to sources)

----------

UKSmartypants (03-17-2021)

----------


## Canadianeye

@WVYankee

"Pretty much, yes.

Funny thing about all of the finger pointing in today's world, is that it ALWAYS has a way of finding its way back to those that are unabashedly pointing their fingers in the first place, yes?

To myself, it's like Groundhog day"

Groundhog day.  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

More facts about something, equals more knowledge about something, but that doesn't add up to wisdom. Wisdom...would have been not eating from the tree of knowledge when Dad clearly said NOT to.

Nowadays everything ends up being "subjective".

----------


## WVYankee

Wisdom comes from God. There is only ONE reference about a man being given wisdom, and it was given to Solomon. Later, King Solomon. "Royalty" from the known world, sought him out for the wisdom he was granted. (Read the book of Proverbs, if you seek wisdom.)

But before mankind gets all giddy about wisdom, He also made it clear that man's wisdom is NOT God's wisdom. Much more, but I shall stop there.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Your arguments are grossly one sided, biassed and misrepresentative, and at the same time you refuse to acknowledge the US did anything wrong at any stage. You even denied the USA had engaged in cultural destruction of native  Indians , and i was forced to find proof, which you then still denied. You clearly are a troll, and your object is to stir up a flame war between the english and americans on here, who up to now have managed to exist peacefully whilst debating many things. You seek to poison the forum with your biassed view, out of what i assume is pure malice,.
> 
> You are an exact embedment with everything thats wrong with the Irish in NI.  Your attitude and motives are why Eire  has refused several times to get involved in NI, they know its a poison chalice.   The US behaviour  in the world is far worse than anything you assign to the Uk, for far far longer, and its what we call 'the pot calling the kettle black'. You're the reason we end up with situations like NI, and people who think like you. You seethe and ooze hate.
> 
> 
> So, back to the cultural destruction of the native Indians you hypocritically claim didnt happen.
> 
> 
> The U.S. government, without success, attempted to bring the Native American Indians into a Western, civilized, modern lifestyle. I didn't work, that's all there is to it.'
> ...

----------


## WVYankee

"History," while fascinating for obvious reasons, is whatever the storyteller of the time gets away with, *truth* be told. Stir in some political BS, and it's instant "proof." Change it up a bit to serve the needs of the next politician/regime, and it's suddenly "truth" to the new and all willing ignorant masses. It's ALWAYS been this way, from the dawn of time. Nothing about it is different than it was over the millennia--"modern" technology and *who* controls it only compounds the problem (and FULLY taken advantage of in the most recent American election). But throw in a dictator who demands that it's either your acceptance of HIS views, or death. (and while the Crown is anything but 'pure as the wind driven snow,' NONE of them were the REAL dictators that have polluted mankind, past, present nor future) And the reality of this last line IS the truth of it.

This whole thread is an exercise in futility and only personifies precisely EVERYTHING that divides those of like minds (admitted or not) that are so consumed by their own egos, that they defeat their own purpose, right or wrong (and kind of present as idiots whilst so doing). Most importantly, not being man enough to admit the whole thing was a pissing match from the outset.

Yeah, as a participant, am guilty as (I so) charged.

