Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WINSTON CHURCHILL IS A GENOCIDAL RACIST, THIEF AND A LIAR
514 views
Skip to first unread message
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 18, 2017, 5:19:06 PM4/18/17
to
WINSTON CHURCHILL IS A GENOCIDAL RACIST, THIEF AND A LIAR
http://www.tehelka.com/2014/06/remembering-indias-forgotten-holocaust/
Remembering India’s forgotten holocaust
British policies killed nearly 4 million Indians in the 1943-44 Bengal
Famine
Rakesh Krishnan Simha
June 13, 2014,
The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the
subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because
of an artificial famine created by the British government, and yet it
gets little more than a passing mention in Indian history books.
What is remarkable about the scale of the disaster is its time span.
World War II was at its peak and the Germans were rampaging across
Europe, targeting Jews, Slavs and the Roma for extermination. It took
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6
million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill
almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister
Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines.
Australian biochemist Dr Gideon Polya has called the Bengal Famine a
“manmade holocaust” because Churchill’s policies were directly
responsible for the disaster. Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942,
but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from
India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas
comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh.
Author Madhusree Mukerjee tracked down some of the survivors and paints
a chilling picture of the effects of hunger and deprivation. In
Churchill’s Secret War, she writes: “Parents dumped their starving
children into rivers and wells. Many took their lives by throwing
themselves in front of trains. Starving people begged for the starchy
water in which rice had been boiled. Children ate leaves and vines, yam
stems and grass. People were too weak even to cremate their loved ones.”
“No one had the strength to perform rites,” a survivor tells Mukerjee.
“Dogs and jackals feasted on piles of dead bodies in Bengal’s villages.”
The ones who got away were men who migrated to Calcutta for jobs and
women who turned to prostitution to feed their families. “Mothers had
turned into murderers, village belles into whores, fathers into
traffickers of daughters,” writes Mukerjee.
Mani Bhaumik, the first to get a PhD from the IITs and whose invention
of excimer surgery enabled Lasik eye surgery, has the famine etched in
his memory. His grandmother starved to death because she used to give
him a portion of her food.
By 1943 hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta, most
dying on the streets. The sight of well-fed white British soldiers
amidst this apocalyptic landscape was “the final judgement on British
rule in India”, said the Anglophile Jawaharlal Nehru.
Churchill could easily have prevented the famine. Even a few shipments
of food grain would have helped, but the British prime minister
adamantly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own
Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US .
Subhas Chandra Bose, who was then fighting on the side of the Axis
forces, offered to send rice from Myanmar, but the British censors did
not even allow his offer to be reported.
Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British
troops and Greek civilians. To him, “the starvation of anyhow underfed
Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”, a sentiment with which
Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.
Amery was an arch-colonialist and yet he denounced Churchill’s
“Hitler-like attitude”. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy
Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded
with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.
Wavell informed London that the famine “was one of the greatest
disasters that has befallen any people under British rule”. He said when
Holland needs food, “ships will of course be available, quite a
different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring
food to India”.
Churchill’s excuse — currently being peddled by his family and
supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport
emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge
his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain
from Australia bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean.
Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War
Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying
they “breed like rabbits”. His attitude toward Indians may be summed up
in his words to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a
beastly religion.” On another occasion, he insisted they were “the
beastliest people in the world next to the Germans”.
According to Mukerjee, “Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite
extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be
held for very long.” She writes in The Huffington Post, “Churchill
regarded wheat as too precious a food to expend on non-whites, let alone
on recalcitrant subjects who were demanding independence from the
British Empire. He preferred to stockpile the grain to feed Europeans
after the war was over.”
In October 1943, at the peak of the famine, Churchill said at a lavish
banquet to mark Wavell’s appointment: “When we look back over the course
of years, we see one part of the world’s surface where there has been no
war for three generations. Famines have passed away — until the horrors
of war and the dislocations of war have given us a taste of them again —
and pestilence has gone… This episode in Indian history will surely
become the Golden Age as time passes, when the British gave them peace
and order, and there was justice for the poor, and all men were shielded
from outside dangers.”
Churchill was not only a racist but also a liar.
A history of holocausts
To be sure, Churchill’s policy towards famine-stricken Bengal wasn’t any
different from earlier British conduct in India. In Late Victorian
Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31 serious famines in
120 years of British rule compared with 17 in the 2,000 years before
British rule.
In his book, Davis tells the story of the famines that killed up to 29
million Indians. These people were, he says, murdered by British State
policy. In 1876, when drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan
plateau, there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the
Viceroy, Robert Bulwer-Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent
their export to England.
In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported
record quantities of grain. As the peasants began to starve, government
officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible
way”. The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from
which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within
these labour camps, the workers were given less food than the Jewish
inmates of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp of World War II.
Even as millions died, Lytton ignored all efforts to alleviate the
suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated
on preparing for Queen Victoria’s investiture as Empress of India. The
highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast at which 68,000
dignitaries heard her promise the nation “happiness, prosperity and
welfare”.
In 1901, The Lancet estimated that at least 19 million Indians had died
in western India during the famine of the 1890s. The death toll was so
high because the British refused to implement famine relief. Davis says
life expectancy in India fell by 20 percent between 1872 and 1921.
So it’s hardly surprising that Hitler’s favourite film was The Lives of
a Bengal Lancer, which showed a handful of Britons holding a continent
in thrall. The Nazi leader told the then British Foreign Secretary
Edward Wood (Earl of Halifax) that it was one of his favorite films
because “that was how a superior race must behave and the film was
compulsory viewing for the SS (Schutz-Staffel, the Nazi ‘protection
squadron’)”.
Crime and consequences
While Britain has offered apologies to other nations, such as Kenya for
the Mau Mau massacre, India continues to have such genocides swept under
the carpet. Other nationalities have set a good example for us. Israel,
for instance, cannot forget the Holocaust; neither will it let others,
least of all the Germans. Germany continues to dole out hundreds of
millions of dollars in cash and arms aid to Israel.
Armenia cannot forget the Great Crime — the systematic massacre of 1.8
million Armenians by the Turks during World War I. The Poles cannot
forget Joseph Stalin’s Katyn massacre.
The Chinese want a clear apology and reparations from the Japanese for
at least 40,000 killed and raped in Nanking during World War II. And
then there is the bizarre case of the Ukrainians, who like to call a
famine caused by Stalin’s economic policies as genocide, which it
clearly was not. They even have a word for it: Holodomor.
And yet India alone refuses to ask for reparations, let alone an
apology. Could it be because the British were the last in a long list of
invaders, so why bother with an England suffering from post-imperial
depression? Or is it because India’s English-speaking elites feel
beholden to the British? Or are we simply a nation condemned to
repeating our historical mistakes? Perhaps we forgive too easily.
But forgiveness is different from forgetting, which is what Indians are
guilty of. It is an insult to the memory of millions of Indians whose
lives were snuffed out in artificial famines.
British attitudes towards Indians have to seen in the backdrop of
India’s contribution to the Allied war campaign. By 1943, more than 2.5
million Indian soldiers were fighting alongside the Allies in Europe,
Africa and Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of arms, ammunition and raw
materials sourced from across the country were shipped to Europe at no
cost to Britain.
Britain’s debt to India is too great to be ignored by either nation.
According to Cambridge University historians Tim Harper and Christopher
Bayly, “It was Indian soldiers, civilian labourers and businessmen who
made possible the victory of 1945. Their price was the rapid
independence of India.”
There is not enough wealth in all of Europe to compensate India for 250
years of colonial loot. Forget the money, do the British at least have
the grace to offer an apology? Or will they, like Churchill, continue to
delude themselves that English rule was India’s “Golden Age”?
http://www.tehelka.com/2014/06/remembering-indias-forgotten-holocaust/
Remembering India’s forgotten holocaust
British policies killed nearly 4 million Indians in the 1943-44 Bengal
Famine
Rakesh Krishnan Simha
June 13, 2014,
The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the
subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because
of an artificial famine created by the British government, and yet it
gets little more than a passing mention in Indian history books.
What is remarkable about the scale of the disaster is its time span.
World War II was at its peak and the Germans were rampaging across
Europe, targeting Jews, Slavs and the Roma for extermination. It took
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6
million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill
almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister
Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines.
Australian biochemist Dr Gideon Polya has called the Bengal Famine a
“manmade holocaust” because Churchill’s policies were directly
responsible for the disaster. Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942,
but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from
India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas
comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh.
Author Madhusree Mukerjee tracked down some of the survivors and paints
a chilling picture of the effects of hunger and deprivation. In
Churchill’s Secret War, she writes: “Parents dumped their starving
children into rivers and wells. Many took their lives by throwing
themselves in front of trains. Starving people begged for the starchy
water in which rice had been boiled. Children ate leaves and vines, yam
stems and grass. People were too weak even to cremate their loved ones.”
“No one had the strength to perform rites,” a survivor tells Mukerjee.
“Dogs and jackals feasted on piles of dead bodies in Bengal’s villages.”
The ones who got away were men who migrated to Calcutta for jobs and
women who turned to prostitution to feed their families. “Mothers had
turned into murderers, village belles into whores, fathers into
traffickers of daughters,” writes Mukerjee.
Mani Bhaumik, the first to get a PhD from the IITs and whose invention
of excimer surgery enabled Lasik eye surgery, has the famine etched in
his memory. His grandmother starved to death because she used to give
him a portion of her food.
By 1943 hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta, most
dying on the streets. The sight of well-fed white British soldiers
amidst this apocalyptic landscape was “the final judgement on British
rule in India”, said the Anglophile Jawaharlal Nehru.
Churchill could easily have prevented the famine. Even a few shipments
of food grain would have helped, but the British prime minister
adamantly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own
Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US .
Subhas Chandra Bose, who was then fighting on the side of the Axis
forces, offered to send rice from Myanmar, but the British censors did
not even allow his offer to be reported.
Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British
troops and Greek civilians. To him, “the starvation of anyhow underfed
Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”, a sentiment with which
Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.
Amery was an arch-colonialist and yet he denounced Churchill’s
“Hitler-like attitude”. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy
Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded
with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.
Wavell informed London that the famine “was one of the greatest
disasters that has befallen any people under British rule”. He said when
Holland needs food, “ships will of course be available, quite a
different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring
food to India”.
Churchill’s excuse — currently being peddled by his family and
supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport
emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge
his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain
from Australia bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean.
Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War
Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying
they “breed like rabbits”. His attitude toward Indians may be summed up
in his words to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a
beastly religion.” On another occasion, he insisted they were “the
beastliest people in the world next to the Germans”.
According to Mukerjee, “Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite
extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be
held for very long.” She writes in The Huffington Post, “Churchill
regarded wheat as too precious a food to expend on non-whites, let alone
on recalcitrant subjects who were demanding independence from the
British Empire. He preferred to stockpile the grain to feed Europeans
after the war was over.”