Cheers, GOD Bless America and ALL of our English speaking allies and their respective nations.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> "History," while fascinating for obvious reasons, is whatever the storyteller of the time gets away with, *truth* be told. Stir in some political BS, and it's instant "proof." Change it up a bit to serve the needs of the next politician/regime, and it's suddenly "truth" to the new and all willing ignorant masses. It's ALWAYS been this way, from the dawn of time. Nothing about it is different than it was over the millennia--"modern" technology and *who* controls it only compounds the problem (and FULLY taken advantage of in the most recent American election). But throw in a dictator who demands that it's either your acceptance of HIS views, or death. (and while the Crown is anything but 'pure as the wind driven snow,' NONE of them were the REAL dictators that have polluted mankind, past, present nor future) And the reality of this last line IS the truth of it.
> 
> This whole thread is an exercise in futility and only personifies precisely EVERYTHING that divides those of like minds (admitted or not) that are so consumed by their own egos, that they defeat their own purpose, right or wrong (and kind of present as idiots whilst so doing). Most importantly, not being man enough to admit the whole thing was a pissing match from the outset.
> 
> Yeah, as a participant, am guilty as (I so) charged.
> 
> Cheers, GOD Bless America and ALL of our English speaking allies and their respective nations.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> "History," while fascinating for obvious reasons, is whatever the storyteller of the time gets away with, *truth* be told. Stir in some political BS, and it's instant "proof." Change it up a bit to serve the needs of the next politician/regime, and it's suddenly "truth" to the new and all willing ignorant masses. It's ALWAYS been this way, from the dawn of time. Nothing about it is different than it was over the millennia--"modern" technology and *who* controls it only compounds the problem (and FULLY taken advantage of in the most recent American election). But throw in a dictator who demands that it's either your acceptance of HIS views, or death. (and while the Crown is anything but 'pure as the wind driven snow,' NONE of them were the REAL dictators that have polluted mankind, past, present nor future) And the reality of this last line IS the truth of it.
> 
> This whole thread is an exercise in futility and only personifies precisely EVERYTHING that divides those of like minds (admitted or not) that are so consumed by their own egos, that they defeat their own purpose, right or wrong (and kind of present as idiots whilst so doing). Most importantly, not being man enough to admit the whole thing was a pissing match from the outset.
> 
> Yeah, as a participant, am guilty as (I so) charged.
> 
> Cheers, GOD Bless America and ALL of our English speaking allies and their respective nations.



I had to go all the way back to Post #35 of this thread, to uncover just exactly when our English poster went postal on me, and turned a simple narrative of the mega-wealthy British Royal Family's trials and tribulations with obvious low life characters - Harry - Sparkle - The Queen - into a trash discussion. Neither of them are worthy of the Queen's time or effort. She hated his mother, and stripped her of her title out of pure spite. Whether Diana married a Royal; an Irish farmer; a commoner; or a rich Arab wasn't any of the Queen's or England's business, once she was removed from her title. 

As I posted earlier, about the only thing in particular England contributed to us that sticks with me is the Beatles. The rest of the thread is an exercise in futility of him never acknowledging historical evidence of long standing, regarding British conquest and misrule in their rise to Empire. 

I can accept his obtuse postings, they don't bother me, but it does bother me when he posts things like America being responsible for the majority of problems in the world, and our historical failures throughout history, and ignores theirs. Without America, England, the Royals, or the majority of Europe wouldn't exist, or at least they all would be speaking German and living under a Nazi philosophy. 

For disagreeing, he has labeled me with so many ugly adjectives spinning a false narrative of British excellence, when the historical record is so obviously the opposite, that I continued to post. England to America is a poor second cousin, and has been since 1945 when their Empire began to unravel. Their fine Navy, a necessity because they are a maritime nation, co-operates with the American mega Navy well. Militarily, England has generally maintained a limited small army, and concentrated on a solid naval presence. They also have a thriving aircraft parts business which makes the parts for Boeing and Air Bus. The antics and repercussions of the Royals and their offspring, of no account IMHO. Reminds me of the classic American motion picture, "Guess Who Is Coming To Dinner." 

But - none of what I have posted necessitates or condones him from labeling me racist, bigot, Nazi and what-not, as he has, because he can't handle the truth. As long as he keeps doing that, I will continue kicking his azz until Trinity suspends the thread.


Stan

----------


## Authentic

I know that there are a lot of long posts in this thread, but it it really so hard to type outside of quotes?

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> I know that there are a lot of long posts in this thread, but it it really so hard to type outside of quotes?



When the post you are responding to doesn't have QUOTE at the end of it, you will always post inside the others post. I find many times, that instead of ending a post correctly - or posting up newspaper and other sources, posters tend to let the post end instead of just adding the word QUOTE to the additions. That is why we have this problem. Also, occasionally, some posters end their post, then scroll down 10-11 lines before adding the final sentence, for whatever reason - I don't know. Not something I do deliberately, hate it when my words are bracketed by others, but that is the reason. End the post correctly with QUOTE, it won't happen.

Stan

----------

Authentic (04-04-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> But - none of what I have posted necessitates or condones him from labeling me racist, bigot, Nazi and what-not, as he has, because he can't handle the truth. As long as he keeps doing that, I will continue kicking his azz until Trinity suspends the thread.
> 
> 
> Stan



There you go, thats whats wrong with some americans.