In October 1943, at the peak of the famine, Churchill said at a lavish
banquet to mark Wavell’s appointment: “When we look back over the course
of years, we see one part of the world’s surface where there has been no
war for three generations. Famines have passed away — until the horrors
of war and the dislocations of war have given us a taste of them again —
and pestilence has gone… This episode in Indian history will surely
become the Golden Age as time passes, when the British gave them peace
and order, and there was justice for the poor, and all men were shielded
from outside dangers.”
Churchill was not only a racist but also a liar.
A history of holocausts
To be sure, Churchill’s policy towards famine-stricken Bengal wasn’t any
different from earlier British conduct in India. In Late Victorian
Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31 serious famines in
120 years of British rule compared with 17 in the 2,000 years before
British rule.
In his book, Davis tells the story of the famines that killed up to 29
million Indians. These people were, he says, murdered by British State
policy. In 1876, when drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan
plateau, there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the
Viceroy, Robert Bulwer-Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent
their export to England.
In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported
record quantities of grain. As the peasants began to starve, government
officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible
way”. The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from
which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within
these labour camps, the workers were given less food than the Jewish
inmates of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp of World War II.
Even as millions died, Lytton ignored all efforts to alleviate the
suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated
on preparing for Queen Victoria’s investiture as Empress of India. The
highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast at which 68,000
dignitaries heard her promise the nation “happiness, prosperity and
welfare”.
In 1901, The Lancet estimated that at least 19 million Indians had died
in western India during the famine of the 1890s. The death toll was so
high because the British refused to implement famine relief. Davis says
life expectancy in India fell by 20 percent between 1872 and 1921.
So it’s hardly surprising that Hitler’s favourite film was The Lives of
a Bengal Lancer, which showed a handful of Britons holding a continent
in thrall. The Nazi leader told the then British Foreign Secretary
Edward Wood (Earl of Halifax) that it was one of his favorite films
because “that was how a superior race must behave and the film was
compulsory viewing for the SS (Schutz-Staffel, the Nazi ‘protection
squadron’)”.
Crime and consequences
While Britain has offered apologies to other nations, such as Kenya for
the Mau Mau massacre, India continues to have such genocides swept under
the carpet. Other nationalities have set a good example for us. Israel,
for instance, cannot forget the Holocaust; neither will it let others,
least of all the Germans. Germany continues to dole out hundreds of
millions of dollars in cash and arms aid to Israel.
Armenia cannot forget the Great Crime — the systematic massacre of 1.8
million Armenians by the Turks during World War I. The Poles cannot
forget Joseph Stalin’s Katyn massacre.
The Chinese want a clear apology and reparations from the Japanese for
at least 40,000 killed and raped in Nanking during World War II. And
then there is the bizarre case of the Ukrainians, who like to call a
famine caused by Stalin’s economic policies as genocide, which it
clearly was not. They even have a word for it: Holodomor.
And yet India alone refuses to ask for reparations, let alone an
apology. Could it be because the British were the last in a long list of
invaders, so why bother with an England suffering from post-imperial
depression? Or is it because India’s English-speaking elites feel
beholden to the British? Or are we simply a nation condemned to
repeating our historical mistakes? Perhaps we forgive too easily.
But forgiveness is different from forgetting, which is what Indians are
guilty of. It is an insult to the memory of millions of Indians whose
lives were snuffed out in artificial famines.
British attitudes towards Indians have to seen in the backdrop of
India’s contribution to the Allied war campaign. By 1943, more than 2.5
million Indian soldiers were fighting alongside the Allies in Europe,
Africa and Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of arms, ammunition and raw
materials sourced from across the country were shipped to Europe at no
cost to Britain.
Britain’s debt to India is too great to be ignored by either nation.
According to Cambridge University historians Tim Harper and Christopher
Bayly, “It was Indian soldiers, civilian labourers and businessmen who
made possible the victory of 1945. Their price was the rapid
independence of India.”
There is not enough wealth in all of Europe to compensate India for 250
years of colonial loot. Forget the money, do the British at least have
the grace to offer an apology? Or will they, like Churchill, continue to
delude themselves that English rule was India’s “Golden Age”?
Byker
Apr 18, 2017, 7:36:57 PM4/18/17
to
"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:cpvJA.16810$xR7....@fx28.iad...
invaded by Turks/Afghans/Uzbeks/Mughals and colonized by the Portuguese,
French and British?
"If The British Had Never Ruled Our Country, This Would Be India Today":
http://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/if-the-british-had-never-ruled-our-country-this-would-be-india-today-243538.html
There will probably be no India, as the individual states would have become
countries on their own, like the European Union...
news:cpvJA.16810$xR7....@fx28.iad...
>
> WINSTON CHURCHILL IS A GENOCIDAL RACIST, THIEF AND A LIAR
>
> http://www.tehelka.com/2014/06/remembering-indias-forgotten-holocaust/
>
> WINSTON CHURCHILL IS A GENOCIDAL RACIST, THIEF AND A LIAR
>
> http://www.tehelka.com/2014/06/remembering-indias-forgotten-holocaust/
>
> Or will they, like Churchill, continue to delude themselves that English
> rule was India’s “Golden Age”?
Ask yourself what would India be like today if it had never have been
> rule was India’s “Golden Age”?
invaded by Turks/Afghans/Uzbeks/Mughals and colonized by the Portuguese,
French and British?
"If The British Had Never Ruled Our Country, This Would Be India Today":
http://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/if-the-british-had-never-ruled-our-country-this-would-be-india-today-243538.html
There will probably be no India, as the individual states would have become
countries on their own, like the European Union...
RH156RH
Apr 19, 2017, 4:21:33 AM4/19/17
to
de chucka
Apr 19, 2017, 6:45:59 AM4/19/17
to
snip
>
> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
I wonder if it is true that Churchill never came to Australia because of
his fuck-up at Gallipoli
>
>
> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
his fuck-up at Gallipoli
>
RH156RH
Apr 20, 2017, 1:52:09 PM4/20/17
to
The country which lost most at Galipoli was of course the UK. RH
de chucka
Apr 20, 2017, 5:30:01 PM4/20/17
to
On 21/04/2017 3:52 AM, RH156RH wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:45:59 AM UTC+1, De Chucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>
>>> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
>>
>> I wonder if it is true that Churchill never came to Australia because of
>> his fuck-up at Gallipoli
>>>
>
> Well, avoiding Ozfailians at full victimhood whine is a very good reason to avoid Ozfailure.
Well the Poms could hardly lynch him but they did kicked him out from
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:45:59 AM UTC+1, De Chucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>
>>> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
>>
>> I wonder if it is true that Churchill never came to Australia because of
>> his fuck-up at Gallipoli
>>>
>
> Well, avoiding Ozfailians at full victimhood whine is a very good reason to avoid Ozfailure.
Lord of the Admiralty
>
> The country which lost most at Galipoli was of course the UK. RH
Actually Turkey or to be totally correct the Ottoman Empire lost the
> The country which lost most at Galipoli was of course the UK. RH
most men you ignoramus
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 20, 2017, 5:30:21 PM4/20/17
to
is way toooo complicated for YOU to COMPREHEND.
As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT
that Winston Churchill is a GENOCIDAL RACIST MURDERER, THIEF and a LIAR.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 20, 2017, 5:31:38 PM4/20/17
to
richsdi...@gmail.com
Apr 21, 2017, 5:18:24 AM4/21/17
to
On Thursday, 20 April 2017 22:30:21 UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT
> that Winston Churchill is a GENOCIDAL RACIST MURDERER, THIEF and a LIAR.
How's the slaying of FBI / CIA / NSA folk going? Very interested to hear the numbers.
> As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT
> that Winston Churchill is a GENOCIDAL RACIST MURDERER, THIEF and a LIAR.
Richard
wotawonderfulworld
Apr 21, 2017, 7:09:40 AM4/21/17
to
RH156RH
Apr 21, 2017, 1:33:52 PM4/21/17
to
Byker
Apr 21, 2017, 3:06:24 PM4/21/17
to
"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:LL9KA.13435$KO2....@fx36.iad...
> As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT that
> Winston Churchill is a GENOCIDAL RACIST MURDERER, THIEF and a LIAR.
When it was all over and done with, the finger of blame was pointed at the
Bengali government, not the UK: http://bit.ly/2dwHmw2
news:LL9KA.13435$KO2....@fx36.iad...
>
> The columnist himself said "these are some amateur predictions" but it is
> way toooo complicated for YOU to COMPREHEND.
What did he predict?
> The columnist himself said "these are some amateur predictions" but it is
> way toooo complicated for YOU to COMPREHEND.
> As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT that
> Winston Churchill is a GENOCIDAL RACIST MURDERER, THIEF and a LIAR.
Bengali government, not the UK: http://bit.ly/2dwHmw2
de chucka
Apr 21, 2017, 6:35:46 PM4/21/17
to
Mike Holmans
Apr 21, 2017, 6:49:26 PM4/21/17
to
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:06:19 -0500, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
>news:LL9KA.13435$KO2....@fx36.iad...
>>
>> The columnist himself said "these are some amateur predictions" but it is
>> way toooo complicated for YOU to COMPREHEND.
>
>What did he predict?
>
>> As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT that
>> Winston Churchill is a GENOCIDAL RACIST MURDERER, THIEF and a LIAR.
Actually, Winston Chruchill *is* none of those things. He has been
>"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
>news:LL9KA.13435$KO2....@fx36.iad...
>>
>> The columnist himself said "these are some amateur predictions" but it is
>> way toooo complicated for YOU to COMPREHEND.
>
>What did he predict?
>
>> As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT that
>> Winston Churchill is a GENOCIDAL RACIST MURDERER, THIEF and a LIAR.
dead for more than 50 years.
Cheers,
Mike
Byker
Apr 21, 2017, 11:31:50 PM4/21/17
to
"Mike Holmans" wrote in message
news:n13lfclc53nt7fvaa...@4ax.com...
(1965).
news:n13lfclc53nt7fvaa...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, Winston Chruchill *is* none of those things. He has been dead
> for more than 50 years.
His funeral was the first live-via-satellite broadcast I ever watched.
> Actually, Winston Chruchill *is* none of those things. He has been dead
> for more than 50 years.
(1965).
RH156RH
Apr 22, 2017, 3:31:05 AM4/22/17
to
Did Churchill cause the Bengal Famine of 1943, as has been claimed?
There’s been much heated debate about Churchill’s alleged culpability in the deaths of thousands of Indians during the Bengal Famine of 1943. Some say he denied vital food supplies to India at a time when lives could have been saved, diverting these to Allies in the Mediterranean instead, while others say food was no scarcer in Bengal in ’43 than in ’41 (when there was no famine); that hoarding, declining wages, unemployment, rising food prices and poor food-distribution systems all contributed to the deaths. Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen, historian Mark Tauger and science journalist Madhusree Mukerjee have all entered the debate recently and the findings are inconclusive. See the Indian ‘Telegraph’ article about the debate.
It seems that, at worst, Churchill’s failure was in not sending more aid – but then he was determined to win a war to protect Europe first and foremost. To say that Churchill caused the deaths of millions is untrue.
To find out more about this debate, read this article by the Churchill Project at Hillsdale College.