"Im going to save the world, arent I so superior."

Who voted you policeman of the world, stan, or policeman of this forum? Such arrogance.  And makes you totally deserved of such various adjectives and nouns  listed above.

And you still refuse to acknowledge your genocide of the native indians.  Such hypocrisy. You have no right to lecture anybody about anything. Get your own history in order first.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> There you go, thats whats wrong with some americans.
> 
> "Im going to save the world, arent I so superior."
> 
> Who voted you policeman of the world, stan, or policeman of this forum? Such arrogance.  And makes you totally deserved of such various adjectives and nouns  listed above.
> 
> And you still refuse to acknowledge your genocide of the native indians.  Such hypocrisy. You have no right to lecture anybody about anything. Get your own history in order first.


Your countrymen voted America policemen of the world.
If it wasn't for America, Europe would have been ruled by Germany, way back during World War I. Our military, especially the Marine Corps, arrived at the exact moment England and France were about to lose that war, as the Russians had abandoned the field, releasing a massive German military fighting in the East, to turn and face you in the West. A million man American military arrived to turn the table and stop them. 

Upon winning that war, instead of listening to Woodrow Wilson's ideas for peace, England, France and Italy forced the draconian Treaty of Versailles upon the German nation, essentially stripping it of any industrial production and ordering the heavily populated country into farming, and $30 billion dollars of reparations, an impossible order they could never meet. It guaranteed that at some point, Germany would rebel under those conditions, and it only took about 20-years before they did, and produced a Hitler.

In fact, the entire war could have been avoided at Waterloo, when French Marshal Nye led the famous cavalry charge through the battlefield and up the hills to the British cannon positions. Electrifying accomplishment, but Nye didn't spike the British canons once he got there, they controlled the battlefield, and had he done so, the French win the battle. Europe with French influence, a more pastoral and non-aggressive major nation status on the continent, would have easily kept a rising Germany in check, and a Hitler never would have risen to power. France and England as allies, one controlling the landmass of Europe, the other controlling the seas, would have ended the constant wars of the next 100 years. The Waterloo victory is generally attributed to the late arrival of the Prussians. Napoleon routed them three days earlier, and would have done so again easily. Nye was a fool, his charge accomplished nothing but had huge consequences for European history later.

Hitler always knew that, at some point, as Germany eliminated the Treaty of Versailles, that the British and French would march to stop him. France, having lost an entire generation of youth in World War I, mostly fought on their soil, were defensive militarily, thus the useless Maginot Line of forts they built, that Guderian and his panzers simply drove around. Hitler understood the French best and gambled they wouldn't move their million man army on his Western front in defense of another tiny nation, Poland, which was as anti-semantic against the Jews as Germany was. That's why so many concentration camps were placed in Poland, France and the Dutch peoples wouldn't have allowed it. Hitler's western front would have been in constant turmoil from underground rebellion, precisely when he needed everything quiet while he tried to take the USSR down. Victory there meant control of all of Europe, top to bottom 

England and France stupidly gave assurances to Poland that they would go to war for her, and stupidly did, setting off World War II. Neither country could, or would, help Poland in 1939, and the French, with a million man army sitting in the forts, could easily have crashed through German western defenses and marched to Berlin and ended the war right then. But the French were defensive, and the British were into appeasment, Poland fell, with half of it going to the Soviets.

While England stood alone in 1940, remember that American President Roosevelt created Lend Lease, and a steady supply of ships carrying foodstuffs particularly, and weapons (the BEF had abandoned theirs at Dunkirk), began to arrive to fortify England. American Merchant Marine sailors were drowning in the Atlantic under control of German U-Boats to get help to England. Eliminating the U-Boat threat, they were sinking American ships 1/2 a mile off of the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Virginia Beach and Miami, took two years of cooperative naval and air operations to connect the American Navy with Britain' and the Catalina slow flying, long range patrol planes to spot the submarines. But the moment American ships began arriving in Liverpool in England, the threat of Nazi Germany winning the war by starvation or invading England ended. At that point, until the end of the war, a steady drumbeat of American ordinance and foodstuffs kept arriving in England, and turned the island into a forward base for bombing Germany around the clock. America by day, England by night.