Note: It is also true that famines were routine in India before the Raj. The construction of the huge railway system during the Raj and other infrastructure projects will have saved many from famine because often enough it was poor communication systems before the railways which caused famine. RH
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 22, 2017, 6:00:55 AM4/22/17
to
surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives, recording
every word I say and analyzing if the things I say happen in the future.
The clowns (for me) whom you and the rest of the human race fears told
me four years back, that I am the "only" unique human being on this planet.
Eight months ago, they found out another unique thing about me and told
me with this Subject title secret message "Look at the future" that I
can see the future too.
"Look at the future"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.sport.cricket/ccBcxeji5no/qDLqSJW6DAAJ
They will never ever dare to come in front of me if I have a gun cuz
they know I wouldn't hesitate a single second to blow their brains off.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 22, 2017, 6:02:29 AM4/22/17
to
As usual human filth is having a very hard time to STICK TO THE POINT
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 22, 2017, 6:03:44 AM4/22/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 22, 2017, 6:42:08 AM4/22/17
to
warfare for he was a warmonger before anything else. This mass killer got
his chance by diverting food stocks from Bengal to Burma; he blocked the release
of existing stocks; then he did not allow any imports. That directly led to the
deaths of 3-4 million Bengalis in horrible ways. My grandmother told me many
terrible things she has seen with her own eyes. The starving people would beg
for starch, that would be decanted after boiling rice. She and many other ladies
fed the starving as much as possible and that way the number of deaths was
somewhat lessened. There was a military reason behind this - he thought
that the Bengalis would support the Japanese so killing and starving Bengalis
was necessary.
Non-Bengali Indian leaders and their followers have made hay out of the
suffering of the Bengalis. They got independence claiming British incompetence,
but the Bengalis themselves got nothing but suffering from partition after the
real holocaust of the WW2. Then they have been systematically deprived of
power, money and influence for the sanctimonious non-Bengali leaders were and
are in the pockets of the West. Well such is life.
As for Churchill, it is not difficult to show how much of a warmonger he was.
His fellow parliamentarians knew he was a shameless warmonger. Why he was like
that may be a matter of interest. My guess is that his classmates in school
were too frank about his mother's morals, and so made his life miserable. So he
got revenge by arranging world wars which would send that sort to their graves.
Just one person was responsible for the loss of the British Empire and England's
supremacy - and that was not Hitler. Hitler wanted the British Empire to last.
Out of loyalty to his US mother, Churchill I guess wanted US to replace UK as
the world's premium power. And that happened. The greatest irony is that
Churchill is still regarded as the greatest ever Englishman! Just as the
disastrous Gandi is still the father of the Indian nation. "What fools these
mortals be!"
RH156RH
Apr 22, 2017, 9:52:36 AM4/22/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 22, 2017, 10:18:39 AM4/22/17
to
the plain fact is that unless the subject is brought up no one bothers to
even think about that vile racist. Indifference is the key, and the fact that
the Bengali population has multiplied plentifully despite Churchill's efforts
also matters not inconsiderably.
richsdi...@gmail.com
Apr 22, 2017, 6:59:37 PM4/22/17
to
On Saturday, 22 April 2017 11:00:55 UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> The FBI, CIA, NSA clowns obsessive compulsively watch me with illegal
> surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives, recording
> every word I say and analyzing if the things I say happen in the future.
I think you'll find that's just industrial-strength paranoia on your part.
> The FBI, CIA, NSA clowns obsessive compulsively watch me with illegal
> surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives, recording
> every word I say and analyzing if the things I say happen in the future.
Hope that helps!
Richard
RH156RH
Apr 23, 2017, 5:38:16 AM4/23/17
to
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 3:18:39 PM UTC+1, Arindam Banerjee wrote:sary.
Britain's Empire was a matter for pride, not guilt - as we Indians know
ZAREER MASANI
Today, in Britain, the word “empire” always seems to be preceded by the word “evil”, with politically correct media and academia glibly assuming that those large swathes of the map that were once painted pink endured unmitigated political oppression and economic exploitation.
As an Indian historian, I’m bemused by this masochistic glee. With Britain preparing to rebuild trade links with its former empire post-Brexit, does it really need to apologise for its imperial past? Or could it take new pride in what it did to modernise and democratise the world?
To me the answer is clear. Yet many Britons are ready to swallow the most outrageous allegations about their country’s colonial past. A particularly egregious example is the recent claim by the Indian polemicist Shashi Tharoor, in his book Inglorious Empire, that Winston Churchill had more blood on his hands than Hitler because he caused the death of millions of Bengalis during the famine of 1943.
The factual basis for the genocide charge against Churchill was his reluctance to divert wartime food supplies from Europe to Bengal – rather different from willing or causing the starvation of Bengalis. Churchill’s belief that the Bengal problem was not a shortage of foodgrains but hoarding and speculation by local traders has since been confirmed by the Nobel Prize-winning Bengali economist Amartya Sen.
In the current context of resurgent Hindu chauvinism, it’s easy to see why public opinion in India prefers to blame the foreign Raj, rather than greedy Hindu merchants, for past famines. It’s less easy to understand why the British are so eager to take the blame.
Only a century ago, empire was the default mode of governance across the globe, based on the assumption that larger states with diverse populations and geography and free trade were likely to be richer and more successful.
Like the nation states that succeeded them, empires varied enormously in their treatment of subject peoples. The benign inclusiveness of Habsburg Mitteleuropa was a world apart from the ruthless racism of the Belgian Congo. The British Raj, with its insistence on the rule of law and individual human rights, was somewhere in between. Its faults have to be seen in the context of a subcontinent emerging from a millennium of despotic rule by invading Muslim elites from Central Asia and indigenous upper‑caste Hindus.
The most widely propagated fallacy about British imperial exploitation is the notion that India’s steep decline as the world’s leading textile exporter from the 18th century to the 19th was due to a deliberate policy of deindustrialisation by the British.
What’s ignored in that economic equation is the adverse impact that Europe’s industrial revolution inevitably had on traditional manufactures in all pre-industrial economies, regardless of who was in charge. Indian handlooms, like those in China or Britain itself, were swamped by the Satanic mills of Manchester. But by the 1860s, Indian businessmen had begun their own industrial revolution, with capital and technology imported from Britain. The thriving textile mills of colonial Bombay were soon giving Manchester a run for its money....Of course, the British Empire existed primarily for the benefit of Britain, but its incidental benefits for subject nations could be considerable. To dismiss those as being unintended is like denying the benefits of capitalism because it’s motivated by private profit.
Many thousands of British personnel in India had a sincere commitment to those they governed, especially in the elite Indian Civil Service, dubbed “heaven-born” for its incorruptibility. Recruited by competitive, open examination, the ICS was far ahead of its domestic British counterpart, attracting the best brains in Britain and India.
By the time of independence, most of the ICS had been “Indianised”, like the judiciary and the army. That demonstrates the demographic reality that the Raj throughout was more Indian than British. There was no way a few thousand Britons could have ruled a subcontinent of three hundred million for a century and a half without the active cooperation of the vast majority of Indians.
RH
> > >
> > > Non-Bengali Indian leaders and their followers have made hay out of the
> > > suffering of the Bengalis. They got independence claiming British incompetence,
> > > but the Bengalis themselves got nothing but suffering from partition after the
> > > real holocaust of the WW2. Then they have been systematically deprived of
> > > power, money and influence for the sanctimonious non-Bengali leaders were and
> > > are in the pockets of the West. Well such is life.
> > >
> > > As for Churchill, it is not difficult to show how much of a warmonger he was.
> > > His fellow parliamentarians knew he was a shameless warmonger. Why he was like
> > > that may be a matter of interest. My guess is that his classmates in school
> > > were too frank about his mother's morals, and so made his life miserable. So he
> > > got revenge by arranging world wars which would send that sort to their graves.
> > > Just one person was responsible for the loss of the British Empire and England's
> > > supremacy - and that was not Hitler. Hitler wanted the British Empire to last.
> > > Out of loyalty to his US mother, Churchill I guess wanted US to replace UK as
> > > the world's premium power. And that happened. The greatest irony is that
> > > Churchill is still regarded as the greatest ever Englishman! Just as the
> > > disastrous Gandi is still the father of the Indian nation. "What fools these
> > > mortals be!"
> >
> > Churchill was a descendent of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. That alone was enough to give him a martial tendency. He was also undoubtedly extremely physically brave himself as he showed both as foreign correspondent and as a commissioned officer in WW1. His moral courage speaks for himself. RH
>
> Bengalis have more reason to hate Churchill than Jews have to hate Hitler, but
> the plain fact is that unless the subject is brought up no one bothers to
> even think about that vile racist. Indifference is the key, and the fact that
> the Bengali population has multiplied plentifully despite Churchill's efforts
> also matters not inconsiderably.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/britains-empire-matter-pride-not-guilt-indians-know/
> > > Non-Bengali Indian leaders and their followers have made hay out of the
> > > suffering of the Bengalis. They got independence claiming British incompetence,
> > > but the Bengalis themselves got nothing but suffering from partition after the
> > > real holocaust of the WW2. Then they have been systematically deprived of
> > > power, money and influence for the sanctimonious non-Bengali leaders were and
> > > are in the pockets of the West. Well such is life.
> > >
> > > As for Churchill, it is not difficult to show how much of a warmonger he was.
> > > His fellow parliamentarians knew he was a shameless warmonger. Why he was like
> > > that may be a matter of interest. My guess is that his classmates in school
> > > were too frank about his mother's morals, and so made his life miserable. So he
> > > got revenge by arranging world wars which would send that sort to their graves.
> > > Just one person was responsible for the loss of the British Empire and England's
> > > supremacy - and that was not Hitler. Hitler wanted the British Empire to last.
> > > Out of loyalty to his US mother, Churchill I guess wanted US to replace UK as
> > > the world's premium power. And that happened. The greatest irony is that
> > > Churchill is still regarded as the greatest ever Englishman! Just as the
> > > disastrous Gandi is still the father of the Indian nation. "What fools these
> > > mortals be!"
> >
> > Churchill was a descendent of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. That alone was enough to give him a martial tendency. He was also undoubtedly extremely physically brave himself as he showed both as foreign correspondent and as a commissioned officer in WW1. His moral courage speaks for himself. RH
>
> Bengalis have more reason to hate Churchill than Jews have to hate Hitler, but
> the plain fact is that unless the subject is brought up no one bothers to
> even think about that vile racist. Indifference is the key, and the fact that
> the Bengali population has multiplied plentifully despite Churchill's efforts
> also matters not inconsiderably.
Britain's Empire was a matter for pride, not guilt - as we Indians know
ZAREER MASANI
Today, in Britain, the word “empire” always seems to be preceded by the word “evil”, with politically correct media and academia glibly assuming that those large swathes of the map that were once painted pink endured unmitigated political oppression and economic exploitation.
As an Indian historian, I’m bemused by this masochistic glee. With Britain preparing to rebuild trade links with its former empire post-Brexit, does it really need to apologise for its imperial past? Or could it take new pride in what it did to modernise and democratise the world?