England owes a huge debt to Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshal, who convinced Roosevelt that Germany was the more dangerous enemy, that America could stall in the Pacific despite enormous anger against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, and lend our industrial support to combat Germany, and also, in 1941, to send Lend Lease ships to Russia also. Lend Lease kept the Russians fighting until they could relocate their own industrial might far inland, rebuild their forces, and then counter-attack, aided by a brutal winter that German forces were not prepared for. The rest is history.

After the war, President Truman, having threatened the Soviets with atomic bombs (which we had none at the time), to get their troops out of Greece and Turkey, running the Berlin Airlift, and stopping the Russian Army cold at their chop lines in Berlin, sent Eisenhower back to Europe to head the newly formed NATO organization, which would protect Western Europe from Russian invasion for 75-years, until East Germany and the other Warsaw Pact nations fell away from the declining military threat of Russia. Truman also sent now Secretary of State Marshal up to Capital Hill to convince the American Congress to pass the Marshal Plan, loaning European countries, including England, huge amounts of dollars, and paying for the rebuilding of Europe on the American taxpayer dollar. Churchill was invited to speak to a Joint Session of the American Congress and stay at the White House, and was honored wherever he went. 

American, British and French policies occupying Germany after the war, brought that nation to a modern, industrialized country no longer influenced by Nazism and anti-semitism, while American occupation of Japan, under General Douglas MacArthur did the same for that warlike Shogun nation. Both our enemies Germany and Japan, rejoined the world's nations as modern, efficient, non-belligerent countries, and fought the Cold War without nuclear destruction with the USSR until THEY fell thanks to Reagan's policies.

Hundreds of years of petty bickering and wars by European nobility never accomplished any lasting peace, but America brought that to the continent, and paid for it from 1945 on. It still was paying almost 95% of the costs for European peace and protection until Trump came along and said to the NATO countries, it was time to  - pay up their NATO dues.

I don't call what American accomplishment in saving this planet from communism and fascism means we are superior to anyone. It means that a generous and indispensable superpower, and our people, decided to rebuild and resurrect peace and prosperity, even at the tremendous cost to our taxpayers for 75 some years, should be shown respect, not to our politicians, but to our population. We have been steadfast in our defense of freedom for ourselves and our allies. Unlike Europe - which never could forgive, forget or pull themselves away from petty wars or imperialism, until, with massive American military, industrial and foodstuffs, we saved them from themselves, once they got tangled with two enemies, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, who could and certainly would, eventually rule them brutally if American resistance wasn't in place. 

So take this stupid notion of yours that America considers themselves superior than anybody else and bury it. It was American generosity, exceptionalism and determination which saved the world. We stand on the shoulders of historical giants, who many countries owe their existence to - like Roosevelt; Truman; Eisenhower; Kennedy; Johnson; Nixon; Ford; Carter; Reagan; Bush, Senior; Clinton; George Bush; Obama and Trump who didn't waver our responsibilities to our allies. The liberal left Biden administration, the jury is still out.

Also, America has a name for people like you, smarty - you are known to us as "Karens."


Stan

----------


## WVYankee

> There you go, thats whats wrong with some americans.
> 
> "Im going to save the world, arent I so superior."
> 
> Who voted you policeman of the world, stan, or policeman of this forum? Such arrogance.  And makes you totally deserved of such various adjectives and nouns  listed above.
> 
> And you still refuse to acknowledge your genocide of the native indians.  Such hypocrisy. You have no right to lecture anybody about anything. Get your own history in order first.


Statements such as these, really delegitimizes your position. 

Firstly, MOST of us "Yanks" who served, bled and DIED in TWO world wars that we had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with, but were dragged into, responded as "expected." Great Britain was BOTH times the benefactor. To even THINK otherwise, is not only ignorant of the facts, but narcissistic. Still, it was the right thing to do at the time--which is a large part of my post (#145), above. (Much more to do with what went down at Pearl Harbour, but very different topic of discussion.)

Secondly no one "voted" us the policemen of the world-except some very misplaced military leaders seeking their own twisted sort of power that have had the full backing of politicians from BOTH of our two major parties from WWII to present day. Reprehensible--and I'm being polite with that. However, since the inception of NATO, we have shouldered the ENTIRE burden of sustaining it, both financially and with BLOOD, in attempting to bring some semblance of some of the things to others that THIS nation was founded on. With NATO, it was European based (hold on to that thought.)

Further proof of what I attest to, is that FINALLY, we elected a President (Trump) that demanded that either European nations start sharing some of the burden to keep the enemy out, or we would pull out of NATO altogether. It took THAT, to FINALLY get all of you freeloading SOB's to pony up. Germany was shaken enough (you know, the bastards that incited TWO WORLD WARS) to quickly come to this realization. And the Euros (Deutschmarks) came flying out by the billions. 

Furthermore, we American "policemen," though we had a RIGHT to seize control of our enemies (speaking of the second world war), not only abstained, but poured in, in today's dollars, TRILLIONS, to rebuild what we destroyed and conquered. In Germany AND Japan. Because in the end, it would serve our purpose--as it has. But deeper than that, what our Christian nation and its values demanded.

Finally, to address your complete ignorance of what you conveniently refer to "native Americans," no more can be said if such tomfoolery were raised about being a "native European." Funny that, considering Europe's borders over the millennia have changed more frequently than some blokes change their underwear--not to mention the fact that England is more Saxon than they are Anglo. Oh, not to bring up the Nordic's invasions, pillage and conquests that shaped present day England. (ROMAN influence aside.) So don't get all hoity-toity with this guy. I'm not buying what you're selling. Not in a NY minute.

Look, we all have our warts. THAT'S humanity. I'm no proclaimed historian with a degree in it from some BS, "elite" uni--but am no fool either. What's going on globally is an overt attempt to divide us, not only as nations, but on a very personal level. It's abundantly clear, for those with an IQ over 50. And those of us who refuse to be human lemmings. And we need to unite more than ever.

As for my American friend Stan: You and I will never agree about Ireland. We just won't. Agree to disagree is as far as I'm willing to go on the topic. I'm good with that, as I hope you are too. It's in the PAST. Hopefully, lessons learned and hatchets buried--as with Smarty.

----------

StanAtStanFan (03-19-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Yawn, Arrogant to the last. You do realise your posts simply keep proving my point ?  (BTW, im not interested in debating the contents, as we've discovered, like most Looney lefies you are immune to the truth, and live in your own little fantasy alternative reality)

----------


## Authentic

> Yawn, Arrogant to the last. You do realise your posts simply keep proving my point ?  (BTW, im not interested in debating the contents, as we've discovered, like most Looney lefies you are immune to the truth, and live in your own little fantasy alternative reality)


Left means something different in our respective countries. An American Democrat would be a Torie in lefty England.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Left means something different in our respective countries. An American Democrat would be a Torie in lefty England.



Nope left is left. Democrats, UK Labour, marxists, nazis, stalin, Mao Tse Tung are left

Republicans, Tories , KKK are right.

Not necessarily to the same degree, but left /right all the same.  You are either a socialist or you arent.

----------

Oceander (03-19-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Nope left is left. Democrats, UK Labour, marxists, nazis, stalin, Mao Tse Tung are left
> 
> Republicans, Tories , KKK are right.
> 
> Not necessarily to the same degree, but left /right all the same.  You are either a socialist or you arent.


The degree is what I am getting at.

----------


## Authentic

I tried to talk about the Grenfell Tower fire in a UK chat room and was told that was literally a firestarter.

I guess it is because the local council screwed up with the cladding.

Councils like that don't exist in the U.S. The Tories allow them. That is why they are more left than our Democrats.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Yawn, Arrogant to the last. You do realise your posts simply keep proving my point ?  (BTW, im not interested in debating the contents, as we've discovered, like most Looney lefies you are immune to the truth, and live in your own little fantasy alternative reality)



Thank you Karen. Your comment (BTW, I am not interested in debating the contents) - spells out the fallacy of all of your argumentative points. 

You haven't realized that it is high time to let this thread die. Keep Ulster walled off, and the Protestants screaming their heads off that they own Jesus and have the inside track to the almighty, and pretend you still control the world as the British Empire. By 1950, you had been pushed out of every country and territory you and the Crown controlled. 

Keep the Queen, her idiot grandson Harry, and Sparkle, they all deserve each other, their drama doesn't play well in America. We have our own problems, but routinely are confronted with yours and the rest of Europe's. I won't convince you, despite posting well accepted historical evidence on every topic you brought up in here, and you certainly are never going to get the better of me with your alleged historical blather. Let it die dude. Sit back and listen to the Beatles, who, BTW, all are of Irish descent despite growing up in Liverpool, England, which is commonly referred to as the capital of Ireland due to its large Irish heritage population. 