To me the answer is clear. Yet many Britons are ready to swallow the most outrageous allegations about their country’s colonial past. A particularly egregious example is the recent claim by the Indian polemicist Shashi Tharoor, in his book Inglorious Empire, that Winston Churchill had more blood on his hands than Hitler because he caused the death of millions of Bengalis during the famine of 1943.
The factual basis for the genocide charge against Churchill was his reluctance to divert wartime food supplies from Europe to Bengal – rather different from willing or causing the starvation of Bengalis. Churchill’s belief that the Bengal problem was not a shortage of foodgrains but hoarding and speculation by local traders has since been confirmed by the Nobel Prize-winning Bengali economist Amartya Sen.
In the current context of resurgent Hindu chauvinism, it’s easy to see why public opinion in India prefers to blame the foreign Raj, rather than greedy Hindu merchants, for past famines. It’s less easy to understand why the British are so eager to take the blame.
Only a century ago, empire was the default mode of governance across the globe, based on the assumption that larger states with diverse populations and geography and free trade were likely to be richer and more successful.
Like the nation states that succeeded them, empires varied enormously in their treatment of subject peoples. The benign inclusiveness of Habsburg Mitteleuropa was a world apart from the ruthless racism of the Belgian Congo. The British Raj, with its insistence on the rule of law and individual human rights, was somewhere in between. Its faults have to be seen in the context of a subcontinent emerging from a millennium of despotic rule by invading Muslim elites from Central Asia and indigenous upper‑caste Hindus.
The most widely propagated fallacy about British imperial exploitation is the notion that India’s steep decline as the world’s leading textile exporter from the 18th century to the 19th was due to a deliberate policy of deindustrialisation by the British.
What’s ignored in that economic equation is the adverse impact that Europe’s industrial revolution inevitably had on traditional manufactures in all pre-industrial economies, regardless of who was in charge. Indian handlooms, like those in China or Britain itself, were swamped by the Satanic mills of Manchester. But by the 1860s, Indian businessmen had begun their own industrial revolution, with capital and technology imported from Britain. The thriving textile mills of colonial Bombay were soon giving Manchester a run for its money....Of course, the British Empire existed primarily for the benefit of Britain, but its incidental benefits for subject nations could be considerable. To dismiss those as being unintended is like denying the benefits of capitalism because it’s motivated by private profit.
Many thousands of British personnel in India had a sincere commitment to those they governed, especially in the elite Indian Civil Service, dubbed “heaven-born” for its incorruptibility. Recruited by competitive, open examination, the ICS was far ahead of its domestic British counterpart, attracting the best brains in Britain and India.
By the time of independence, most of the ICS had been “Indianised”, like the judiciary and the army. That demonstrates the demographic reality that the Raj throughout was more Indian than British. There was no way a few thousand Britons could have ruled a subcontinent of three hundred million for a century and a half without the active cooperation of the vast majority of Indians.
RH
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 23, 2017, 6:41:13 AM4/23/17
to
to decriminalise that monster will be like applying perfume upon the hands
of Lady Macbeth to make them sweet.
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 23, 2017, 7:53:05 AM4/23/17
to
will remain as foolish as ever. Proper fools they look like now, making
Churchill their greatest hero. That man created the maximum damage for the
British, lost the Empire with two world wars he initiated, got very many
British killed, and did absolutely nothing good. He did much worse than
providing fully the blood, toil, tears and sweat that he promised. There were
many well-intentioned British in the Empire but they were all racist. That was
not such a bad thing for it gave them some high standards to live up to, and
to the subject nations this setting of high standards was welcome. The problem
with the Empire was it success, and thus the need for first the Germans and
after that the Americans to destroy the Empire.
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 23, 2017, 10:14:03 AM4/23/17
to
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 9:53:05 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> And unless the British have the decency to admit all the wrongs they did they
> will remain as foolish as ever. Proper fools they look like now, making
> Churchill their greatest hero. That man created the maximum damage for the
> British, lost the Empire with two world wars he initiated,
You really might want to look at what actually started the two world wars.
>
> And unless the British have the decency to admit all the wrongs they did they
> will remain as foolish as ever. Proper fools they look like now, making
> Churchill their greatest hero. That man created the maximum damage for the
> British, lost the Empire with two world wars he initiated,
Here's a hint, it wasn't England doing initial invasions.
> got very many British killed, and did absolutely nothing good.
> He did much worse than
> providing fully the blood, toil, tears and sweat that he promised. There were
> many well-intentioned British in the Empire but they were all racist. That was
> not such a bad thing for it gave them some high standards to live up to, and
> to the subject nations this setting of high standards was welcome. The problem
> with the Empire was it success, and thus the need for first the Germans and
> after that the Americans to destroy the Empire.
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 23, 2017, 7:02:44 PM4/23/17
to
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 12:14:03 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 9:53:05 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > And unless the British have the decency to admit all the wrongs they did they
> > will remain as foolish as ever. Proper fools they look like now, making
> > Churchill their greatest hero. That man created the maximum damage for the
> > British, lost the Empire with two world wars he initiated,
>
> You really might want to look at what actually started the two world wars.
> Here's a hint, it wasn't England doing initial invasions.
Heh, England and its men had invaded the rest of the world more successfully
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 9:53:05 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > And unless the British have the decency to admit all the wrongs they did they
> > will remain as foolish as ever. Proper fools they look like now, making
> > Churchill their greatest hero. That man created the maximum damage for the
> > British, lost the Empire with two world wars he initiated,
>
> You really might want to look at what actually started the two world wars.
> Here's a hint, it wasn't England doing initial invasions.
than the other Europeans and that led to the world wars. Churchill was the
catalyst for both. The world wars should not have lasted that long nor need
have been so bloody. Churchill was directly responsible for the Gallipoli disaster.
After the defeat at Dunkirk he did what he could to get as
many people killed as possible, even though Hitler let them go out of racist
kindness to his own kind.
Well, Churchill got the wars he wanted. That he did, that king of warmongers.
I don't see what good it did the British and their Empire. As I said, Hitler was
never against the British Empire. He wanted a land empire; in due course
Europe would have been like what China is today with everyone speaking German
had he consolidated. With no world wars, India and Indians would have a far
better standard of living today, much as Australians enjoy.
> > got very many British killed, and did absolutely nothing good.
>
> I'd suggest that stopping Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan count as pretty good.
back to life the many millions killed, nor do they bring back the once-great
British Empire. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were nowhere
near as bad as portrayed by the warmongers and their corrupted following. From
the 2017 point of view, it certainly appears that the good people lost in the
WW2 bigly, and so there is nothing and no one good enough in the world today
to understand great and good things, such as my works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
What I need today is not Hitler but Genghis Khan to support my works!
Churchill is the classic case of the evil and worthless mediocrity boosted by
money and power, in order to displace good people from money and power.
> > He did much worse than
> > providing fully the blood, toil, tears and sweat that he promised. There were
> > many well-intentioned British in the Empire but they were all racist. That was
> > not such a bad thing for it gave them some high standards to live up to, and
> > to the subject nations this setting of high standards was welcome. The problem
> > with the Empire was it success, and thus the need for first the Germans and
> > after that the Americans to destroy the Empire.
>
> btw, how's your idea that Trump is peaceful and unlikely to cause wars working out for you?
with the help of North Korea, China and Russia. As I predicted. The Cold War
did a lot of good to engineers and from that to society. A more peaceful
version of that (sans Vietnam, etc.) will be just great. There could be more
demand for my new physics and new motors. Fine for all, then. It could be
that the Australian Govt. may help my research to make vimans for space travel;
certainly they could be modified with a new class of rail guns to make all
USA's aircraft carriers, planes, etc. obsolete. Not that I want to use my
work for military purposes.
So all this aircraft carrier rattling is really good. It keeps the media happy
and the military-industrial complexes buzzing, the people scared and united in
working hard, etc. I believe that El Presidente Mr Donald Trump is deep down
a fine man, so will do the right thing. In any case it will be very stupid for
him to attack North Korea, he will be walking straight into a trap if he does
do that. He would be better off developing new technologies to counter the
ballistic missile attacks, make them obsolete. That is the way Cold War should
progress - with peace and prosperity everywhere. Till humans evolve and outgrow
the need for wars of all kind, without getting lazy and corrupt.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 25, 2017, 1:19:29 AM4/25/17
to
I am NOT paranoid about anything on this planet.
You and the rest of the human filth should have "industrial strength
paranoia" about western christian governments cuz your knowledge of your
governments is ZERO.
I am privy to "1000 times" more knowledge than Edward Snowden's
revelations, which I do NOT even consider revelations in the first place.
Neither you nor 99.9% of the rest of the human species have the mental
faculties to "accept" the "reality" even if you "understand" it for a
fleeting moment.
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 25, 2017, 1:28:33 AM4/25/17
to
Gerrit 't Hart
Apr 25, 2017, 2:33:01 AM4/25/17
to
So according to you only seven and a half million people in the whole
worldhave those mental faculties.
Says a lot about your fellow inhabitants of the Indian sub continent. :)
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 25, 2017, 3:00:21 AM4/25/17
to
Having some freakish unique perception ability != superpower.
You just proved me right. You are just another delusional human with
absolutely NO ability to separate fact from fiction.
I am merely trying to "educate you" about some things you don't know and
you will never know.
MI-6 Chipped you with mind control chips most likely around 2007-2008
time frame OR whenever you first started posting on rsc.
"Almost ALL" rsc posters were chipped and remotely programmed at various
times to make some specific comments on rsc in the last 10 years.
This fact is NOT open for debate.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 25, 2017, 3:02:00 AM4/25/17
to
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 25, 2017, 3:12:56 AM4/25/17
to
On 4/24/2017 10:28 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
I did NOT claim to have any ability to see the future.
I said "they think" I have the ability to see the future cuz they
noticed a lot of things happen.
If it makes you feel better, I have absolutely NO ability to see the
future. I merely analyze some things in topics I am interested in and
they turn out to be true in the future. That's all.
And one last time, I have NO superpower/superpowers. That is my perspective.
What "they (CIA, NSA) think" about me is different.
wotawonderfulworld
Apr 25, 2017, 3:26:13 AM4/25/17
to
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@yahoo.com> wrote
in news:A%ALA.98370$5a6....@fx29.iad:
Yeap we do, its called delusional.
in news:A%ALA.98370$5a6....@fx29.iad:
RH156RH
Apr 25, 2017, 4:40:54 AM4/25/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 25, 2017, 5:16:36 AM4/25/17
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2klnDakoRw
RK packs in what "82 IQ-wallahs" can do in a minute or two with lots of
diversity in style and looks, and then explains Indians in his song "jis desh
mein ganga behti hai".
Where lips utter the words of truth;
Where hearts are clean of sin and vice:
We are the natives of the land,
We are the natives of the land,
The land through which the Ganga flows.
Those we consider as our guests
Are dearer to us than our lives.
We have no greed for acquisition;
We can manage with very little.
For its children this earth as mother
Endures all for ever and ever.
We are the natives of this land,
The land through which the Ganga flows.
Those people who know rather more -
They understand humans rather less.
This is the East; for those in the East
Every life has its worth and meaning;
They know the cost of every life.
Live together in peace and with love.
This is the one message that remains
From the natives of the land
The land through which the Ganga flows.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 25, 2017, 6:01:38 AM4/25/17
to
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:00:21 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 4/24/2017 10:28 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 3:19:29 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2017 3:59 PM, richsdi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 22 April 2017 11:00:55 UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The FBI, CIA, NSA clowns obsessive compulsively watch me with illegal
> >>>> surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives, recording
> >>>> every word I say and analyzing if the things I say happen in the future.
> >>>
> >>> I think you'll find that's just industrial-strength paranoia on your part.
> >>>
> >>> Hope that helps!
> >>> Richard
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Moron,
> >>
> >> I am NOT paranoid about anything on this planet.
> >>
> >> You and the rest of the human filth should have "industrial strength
> >> paranoia" about western christian governments cuz your knowledge of your
> >> governments is ZERO.
> >>
> >> I am privy to "1000 times" more knowledge than Edward Snowden's
> >> revelations, which I do NOT even consider revelations in the first place.
> >>
> >> Neither you nor 99.9% of the rest of the human species have the mental
> >> faculties to "accept" the "reality" even if you "understand" it for a
> >> fleeting moment.
> >
> > and you use your superpower to post rants on usenet...
> >
>
>
>
> Where did I say I have superpower?
>
> Having some freakish unique perception ability != superpower.
Ozymandius may disagree with you.
> On 4/24/2017 10:28 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 3:19:29 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2017 3:59 PM, richsdi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 22 April 2017 11:00:55 UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The FBI, CIA, NSA clowns obsessive compulsively watch me with illegal
> >>>> surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives, recording
> >>>> every word I say and analyzing if the things I say happen in the future.
> >>>
> >>> I think you'll find that's just industrial-strength paranoia on your part.
> >>>
> >>> Hope that helps!
> >>> Richard
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Moron,
> >>
> >> I am NOT paranoid about anything on this planet.
> >>
> >> You and the rest of the human filth should have "industrial strength
> >> paranoia" about western christian governments cuz your knowledge of your
> >> governments is ZERO.
> >>
> >> I am privy to "1000 times" more knowledge than Edward Snowden's
> >> revelations, which I do NOT even consider revelations in the first place.
> >>
> >> Neither you nor 99.9% of the rest of the human species have the mental
> >> faculties to "accept" the "reality" even if you "understand" it for a
> >> fleeting moment.
> >
> > and you use your superpower to post rants on usenet...
> >
>
>
>
> Where did I say I have superpower?
>
> Having some freakish unique perception ability != superpower.
>
> You just proved me right. You are just another delusional human with
> absolutely NO ability to separate fact from fiction.
Who said irony was dead?
> You just proved me right. You are just another delusional human with
> absolutely NO ability to separate fact from fiction.
>
> I am merely trying to "educate you" about some things you don't know and
> you will never know.
Largely because it's complete rubbish...
> I am merely trying to "educate you" about some things you don't know and
> you will never know.
>
> MI-6 Chipped you with mind control chips most likely around 2007-2008
> time frame OR whenever you first started posting on rsc.
Yeah, I'm sure a UK intelligence organisation would be operating in Tasmania
> MI-6 Chipped you with mind control chips most likely around 2007-2008
> time frame OR whenever you first started posting on rsc.
>
> "Almost ALL" rsc posters were chipped and remotely programmed at various
> times to make some specific comments on rsc in the last 10 years.
Why would they bother?
> "Almost ALL" rsc posters were chipped and remotely programmed at various
> times to make some specific comments on rsc in the last 10 years.
>
> This fact is NOT open for debate.
RH156RH
Apr 25, 2017, 10:09:02 AM4/25/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 25, 2017, 4:12:55 PM4/25/17
to
And you racists are not wanted anywhere.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
richsdi...@gmail.com
Apr 25, 2017, 5:23:18 PM4/25/17
to
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 06:19:29 UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Moron,
>
> I am NOT paranoid about anything on this planet.
Apart from those "FBI, CIA, NSA clowns obsessive compulsively watch me with illegal surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives", of course. Help! The walls have ears!
> Moron,
>
> I am NOT paranoid about anything on this planet.
> You and the rest of the human filth should have "industrial strength
> paranoia" about western christian governments cuz your knowledge of your
> governments is ZERO.
> I am privy to "1000 times" more knowledge than Edward Snowden's
> revelations, which I do NOT even consider revelations in the first place.
> Neither you nor 99.9% of the rest of the human species have the mental
> faculties to "accept" the "reality" even if you "understand" it for a
> fleeting moment.
Richard
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 25, 2017, 9:53:11 PM4/25/17
to
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 7:23:18 AM UTC+10, richsdi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 06:19:29 UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
> > Moron,
> >
> > I am NOT paranoid about anything on this planet.
>
> Apart from those "FBI, CIA, NSA clowns obsessive compulsively watch me with illegal surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives", of course. Help! The walls have ears!
To give FBI* his due, one of my friends working in IBM sent an email to our
> On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 06:19:29 UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
> > Moron,
> >
> > I am NOT paranoid about anything on this planet.
>
> Apart from those "FBI, CIA, NSA clowns obsessive compulsively watch me with illegal surveillance devices every second of their pathetic lives", of course. Help! The walls have ears!
group showing a robot mosquito used for spying. Amazing technology we have
these days. And this was some years ago. I suppose the main problem they have
is how to process the tons of data they get from their inputs, to come to some
valid conclusions. Going by the inputs of some in this thread
the Big Brother type has low IQ and so will come to wrong conclusions from all
the huge data he cannot manage.
Anyway, most surveillance stuff done on google and facebook
is directed to ads; and so, harmless.
It would be nice if they made androids playing cricket (or baseball to begin
with) but this is too much to hope for in my lifetime, alas.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
RH156RH
Apr 26, 2017, 4:18:20 AM4/26/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 26, 2017, 10:55:45 PM4/26/17
to
de chucka
Apr 27, 2017, 12:34:23 AM4/27/17
to
snip
> To racists, nothing beats the melody of their racist farts.
You enjoy yours obviously
> To racists, nothing beats the melody of their racist farts.
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 27, 2017, 2:24:32 AM4/27/17
to
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 27, 2017, 5:30:27 AM4/27/17
to
said. I do NOT have any superpower and I never claimed to have one. Case
closed.
>> You just proved me right. You are just another delusional human with
>> absolutely NO ability to separate fact from fiction.
>
> Who said irony was dead?
from fiction.
>> I am merely trying to "educate you" about some things you don't know and
>> you will never know.
>
> Largely because it's complete rubbish...
said, before Edward Snowden made the revelations.
>> MI-6 Chipped you with mind control chips most likely around 2007-2008
>> time frame OR whenever you first started posting on rsc.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure a UK intelligence organisation would be operating in Tasmania
Australian Intelligence agency (name I forgot) chipped you?
>> "Almost ALL" rsc posters were chipped and remotely programmed at various
>> times to make some specific comments on rsc in the last 10 years.
>
> Why would they bother?
>>
>> This fact is NOT open for debate.
>
> Your definition of fact is ideosyncratic.
>
mental faculties to "accept reality as it exists today".
If I reveal it, you will "understand" it "momentarily" but then your
brain will revert back to its original state of "delusional reality" and
perceive me as delusional.
That's the beauty of "massive deception" being perpetrated by western
christian governments on their populace for the last 50 years.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 27, 2017, 5:32:38 AM4/27/17
to
like the BRITISH WHITE CHRISTIAN THIEVES.
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 27, 2017, 6:34:29 AM4/27/17
to
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 27, 2017, 10:02:37 AM4/27/17
to
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:34:29 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 7:30:27 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > On 4/25/2017 3:01 AM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:00:21 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > >> Having some freakish unique perception ability != superpower.
> > >
> > > Ozymandius may disagree with you.
> >
> > No idea who/what Ozymandius is and I couldn't care less what he/she
> > said. I do NOT have any superpower and I never claimed to have one. Case
> > closed.
>
> Ozymandias is the name of a sonnet by P B Shelley.
>
Which was the in story source for Ozymandias in Watchmen
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 7:30:27 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > On 4/25/2017 3:01 AM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:00:21 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > >> Having some freakish unique perception ability != superpower.
> > >
> > > Ozymandius may disagree with you.
> >
> > No idea who/what Ozymandius is and I couldn't care less what he/she
> > said. I do NOT have any superpower and I never claimed to have one. Case
> > closed.
>
> Ozymandias is the name of a sonnet by P B Shelley.
>
RH156RH
Apr 27, 2017, 3:36:19 PM4/27/17
to
de chucka
Apr 27, 2017, 4:23:22 PM4/27/17
to
>
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Apr 28, 2017, 4:58:37 AM4/28/17
to
2) You don't know that any human being can google Ozymandias and learn
what it is, if need be
3) You went off on a tangent from the original topic
This is exactly why it is very hard to respect majority of the human race.
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 28, 2017, 8:01:05 AM4/28/17
to
Hinder,more like.
max.it
Apr 29, 2017, 4:56:32 PM4/29/17
to
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:45:51 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>snip
>
>>
>> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
>
>I wonder if it is true that Churchill never came to Australia because of
>his fuck-up at Gallipoli
>>
>
I think churchill's a fibber at the very least.
In 1938 the agreement that uk had to use the Irish deep water Atlantic
ports expired.1940 and Chruchill was crapping his flannels with no
deep water access to the Atlantic.He asked De Valera for an extension,
but De Valera declined. He offered him in not so many words the
outstanding 6 counties of Ireland. De Valera declined again. Churchill
set about arranging an invasion force to take over the ports. The 26
counties Eire were a neutral country, and invading a neutral country
is a big no no. The Germans would have dived in to the rescue and
Britain would have been stuffed.Anyway the Americans joined in and
saved him.
Churchill was no match for De Valera. Both were gamblers in politics,
but for the sheer slime ball skill of coming second in a civil
war,being jailed and still managing to become boss of the country De
Valera has it.
After the war the German uboats n stuff were brought into Londonderry.
Churchill made his speech. Blahh blahh mumble the loyalty of Belfast
blah and Londonderry enabled us to 'dispense' with the ports of Cork
and mumble blaaah whatever the other two were ??
It took 4 years for that fib to be fibbed.
max.it
wrote:
>snip
>
>>
>> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
>
>I wonder if it is true that Churchill never came to Australia because of
>his fuck-up at Gallipoli
>>
>
I think churchill's a fibber at the very least.
In 1938 the agreement that uk had to use the Irish deep water Atlantic
ports expired.1940 and Chruchill was crapping his flannels with no
deep water access to the Atlantic.He asked De Valera for an extension,
but De Valera declined. He offered him in not so many words the
outstanding 6 counties of Ireland. De Valera declined again. Churchill
set about arranging an invasion force to take over the ports. The 26
counties Eire were a neutral country, and invading a neutral country
is a big no no. The Germans would have dived in to the rescue and
Britain would have been stuffed.Anyway the Americans joined in and
saved him.