The Fab Four are soothing, and you need the rest. 


Stan

----------


## WVYankee

Doubt this has anything whatsoever to do with Ireland and what's contained within this discussion, but as brought up by Stan, couldn't resist.

Enjoy.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Doubt this has anything whatsoever to do with Ireland and what's contained within this discussion, but as brought up by Stan, couldn't resist.
> 
> Enjoy.



A wonderful song that Paul McCartney always says he woke up from a dream where his late mother told him not to worry, to just "let it be" and he had the entire melody of the song in his head, and immediately wrote the song. Who is to argue with that musical genius, who, BTW, holds duel citizenship in the UK and as an American.

Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Thank you Karen. Your comment (BTW, I am not interested in debating the contents) - spells out the fallacy of all of your argumentative points. 
> 
> You haven't realized that it is high time to let this thread die. 
> 
> Stan



Indeed, that's why i am not interested in debating the contents of your absurd racist posts. But you just keep it coming, you just GOTTA win, havent you....... as long as you keep it going, ill exercise my right of reply...

BTW, 'Karen' is an american insult, means nothing to an Englishman. Another dud barb from you....

----------

Neo (09-15-2022)

----------


## Authentic

Fuck me, the Conservatives have entered into an alliance with the DUP!

----------


## Authentic

> Because the thread isnt about any of those things, you dimwitted, vindictive, racist, english hating nazi...


LOL! How did I miss this one!

So much for English understatement.

----------


## Authentic

> No he doesn't. That is the entire problem with the thread. Northern Ireland is a British invention, a county carved out and away from its natural state of Ireland proper. The fighting started there the moment Collins' treaty creating the Orange Free State was passed. It is like Ohio suddenly deciding it was a colony of Canada instead of the U.S. And the hatred existing between the two combatants isn't based on who rules them - but what religion one uses to worship Jesus. More deaths have been caused by religious differences than any other reason in human history. The history of Islam and Christianity is rife with bloodshed. I certainly wouldn't credit world-wide terrorism to the IRA as their invention, there are plenty of examples of terrorism in history that don't follow their brand. The entire problem lies at the feet of the British Crown, which holds Northern Ireland as a colony and member. The anti-Catholic minority of Northern Ireland has been exploited to the max by the UDA, smarty and WV refuse to acknowledge their complicity in the terrorism, which makes them, and the thread, hypocrites. 
> 
> Anyway, Northern Ireland is a tiny province of really no account in world or even British affairs. The Bogside of Belfast was one of the most hideous slums in Europe throughout most of its history, and the screaming, devils that Ulster follows as Protestant ministers, don't preach religion - they preach politics and terrorism keeping the people at fever pitch if anybody suggests Ulster should be reunited with its natural state, the Irish Republic. Think of them as the Vatican suddenly deciding to become an Islamic state - that is how queer the political situation in Ulster is, and how stupid creating it was in 1920.
> 
> 
> Stan


Good post, but I have to correct one thing for the record.

Bogside was in Derry.

----------


## Authentic

> Fuck me, the Conservatives have entered into an alliance with the DUP!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conser...3DUP_agreement

----------


## Neo

> LOL! How did I miss this one!
> 
> So much for English understatement.


I thought it was a quite moderate post.

----------

Authentic (09-15-2022)

----------


## Moonie

.
Not Charles' son, and thus not a Royal daughter-in-law.

Not that that is a thing that one would want to admit to outside of service to the Royal Household.
.

----------


## ruthless terrier

> i dont hate the irish at all, i just hate the IRA...and their sympathizers....


you sound like the puppet saying he doesn't hate republicans .. just Trump supporters. sounds like doublespeak.

----------

Authentic (09-15-2022)

----------


## Neo

> you sound like the puppet saying he doesn't hate republicans .. just Trump supporters. sounds like doublespeak.


Actually Smarty is perfectly correct, the IRA are scum, murdering bastards, anyone with a modi come of intelligence of what went on in the troubles will agree, anyone outside the U.K. doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about….seriously get an education!

----------