Churchill was no match for De Valera. Both were gamblers in politics,
but for the sheer slime ball skill of coming second in a civil
war,being jailed and still managing to become boss of the country De
Valera has it.
After the war the German uboats n stuff were brought into Londonderry.
Churchill made his speech. Blahh blahh mumble the loyalty of Belfast
blah and Londonderry enabled us to 'dispense' with the ports of Cork
and mumble blaaah whatever the other two were ??
It took 4 years for that fib to be fibbed.
max.it
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 29, 2017, 9:08:54 PM4/29/17
to
On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 6:56:32 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:45:51 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >snip
> >
> >>
> >> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
> >
> >I wonder if it is true that Churchill never came to Australia because of
> >his fuck-up at Gallipoli
> >>
> >
>
> I think churchill's a fibber at the very least.
>
> In 1938 the agreement that uk had to use the Irish deep water Atlantic
> ports expired.1940 and Chruchill was crapping his flannels with no
> deep water access to the Atlantic.He asked De Valera for an extension,
> but De Valera declined. He offered him in not so many words the
> outstanding 6 counties of Ireland. De Valera declined again. Churchill
> set about arranging an invasion force to take over the ports. The 26
> counties Eire were a neutral country, and invading a neutral country
> is a big no no. The Germans would have dived in to the rescue and
> Britain would have been stuffed.Anyway the Americans joined in and
> saved him.
Germany never had the mix to get across to the UK
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:45:51 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >snip
> >
> >>
> >> Translation: The subcontinent had the inestimable benefit of a firm British colonial guiding hand for several centuries .... RH
> >
> >I wonder if it is true that Churchill never came to Australia because of
> >his fuck-up at Gallipoli
> >>
> >
>
> I think churchill's a fibber at the very least.
>
> In 1938 the agreement that uk had to use the Irish deep water Atlantic
> ports expired.1940 and Chruchill was crapping his flannels with no
> deep water access to the Atlantic.He asked De Valera for an extension,
> but De Valera declined. He offered him in not so many words the
> outstanding 6 counties of Ireland. De Valera declined again. Churchill
> set about arranging an invasion force to take over the ports. The 26
> counties Eire were a neutral country, and invading a neutral country
> is a big no no. The Germans would have dived in to the rescue and
> Britain would have been stuffed.Anyway the Americans joined in and
> saved him.
de chucka
Apr 29, 2017, 9:27:28 PM4/29/17
to
of this and in fact the barges were not ideal for mounting an amphibious
invasion they needed specialist landing craft
max.it
Apr 30, 2017, 2:23:59 PM4/30/17
to
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:27:22 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
Uboats were reported in the deep water channels on the Irish west
coast. Further to se the uboats surfaced to approach fishing fleets to
purchase.
The Germans were there already, they had the Atlantic secure at that
time. It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
the German navy's Atlantic activities.
If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
'liberating' Ireland from the invaders. This could have been a total
disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
in England.
Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
dedicated lunatics called the commando. The RAF finished off the
Tirpitz in 1944.
max.it
coast. Further to se the uboats surfaced to approach fishing fleets to
purchase.
The Germans were there already, they had the Atlantic secure at that
time. It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
the German navy's Atlantic activities.
If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
'liberating' Ireland from the invaders. This could have been a total
disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
in England.
Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
dedicated lunatics called the commando. The RAF finished off the
Tirpitz in 1944.
max.it
de chucka
Apr 30, 2017, 4:47:05 PM4/30/17
to
> The Germans were there already, they had the Atlantic secure at that
> time. It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
> Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
> the German navy's Atlantic activities.
Swilly was protected by the Irish and not used. The British had other
ports in N Ireland and the air bases to try and protect the convoys
> If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
> few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
> 'liberating' Ireland from the invaders.
This could have been a total
> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
> in England.
> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
still uses them for bombardments).
The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
>
> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
The RAF finished off the
> Tirpitz in 1944.
why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
RH156RH
Apr 30, 2017, 5:50:55 PM4/30/17
to
max.it
Apr 30, 2017, 7:42:46 PM4/30/17
to
On Mon, 1 May 2017 06:46:55 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
No doubt about that, but probably less than the British would have us
believe. I think they found out that after the WW1, the war of
independence and then the civil war the Irish were fed up with
fighting for and against the British
>
>> The Germans were there already, they had the Atlantic secure at that
>> time. It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
>> Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
>> the German navy's Atlantic activities.
>
>I think you overestimate the importance of Lough Foyle and if iirc Lough
>Swilly was protected by the Irish and not used. The British had other
>ports in N Ireland and the air bases to try and protect the convoys.
Not on the Atlantic with deep water access.
>> If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
>> few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
>> 'liberating' Ireland from the invaders.
>
>Why would he have wanted to given the threat from the west?
He was a dufus, an alcoholic gambling addict, he thought that taking
the treaty ports by force would solve the problem.
> This could have been a total
>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>> in England.
>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>
>The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>still uses them for bombardments).
>
>The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
That's why I said total disaster. It could have been different.
provide a safe port for Tirpitz. I know the uboats could have used the
Irish ports, but without a huge building effort after any invasion it
would all have been bollox and wouldn't work.
The scenarios if America had not joined in are scary.
max.it
believe. I think they found out that after the WW1, the war of
independence and then the civil war the Irish were fed up with
fighting for and against the British
>
>> The Germans were there already, they had the Atlantic secure at that
>> time. It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
>> Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
>> the German navy's Atlantic activities.
>
>I think you overestimate the importance of Lough Foyle and if iirc Lough
>Swilly was protected by the Irish and not used. The British had other
Not on the Atlantic with deep water access.
>> If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
>> few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
>> 'liberating' Ireland from the invaders.
>
>Why would he have wanted to given the threat from the west?
the treaty ports by force would solve the problem.
> This could have been a total
>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>> in England.
>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>
>The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>still uses them for bombardments).
>
>The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
>
>>
>> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
>> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
>> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
>> dedicated lunatics called the commando. That is what they do this one worked many others raids didn't
>
>The RAF finished off the
>> Tirpitz in 1944.
>
>Remember that the loss of the Bismark to airpower preceded this which is
>why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
>
The reason they needed a deep water access to the Atlantic was to
>>
>> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
>> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
>> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
>> dedicated lunatics called the commando. That is what they do this one worked many others raids didn't
>
>The RAF finished off the
>> Tirpitz in 1944.
>
>Remember that the loss of the Bismark to airpower preceded this which is
>why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
>
provide a safe port for Tirpitz. I know the uboats could have used the
Irish ports, but without a huge building effort after any invasion it
would all have been bollox and wouldn't work.
The scenarios if America had not joined in are scary.
max.it
Nitin
Apr 30, 2017, 7:44:50 PM4/30/17
to
de chucka
Apr 30, 2017, 8:03:55 PM4/30/17
to
>I think they found out that after the WW1, the war of
> independence and then the civil war the Irish were fed up with
> fighting for and against the British
>
>>
>>> The Germans were there already, they had the Atlantic secure at that
>>> time. It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
>>> Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
>>> the German navy's Atlantic activities.
>>
>> I think you overestimate the importance of Lough Foyle and if iirc Lough
>> Swilly was protected by the Irish and not used. The British had other
>> ports in N Ireland and the air bases to try and protect the convoys.
>
> Not on the Atlantic with deep water access.
for Bases Agreement 'secret deal' with the US
>
>>> If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
>>> few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
>>> 'liberating' Ireland from the invaders.
>>
>> Why would he have wanted to given the threat from the west?
>
> He was a dufus, an alcoholic gambling addict, he thought that taking
> the treaty ports by force would solve the problem.
>
>> This could have been a total
>>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>>> in England.
>>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>>
>> The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>> mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>> would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>> the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>> still uses them for bombardments).
>>
>> The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
>
> That's why I said total disaster. It could have been different.
You wanted Germany to invade take over ports?
>> This could have been a total
>>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>>> in England.
>>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>>
>> The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>> mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>> would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>> the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>> still uses them for bombardments).
>>
>> The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
>
> That's why I said total disaster. It could have been different.
>>
>>>
>>> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
>>> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
>>> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
>>> dedicated lunatics called the commando. That is what they do this one worked many others raids didn't
>>
>> The RAF finished off the
>>> Tirpitz in 1944.
>>
>> Remember that the loss of the Bismark to airpower preceded this which is
>> why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
>>
>
> The reason they needed a deep water access to the Atlantic was to
> provide a safe port for Tirpitz. I know the uboats could have used the
> Irish ports, but without a huge building effort after any invasion it
> would all have been bollox and wouldn't work.
safe in Irish ports including massive air cover. Was there much of a
move in Ireland to join forces with the Axis powers during the war?
> The scenarios if America had not joined in are scary.
stopped if not for the British/American invasion of Europe
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 30, 2017, 8:13:04 PM4/30/17
to
> The Germans were there already, they had the Atlantic secure at that
> time.
The German's never had the number of surface ships to control the Atlantic (even their abandoned pre-war plans only had them getting parity with the UK navy in 1944, and they dropped them to make more u-boats which were largely supply ship raiders)
In 1940 the German navy took a lot of losses in the Norwiegan campaign and had very few undamaged heavy ships left.
> It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
> Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
> the German navy's Atlantic activities.
> If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
> few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
> 'liberating' Ireland from the invaders.
> This could have been a total
> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
> in England.
> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>
> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
> dedicated lunatics called the commando. The RAF finished off the
> Tirpitz in 1944.
I don't know that it counts as a reckless gamble, it seems to have been a pretty well planned operation which went off pretty well. The major objective was achieved and the Commandos caused a fair amount of damage, I'd also suggest that it caused a lot of anxiety and tied up resources for the rest of the war.
de chucka
Apr 30, 2017, 8:28:33 PM4/30/17
to
Order (Kommandobefehl). OK the Deippe and Sark raids seem to have been
the catalyst for this but St Nazaire ~6month before must of had some
influence
max.it
May 1, 2017, 4:22:11 AM5/1/17
to
On Mon, 1 May 2017 10:03:45 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
Between 1922 and 1938 the British mantained control of some Irish deep
water ports. The treaty expired, De Valera refused to renew it and
Churchill began preps for invading Ireland to take the ports.
>>
>>> This could have been a total
>>>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>>>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>>>> in England.
>>>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>>>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>>>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>>>
>>> The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>>> mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>>> would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>>> the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>>> still uses them for bombardments).
>>>
>>> The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
They allowed them in the Channel Isles.
>>
>> That's why I said total disaster. It could have been different.
>
>You wanted Germany to invade take over ports?
Disaster of Britain if they did I mean. The British couldn't even
contain Ireland when there was only a small number of ira to deal
with.
>>>> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
>>>> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
>>>> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
>>>> dedicated lunatics called the commando. That is what they do this one worked many others raids didn't
>>>
>>> The RAF finished off the
>>>> Tirpitz in 1944.
>>>
>>> Remember that the loss of the Bismark to airpower preceded this which is
>>> why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
>>>
>>
>> The reason they needed a deep water access to the Atlantic was to
>> provide a safe port for Tirpitz. I know the uboats could have used the
>> Irish ports, but without a huge building effort after any invasion it
>> would all have been bollox and wouldn't work.
>
>It would have taken a huge building effort to keep German capital ships
>safe in Irish ports including massive air cover. Was there much of a
>move in Ireland to join forces with the Axis powers during the war?
Churchill said there was. Remember it was only about 20 years since
the British burnt Cork to the ground, and other towns and farms as
well. There might not have been support for Germany, but there
certainly wouldn't have been any for the British.
>
>
>> The scenarios if America had not joined in are scary.
>
>It would have been interesting to see where the Russians would have
>stopped if not for the British/American invasion of Europe
>
The Russians haven't stopped at all.
max.it
water ports. The treaty expired, De Valera refused to renew it and
Churchill began preps for invading Ireland to take the ports.
>>
>>> This could have been a total
>>>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>>>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>>>> in England.
>>>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>>>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>>>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>>>
>>> The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>>> mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>>> would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>>> the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>>> still uses them for bombardments).
>>>
>>> The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
>>
>> That's why I said total disaster. It could have been different.
>
>You wanted Germany to invade take over ports?
contain Ireland when there was only a small number of ira to deal
with.
>>>> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
>>>> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
>>>> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
>>>> dedicated lunatics called the commando. That is what they do this one worked many others raids didn't
>>>
>>> The RAF finished off the
>>>> Tirpitz in 1944.
>>>
>>> Remember that the loss of the Bismark to airpower preceded this which is
>>> why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
>>>
>>
>> The reason they needed a deep water access to the Atlantic was to
>> provide a safe port for Tirpitz. I know the uboats could have used the
>> Irish ports, but without a huge building effort after any invasion it
>> would all have been bollox and wouldn't work.
>
>It would have taken a huge building effort to keep German capital ships
>safe in Irish ports including massive air cover. Was there much of a
>move in Ireland to join forces with the Axis powers during the war?
the British burnt Cork to the ground, and other towns and farms as
well. There might not have been support for Germany, but there
certainly wouldn't have been any for the British.
>
>
>> The scenarios if America had not joined in are scary.
>
>It would have been interesting to see where the Russians would have
>stopped if not for the British/American invasion of Europe
>
max.it
de chucka
May 1, 2017, 5:37:35 AM5/1/17
to
included the co-operation of the Irish Parliament. Yes it would have
been interesting to see which way the populous would of gone
>
>>>
>>>> This could have been a total
>>>>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>>>>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>>>>> in England.
>>>>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>>>>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>>>>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>>>>
>>>> The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>>>> mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>>>> would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>>>> the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>>>> still uses them for bombardments).
>>>>
>>>> The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
>
> They allowed them in the Channel Isles.
Not as strategically as important as the were defensive not offensive
>>>
>>>> This could have been a total
>>>>> disaster for the British. A war in Ireland kicked off again, Germans
>>>>> and Irish on the same side, and over a million Irish nationals living
>>>>> in England.
>>>>> Worst of all and the prime reason for the panic was, if Germany could
>>>>> find somewhere on the Irish west coast to base Tirpitz there would
>>>>> have been mayhem in the Atlantic and Britain would have been besieged.
>>>>
>>>> The bigger danger would have been to have U-boat bases there as it would
>>>> mean they wouldn't have had to have gone across the Bay of Biscay and it
>>>> would of allowed the smaller U-boat classes to access the West coast of
>>>> the US easier. The age of the battleship rally ended in WW2 (OK the US
>>>> still uses them for bombardments).
>>>>
>>>> The allies wouldn't have allowed the Germans to build bases in Ireland
>
> They allowed them in the Channel Isles.
which is why the UK abandoned them
>
>>>
>>> That's why I said total disaster. It could have been different.
>>
>> You wanted Germany to invade take over ports?
>
> Disaster of Britain if they did I mean. The British couldn't even
> contain Ireland when there was only a small number of ira to deal
> with.
What would the Irish forces done in the face of a German invasion?
>>>
>>> That's why I said total disaster. It could have been different.
>>
>> You wanted Germany to invade take over ports?
>
> Disaster of Britain if they did I mean. The British couldn't even
> contain Ireland when there was only a small number of ira to deal
> with.
>
>
>>>>> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
>>>>> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
>>>>> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
>>>>> dedicated lunatics called the commando. That is what they do this one worked many others raids didn't
>>>>
>>>> The RAF finished off the
>>>>> Tirpitz in 1944.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that the loss of the Bismark to airpower preceded this which is
>>>> why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason they needed a deep water access to the Atlantic was to
>>> provide a safe port for Tirpitz. I know the uboats could have used the
>>> Irish ports, but without a huge building effort after any invasion it
>>> would all have been bollox and wouldn't work.
>>
>> It would have taken a huge building effort to keep German capital ships
>> safe in Irish ports including massive air cover. Was there much of a
>> move in Ireland to join forces with the Axis powers during the war?
>
> Churchill said there was.
Certainly true in N Ireland with massive co-operation between the Ira
>
>>>>> It was another bing bong wreckless gamble by Churchill that
>>>>> immobilised Tirpitz. They call it 'the greatest raid of all -
>>>>> 'St Nazaire. It was complete lunacy, but it worked with the help of
>>>>> dedicated lunatics called the commando. That is what they do this one worked many others raids didn't
>>>>
>>>> The RAF finished off the
>>>>> Tirpitz in 1944.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that the loss of the Bismark to airpower preceded this which is
>>>> why the Tirpitz et al weren't raiding in the Atlantic
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason they needed a deep water access to the Atlantic was to
>>> provide a safe port for Tirpitz. I know the uboats could have used the
>>> Irish ports, but without a huge building effort after any invasion it
>>> would all have been bollox and wouldn't work.
>>
>> It would have taken a huge building effort to keep German capital ships
>> safe in Irish ports including massive air cover. Was there much of a
>> move in Ireland to join forces with the Axis powers during the war?
>
> Churchill said there was.
and the Abwehr (sic)
Remember it was only about 20 years since
> the British burnt Cork to the ground, and other towns and farms as
> well. There might not have been support for Germany, but there
> certainly wouldn't have been any for the British.
most of the ports were going to be destroyed and blockade ships sunk.
RH156RH
May 1, 2017, 6:54:30 AM5/1/17
to
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:13:04 AM UTC+1, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> In 1940 the German navy took a lot of losses in the Norwiegan campaign and had very few undamaged heavy ships left.
>
> > It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
> > Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
> > the German navy's Atlantic activities.
> > If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
> > few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
> > 'liberating' Ireland from the invaders.
>
> They didn't have the navy force makeup to do it. Hell they didn't have the navy to cross the English Channel for Operation Sealion using barges to carry troops.
One of the main allies Britain had in the war was Hitler himself who (1) lived under the delusion that he was a military genius and (2) frequently sabotaged the supply of equipment by running after a new enthusiasm which took resources away from the war effort and frequently affected the development of a previous enthusiasm. The super U-boat was a classic example as was the Heinkel 177 (the four engined bomber that never saw regular service) and ,when well into the war, the development of jet planes, rocket planes, air to air missiles, air to ground missiles and ground to air missiles. RH
> In 1940 the German navy took a lot of losses in the Norwiegan campaign and had very few undamaged heavy ships left.
>
> > It was only the intervention of America that changed things. The
> > Americans went straight to lough Foyle or lough Swilly which strangled
> > the German navy's Atlantic activities.
> > If Churchill had of invaded Ireland (after being ejected by force only
> > few years earlier)the Germans would have been justified in
> > 'liberating' Ireland from the invaders.
>
> They didn't have the navy force makeup to do it. Hell they didn't have the navy to cross the English Channel for Operation Sealion using barges to carry troops.
de chucka
May 2, 2017, 1:33:02 AM5/2/17
to
revolutionary nationalist organization among the Irish in the US and
Ireland. The Fenians staged an unsuccessful revolt in Ireland in 1867
and were responsible for isolated revolutionary acts against the British
until the early 20th century, when they were gradually eclipsed by the IRA.
>
Geoff Muldoon
May 2, 2017, 2:15:08 AM5/2/17
to
On Tue, 2 May 2017 15:32:54 +1000, de chucka wrote:
>> And out pops the Fenian head yet again ....RH
>
> Please explain, what is 'fenian head'?
The term "Fenian" is used by certain sectors of English society as a
>> And out pops the Fenian head yet again ....RH
>
> Please explain, what is 'fenian head'?
general term of abuse towards Irish nationalists in general.
RH the cowardly abusive racist bigoted hypocrit believes it is perfectly
acceptable for casual public usage, but then again he probably thinks that
rock ape and curry muncher are too.
GM
RH156RH
May 2, 2017, 4:52:42 AM5/2/17
to
max.it
May 2, 2017, 8:29:45 AM5/2/17
to
On Tue, 2 May 2017 15:32:54 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
Goes way back further than that I reckon. The 'Fianna' were a clan
assembled from the inhabitants of Ireland. Their stories are told by
Oisin and they are known as the fenian cycle. Mostly they tell about
his Father and clan chief Fion mac Cumhaill.
The idea for the name of the irb probably comes from the tale that
Fionn mac Chumhaill never died but went to sleep in a cave surrounded
by the Fianna. He is to awake in Irelands time of greatest need and
sort things out.
max.it
assembled from the inhabitants of Ireland. Their stories are told by
Oisin and they are known as the fenian cycle. Mostly they tell about
his Father and clan chief Fion mac Cumhaill.
The idea for the name of the irb probably comes from the tale that
Fionn mac Chumhaill never died but went to sleep in a cave surrounded
by the Fianna. He is to awake in Irelands time of greatest need and
sort things out.
max.it
RH156RH
May 2, 2017, 2:27:43 PM5/2/17
to
Geoff Muldoon
May 2, 2017, 8:22:36 PM5/2/17
to
Where you are additionally a hypocrit is because you:
a) Complain that political correctness debars sny debate that uses
nationality as a discriminator
b) Refuse to accept nationality as valid for non-English born citizens
Or are you saying that, in a *broader* sense than just cricket, those born
overseas or of non-white parentage should not be allowed to be attain
nationality?
GM
de chucka
May 2, 2017, 8:38:13 PM5/2/17
to
England btw ) but he is very suspicious of the Welsh and the Scots are
right out.
RH156RH
May 3, 2017, 3:36:05 AM5/3/17
to
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:22:36 AM UTC+1, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017 01:52:39 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH wrote:
>
> >>
> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 7:15:08 AM UTC+1, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 May 2017 15:32:54 +1000, de chucka wrote:
> >>>> And out pops the Fenian head yet again ....RH
> >>>
> >>> Please explain, what is 'fenian head'?
> >>
> >> The term "Fenian" is used by certain sectors of English society as a
> >> general term of abuse towards Irish nationalists in general.
> >>
> >> RH the cowardly abusive racist bigoted hypocrit believes it is perfectly
> >> acceptable for casual public usage, but then again he probably thinks that
> >> rock ape and curry muncher are too.
> >>
> >> GM
> >
> > Note the crude automated politically correct abuse... RH
>
> Cowardly continual failure to respond to questions noted:
Note the continued crude automated politically correct abuse... RH
> On Tue, 2 May 2017 01:52:39 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH wrote:
>
> >>
> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 7:15:08 AM UTC+1, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 May 2017 15:32:54 +1000, de chucka wrote:
> >>>> And out pops the Fenian head yet again ....RH
> >>>
> >>> Please explain, what is 'fenian head'?
> >>
> >> The term "Fenian" is used by certain sectors of English society as a
> >> general term of abuse towards Irish nationalists in general.
> >>
> >> RH the cowardly abusive racist bigoted hypocrit believes it is perfectly
> >> acceptable for casual public usage, but then again he probably thinks that
> >> rock ape and curry muncher are too.
> >>
> >> GM
> >
> > Note the crude automated politically correct abuse... RH
>
> Cowardly continual failure to respond to questions noted:
>
> Where you are additionally a hypocrit is because you:
>
> a) Complain that political correctness debars sny debate that uses
> nationality as a discriminator
It does. The politically correct invariably refuse to debate and simply keep on squealing "racist" whe the subject is raised. RH
> Where you are additionally a hypocrit is because you:
>
> a) Complain that political correctness debars sny debate that uses
> nationality as a discriminator
> b) Refuse to accept nationality as valid for non-English born citizens
>
> Or are you saying that, in a *broader* sense than just cricket, those born
> overseas or of non-white parentage should not be allowed to be attain
> nationality?
Arindam Banerjee
May 3, 2017, 6:14:58 AM5/3/17
to
He thought that I was English, and I got offended.
RH156RH
May 3, 2017, 11:12:13 AM5/3/17
to
guypers
May 3, 2017, 12:33:23 PM5/3/17
to
RH156RH
May 3, 2017, 1:12:11 PM5/3/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
May 3, 2017, 7:26:13 PM5/3/17
to
At least Mike Morris did not consider me USAn! Which he was and as a result
was pushing for the Bush1 invasion of Iraq, which I was desperately trying
to prevent. Alas, Mike Morris prevailed and the costs are not slight.
I told him that if the English amounted to something positive it was because of
their interaction with the likes of my wonderful ancestors.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Geoff Muldoon
May 3, 2017, 7:48:15 PM5/3/17
to
overseas or of non-white parentage be allowed to be attain British
nationality?
RH156RH
May 4, 2017, 9:02:28 AM5/4/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
May 4, 2017, 9:19:02 AM5/4/17
to
RH156RH
May 4, 2017, 10:08:49 AM5/4/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
May 4, 2017, 10:10:52 AM5/4/17
to
RH156RH
May 4, 2017, 5:04:33 PM5/4/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
May 4, 2017, 6:19:55 PM5/4/17
to
de chucka
May 4, 2017, 6:24:53 PM5/4/17
to
Snip
>
> I am not the one to cast stones at castes.
Everybody should
>
> I am not the one to cast stones at castes.
Geoff Muldoon
May 4, 2017, 7:47:36 PM5/4/17
to
In the legal sense, should those born overseas or of non-white parentage be
allowed to be attain British nationality?
GM
Arindam Banerjee
May 4, 2017, 8:48:54 PM5/4/17
to
crude abuse.
de chucka
May 4, 2017, 9:07:09 PM5/4/17
to
which you are labelled by whom you are born to forever. All humans are equal
de chucka
May 4, 2017, 9:18:33 PM5/4/17
to
On 5/05/2017 10:48 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India
Actually most violence is against the dalits
>
Arindam Banerjee
May 4, 2017, 9:29:04 PM5/4/17
to
Arindam Banerjee
May 4, 2017, 9:48:02 PM5/4/17
to
et al), France (The Terror), Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. There we have the
low castes killing off or driving away the high castes. Also in Rwanda where
the low caste Hutus genocided the high caste Tutsis.
In India too the high castes have been attacked, with the Brahmins being
specially targeted by the progressives. However some sort of balance is getting
restored these days. Here it was not the lower castes as such attacking the
higher castes, but people from the higher castes who had come to think that
caste was a bad idea.
Among the Indian lower castes there is trouble relating to land and labour,
mainly; so they fight among each other. The Dalits give as good as they get.
Recently a Dalit group killed someone for not paying up for killing a goat.
Some of those tribes were criminals by profession, so they are by no means
non-violent. Usually they do not gang up against the higher castes though; they
welcome them instead as they mediate and provide opportunities when in their
midst.
In Australia yes it
has been the other way around, with the indigenous castes (aborigines) totally
genocided in Tasmania and mostly so in the southern parts. Similarly for most
stone age peoples in Africa and the Americas. New Zealand is an exception.
Well such is life, and we all must make our way through it, getting the best
of what we can from wherever. Best done, without creating trouble.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
de chucka
May 4, 2017, 11:22:15 PM5/4/17
to
de chucka
May 4, 2017, 11:27:40 PM5/4/17
to
On 5/05/2017 11:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 11:18:33 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
>> On 5/05/2017 10:48 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:24:53 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
>>>> Snip
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not the one to cast stones at castes.
>>>> Everybody should
>>>
>>> They do. Mostly the low castes against the high castes, along with low and
>>> crude abuse.
>>
>> Sorry premature sending
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India
>>
>> Actually most violence is against the dalits
>
> I was not referring to the Indian context.
You are obviously one of the great Indian spinners
> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 11:18:33 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
>> On 5/05/2017 10:48 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:24:53 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
>>>> Snip
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not the one to cast stones at castes.
>>>> Everybody should
>>>
>>> They do. Mostly the low castes against the high castes, along with low and
>>> crude abuse.
>>
>> Sorry premature sending
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India
>>
>> Actually most violence is against the dalits
>
> I was not referring to the Indian context.
More in line with England (Cromwell
> et al), France (The Terror), Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. There we have the
> low castes killing off or driving away the high castes. Also in Rwanda where
> the low caste Hutus genocided the high caste Tutsis.
>
> In India too the high castes have been attacked, with the Brahmins being
> specially targeted by the progressives. However some sort of balance is getting
> restored these days. Here it was not the lower castes as such attacking the
> higher castes, but people from the higher castes who had come to think that
> caste was a bad idea.
India
dian lower castes there is trouble relating to land and labour,
> mainly; so they fight among each other. The Dalits give as good as they get.
> Recently a Dalit group killed someone for not paying up for killing a goat.
> Some of those tribes were criminals by profession, so they are by no means
> non-violent. Usually they do not gang up against the higher castes though; they
> welcome them instead as they mediate and provide opportunities when in their
> midst.
>
> In Australia yes it
> has been the other way around, with the indigenous castes (aborigines) totally
> genocided in Tasmania and mostly so in the southern parts. Similarly for most
> stone age peoples in Africa and the Americas.
Not because of a caste system
> In Australia yes it
> has been the other way around, with the indigenous castes (aborigines) totally
> genocided in Tasmania and mostly so in the southern parts. Similarly for most
> stone age peoples in Africa and the Americas.
New Zealand is an exception.
>
> Well such is life, and we all must make our way through it, getting the best
> of what we can from wherever. Best done, without creating trouble.
So you agree you should still be under British rule
> Well such is life, and we all must make our way through it, getting the best
> of what we can from wherever. Best done, without creating trouble.
Arindam Banerjee
May 5, 2017, 12:34:31 AM5/5/17
to
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:27:40 PM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
> On 5/05/2017 11:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 11:18:33 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
> >> On 5/05/2017 10:48 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:24:53 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
> >>>> Snip
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not the one to cast stones at castes.
> >>>> Everybody should
> >>>
> >>> They do. Mostly the low castes against the high castes, along with low and
> >>> crude abuse.
> >>
> >> Sorry premature sending
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India
> >>
> >> Actually most violence is against the dalits
> >
> > I was not referring to the Indian context.
>
> You are obviously one of the great Indian spinners
So wish I was. Could not make it to the class A team and that is a regret
> On 5/05/2017 11:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 11:18:33 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
> >> On 5/05/2017 10:48 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:24:53 AM UTC+10, De Chucka wrote:
> >>>> Snip
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not the one to cast stones at castes.
> >>>> Everybody should
> >>>
> >>> They do. Mostly the low castes against the high castes, along with low and
> >>> crude abuse.
> >>
> >> Sorry premature sending
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India
> >>
> >> Actually most violence is against the dalits
> >
> > I was not referring to the Indian context.
>
> You are obviously one of the great Indian spinners
that cannot be expunged.
> More in line with England (Cromwell
> > et al), France (The Terror), Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. There we have the
> > low castes killing off or driving away the high castes. Also in Rwanda where
> > the low caste Hutus genocided the high caste Tutsis.
> >
> > In India too the high castes have been attacked, with the Brahmins being
> > specially targeted by the progressives. However some sort of balance is getting
> > restored these days. Here it was not the lower castes as such attacking the
> > higher castes, but people from the higher castes who had come to think that
> > caste was a bad idea.
>
> In India the violence against the untouchable continues
> India
> dian lower castes there is trouble relating to land and labour,
> > mainly; so they fight among each other. The Dalits give as good as they get.
> > Recently a Dalit group killed someone for not paying up for killing a goat.
> > Some of those tribes were criminals by profession, so they are by no means
> > non-violent. Usually they do not gang up against the higher castes though; they
> > welcome them instead as they mediate and provide opportunities when in their
> > midst.
>
> So?
They are represented in politics, and reservations have been going on for
them for the 70 years. They have special privileges in education, jobs,
promotions, grants.
> > In Australia yes it
> > has been the other way around, with the indigenous castes (aborigines) totally
> > genocided in Tasmania and mostly so in the southern parts. Similarly for most
> > stone age peoples in Africa and the Americas.
>
> Not because of a caste system
aborigine. So unequal, what. Caste is about intermarriage within a given group
which forms the caste.
> New Zealand is an exception.
>
> You might like to look at the Maori situation in NZ
so for a hangi dinner and concert with them at Rotorua. Saw the museums and
zoos, etc. So I got a fair picture. The Maoris have it really good as compared
to the Australian aboriginals.
Geoff Muldoon
May 5, 2017, 12:56:31 AM5/5/17
to
On Fri, 5 May 2017 11:06:58 +1000, de chucka wrote:
> What a crazy and immoral system in
> which you are labelled by whom you are born to forever.
Yep, bloody royal family and all ...
> What a crazy and immoral system in
> which you are labelled by whom you are born to forever.
GM
RH156RH
May 5, 2017, 3:03:00 AM5/5/17
to
>
> In the legal sense, should those born overseas or of non-white parentage be
> allowed to be attain British nationality?
Only those who are automatically accepted as English, Scotch, Welsh and Scotch-Irish should be so designated. RH
> In the legal sense, should those born overseas or of non-white parentage be
> allowed to be attain British nationality?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages