Mumbai prompts this question

[greg long]

I'm not suggesting that the Black & Tans weren't a particularly brutal bunch (although many were traumatised WWI veterans out of work following their return to "A Land Fit for Heroes", so the prospect of signing on for service in Ireland at double the normal army rate of pay was quite attractive), but the reason they were formed in the first place was because the Royal Irish Constabulary was unable to cope with sustained attacks from the IRA.

 

As brutality towards (and indeed massacres of) civilian populations in countless previous conflicts throughout history is a matter of record, it's hardly accurate to claim that "the UK were larely responsible for terror tactics".

 

 

Davy, The driving an armoured car onto the pitch at a sunday football match and opening up on players and fans with machine guns has often been referred to as the start of terrorist attacks, historians cite this act as the catalyst for the IRB and Micheal Collins armed campaign for seperation from Britain. Prior to this act, the majority of Irish were willing to work for home rule by political means, as had been promised, the slaughter in Croke Park created the support for armed uprising.

 

The Black and tans in many instances were violent criminals, given the choice of hard labour or a tour in Ireland as a paramilitary. Thus the fact that so many were sadistic, and prone to wanton violence.

The IRA came into being when Britain handed over the Barracks to the Irish Government.

 

There have been violent protests in britain over the years, did the British government ever open up on the protestors with live amunition? or create a paramilitary force?, Sadly the answer is YES], this again was in Northern Ireland, on Bloody Sunday, when the Paras opened up on a Civil Rights March in the Bogside.

[poledark]

As Ken said

 

There comes a time surely when all sane people look back and say yes it happened but the time has come to forget and look to the furture.

 

Agreed, but then I am a comfortably (moderately) situated Englishman. But then again, I have a place in my heart that dislikes a lot of other nationalities which have done my countrymen harm in recent times.

 

Den

[greg long]

I would also state that due to police failures in Northern Ireland the soldiers where sent in on the request of the Catholic community, surely that does not make us terrorist?

 

The actions of the Black and Tans in Dublin did.

 

Also the actions of the Paras on Bloody Sunday compounded the failures and told the catholics, in their mind, that in reality the British Army was as bad, if not worse than the B specials in their attitude to the rights of catholics. A perception they could be excused for having, following the enquiry into the actions which found that no shots other than those of the Paras were fired.

It is history, but history has a way of repeating itself. In effect if the South African government had fired indiscriminately into a group of civil rights marchers they would have been DENOUNCED AROUND THE WORLD, when the Paras did the same during the Civil Rights March in Derry the world outside Ireland stayed quiet. Let us not forget Northern Ireland was an aparthied state, catholics had no vote unless they had a house, the unionist/protestant councils only gave houses to unionists, so only they had a vote. They also only employed catholics if there were no protestants available for the job. That is the reason for the Civil Rights Marches in the late 1960s.

[greg long]

As Ken said

 

There comes a time surely when all sane people look back and say yes it happened but the time has come to forget and look to the furture.

 

Agreed, but then I am a comfortably (moderately) situated Englishman. But then again, I have a place in my heart that dislikes a lot of other nationalities which have done my countrymen harm in recent times.

 

Den

 

I would go stronger than that den, I have no respect for anybody who do harm to others, no matter what the provokation, whether in our own countries or other lands. I firmly believe it is wrong to kill, maim or otherwise harm others unless protecting innocents.

[chesters1]

We did make a stand against Sadam that was why he turned to Russia for help. It was Russia that gave him Scuds and taught him how to build them.

 

We gave way in Israel because of world opinion, I would agree it was 100% incorrect and I state that as a Jew.

 

Another war we poked our nose into, how come we are not terrorist down there?

 

 

 

That is a copy paste but for me it sums up terrorist

we gave way to the jews mainly because of their attrocities against us (i suggest you research the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang. and then Lord Moyne and King David Hotel in Jerusalem),the whole world isnt just america ,your experience in the middle east should show you that ,jews were as welcome as typhoid

yet they continually whine there under threat from terrorists ,perhaps monkey see monkey do

they (the arabs ) see terrorism always wins eventually so use it to get their way ,not saying the brits nor arabs have clean hands as i said before most countries can learn a lot from british meddling and their underhand shennaigans

 

and you cut and pasted quote was most apt

QUOTE

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

 

isnt that what were up to in iraq ,only a few bombs are smart and those not smart enough just to kill terrorists alone ,shock and awe i expect brought fear ,the only awe was seeing the missiles flying overhead on their way to kill people.we totally destroyed the infrastructure and after all these years most dont have power or water no wonder they get upset.

one now famouse quote seen on telly was a chap from the south saying "well under saddam at least we had water" or words to that effect

all we have done is transfer the fear of saddam to the fear of us plus the fear of the now unrestrained mullahs

 

err there was no war in the falklands it was a conflict!

we ousted invaders from our land nothing more ,had i been incharge argentina would be a pile of ash

 

unfortunately this isnt so apt

 

"There comes a time surely when all sane people look back and say yes it happened but the time has come to forget and look to the furture."

 

had we considered history hopefully we wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan ,we couldnt win then when we used unrestrained military tactics so havnt a hope in hell now we dont

history is our most important look on the future not something we should forget ,historically everything revolves the same mistakes are made! the same enemies threaten us .if only the powers were historians ,if only they learnt.

Edited December 1, 2008 by chesters1

[Ken Davison South Wales]

we gave way to the jews mainly because of their attrocities against us (i suggest you research the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang. and then Lord Moyne and King David Hotel in Jerusalem),the whole world isnt just america ,your experience in the middle east should show you that ,jews were as welcome as typhoid

yet they continually whine there under threat from terrorists ,perhaps monkey see monkey do

they (the arabs ) see terrorism always wins eventually so use it to get their way ,not saying the brits nor arabs have clean hands as i said before most countries can learn a lot from british meddling and their underhand shennaigans

 

and you cut and pasted quote was most apt

QUOTE

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

 

isnt that what were up to in iraq ,only a few bombs are smart and those not smart enough just to kill terrorists alone ,shock and awe i expect brought fear ,the only awe was seeing the missiles flying overhead on their way to kill people.we totally destroyed the infrastructure and after all these years most dont have power or water no wonder they get upset.

one now famouse quote seen on telly was a chap from the south saying "well under saddam at least we had water" or words to that effect

all we have done is transfer the fear of saddam to the fear of us plus the fear of the now unrestrained mullahs

 

err there was no war in the falklands it was a conflict!

we ousted invaders from our land nothing more ,had i been incharge argentina would be a pile of ash

 

Irgun (Hebrew: ארגון‎; shorthand for HaIrgun HaTzva'i HaLe'umi BeEretz Yisra'el, הארגון הצבאי הלאומי בארץ ישראל, "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel") was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was established as a militant offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: "The Defense", ההגנה). For reasons of secrecy, people often referred to the Irgun, during that time, as Haganah Bet (Hebrew: literally "Defense 'B' " or "Second Defense", הגנה ב), or alternatively as Haganah Ha'leumit (ההגנה הלאומית) or Ha'ma'amad (המעמד). In present-day Israel, Irgun is commonly referred to as Etzel (אצ"ל), an acronym of the Hebrew initials.

 

The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".[1] Initially, a central part of their efforts included attacks against Palestinian Arabs,[2] but it increasingly shifted to attacks against the British. Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[3][4] and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.[5] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare".[6]

 

Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut (or "Freedom") party, which led to today's Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.

 

I would agree 100% as to what happened However my statement stands and I quote

 

The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism for over 3,000 years[7], and the heartland of the ancient Kingdom of Judah to which modern Jews are usually attributed. After World War I, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate of Palestine with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people."[8] In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.[9] On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan. The Israelis were subsequently victorious in a series of wars confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence that continue to this day.[10] Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and even the State's very right to exist have been subject to dispute, especially among its Arab neighbors. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians.[11]

 

To say it was just USA and UK does not hold water.

 

As I see it we never set out to kill innocent people we did our very best to target combatants and yes utilities to bring the situation to a speedy conclusion. I can tell you from personal experience that thousands of homes did not have power or water when Saddam was running things, you can always locate the odd contrary farmer who will dispute that

 

I haven't got an answer to that last bit conflict /war so I will have to quote again damn it I am getting as bad as Emma

 

Conflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests. A conflict can be internal (within oneself) or external (between two or more individuals). Conflict as a concept can help explain many aspects of social life such as social disagreement, conflicts of interests, and fights between individuals, groups, or organizations. In political terms, "conflict" can refer to wars, revolutions or other struggles, which may involve the use of force as in the term armed conflict. Without proper social arrangement or resolution, conflicts in social settings can result in stress or tensions among stakeholders.

 

And talk about the kettle calling the pot black again I quote

 

had i been incharge argentina would be a pile of ash

[chesters1]

Irgun (Hebrew: ארגון‎; shorthand for HaIrgun HaTzva'i HaLe'umi BeEretz Yisra'el, הארגון הצבאי הלאומי בארץ ישראל, "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel") was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was established as a militant offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: "The Defense", ההגנה). For reasons of secrecy, people often referred to the Irgun, during that time, as Haganah Bet (Hebrew: literally "Defense 'B' " or "Second Defense", הגנה ב), or alternatively as Haganah Ha'leumit (ההגנה הלאומית) or Ha'ma'amad (המעמד). In present-day Israel, Irgun is commonly referred to as Etzel (אצ"ל), an acronym of the Hebrew initials.

 

 

 

I would agree 100% as to what happened However my statement stands and I quote

 

 

 

To say it was just USA and UK does not hold water.

 

As I see it we never set out to kill innocent people we did our very best to target combatants and yes utilities to bring the situation to a speedy conclusion. I can tell you from personal experience that thousands of homes did not have power or water when Saddam was running things, you can always locate the odd contrary farmer who will dispute that

 

I haven't got an answer to that last bit conflict /war so I will have to quote again damn it I am getting as bad as Emma

 

 

 

And talk about the kettle calling the pot black again I quote

 

had i been incharge argentina would be a pile of ash

to have a real legal war "notes" have to be passed preceeding any actual action (where the japs famously fell down in ww2)

there were none in the argi conflict therefore it was an illegal invasion by argentina first under cover as salvage "experts" in south georgia then the falklands themselves (yep you can have legal wars and legal invasions) my last remark was mainly that we have a nuke (albeit limited) capability why not try it out to see if we were given duds by the US ,just drop them instead of launching them incase america thinks they have oil and turns the satellite guidence off

argentina is of no importance bar corned beef and the price of that alone demands reconpense!!!

 

as the state of isreaL didnt exist pre 1948 then they cannot be isrealy anything but jewish terrorists ,dropping nothing more than a few terrorists groups into palestinian lands was the cause of our woes now ,if you insist it was the world that allowed it then the world should lower its head in shame as well as britain ,remember though pre ww2 britain was the world! just as the US now runs the UN

i removed one quote i did say forget the biblical clap trap if states had a right to exist where is persia? bugger we had some of that as well ,remember it was our mandate that gave the go ahead but strangely the jews bit the hand that fed them milk and honey.if only they had real toilets over there isreali peace treaties could be put to real use.

if i were an palestinian i would to try and rid your country of this illegal invasion just as you would if the UN decided to drop bin laden and his cronies in wales /surrey or kent ,i would hesitate up norf as an example they probably are already there

Edited December 1, 2008 by chesters1

[Ken Davison South Wales]

to have a real legal war "notes" have to be passed preceeding any actual action (where the japs famously fell down in ww2)

there were none in the argi conflict therefore it was an illegal invasion by argentina (yep you can have legal wars and legal invasions) my last remark was mainly that we have a nuke (albeit limited) capability why not try it out to see if we were given duds by the US ,just drop them instead of launching them incase america thinks they have oil and turns the satellite guidence off

argentina is of no importance bar corned beef and the price of that alone demands reconpense!!!

 

as the state of isreaL didnt exist pre 1948 then they cannot be isrealy anything but jewish terrorists ,dropping nothing more than a few terrorists groups into palestinian lands was the cause of our woes now ,if you insist it was the world that allowed it then the world should lower its head in shame as well as britain ,remember though pre ww2 britain was the world! just as the US now runs the UN

i removed one quote i did say forget the biblical clap trap if states had a right to exist where is persia?

 

Your first para is really just a play on words, whether letters were exchanged prior to an invasion is surely an academic vision, if your there with bullets flying around a letter or two would hardly have any bearing on the situation.

 

I agree with your second para 100% it was out of order and in my book the Jews exploited their own people by encouraging thousands of Jews to enter the so called promised land and yes they were terrorist and contrary to what most people think this was started well before WWII in 1931. The war and persecution of the Jews in Germany was used to give their movement credence.

[chesters1]

Your first para is really just a play on words, whether letters were exchanged prior to an invasion is surely an academic vision, if your there with bullets flying around a letter or two would hardly have any bearing on the situation.

 

I agree with your second para 100% it was out of order and in my book the Jews exploited their own people by encouraging thousands of Jews to enter the so called promised land and yes they were terrorist and contrary to what most people think this was started well before WWII in 1931. The war and persecution of the Jews in Germany was used to give their movement credence.

but the law never the less.with UN backing the invasion/war becomes legal ,our invasion of iraq was legal under UN mandates our quick change of direction into regime change definately isnt.the mandates were about WMD not saddam himself ,when the WMD was shown as a scam illegal regime change became the reason we are a illegal invader of iraq under the UN's own rules.

 

back to isreal

most of the modern trouble started with the hard line american jews moving in perhaps their assotiations still pull strings in america or probably do pull strings in america america runs the UN the UN overlook the 30 odd mandates they have against isreal ,makes perfect sense to me

Edited December 1, 2008 by chesters1

[DavyR]

Davy, The driving an armoured car onto the pitch at a sunday football match and opening up on players and fans with machine guns has often been referred to as the start of terrorist attacks

 

Greg - The Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Black & Tans (below) agrees that most of them were "jobless former soldiers" as I said. Their experiences in the trenches often meant they were mentally unstable and a danger to themselves and others, even their own friends and families. It also mentions "the terrorism of the IRA" and the fact that the attack on the football match was in retaliation for the killing of 11 English (suspected) intelligence agents. I'm not defending terrorism on either side, but the history of the British in Ireland (as you will know) goes back a very long way. It could be argued that, had not Henry VIII split with Rome, leaving the newly-exposed Church of England with a Catholic "back door" open to invasion by France or Spain, relations between our two nations might not have descended to the regrettable depths that they did.

 

Black and Tan

 

Member of a British auxiliary police force employed in Ireland against the republicans from July 1920 to July 1921. Their popular name derived from the name of a variety of hunting dogs, applied to the police because of their attire of khaki coats, black belts, and dark green trousers and caps. When Irish nationalist agitation intensified after World War I, a large proportion of the Irish police resigned, to be replaced by these temporary English recruits, mostly jobless former soldiers, who were paid 10 shillings a day and dressed in a mixed “black and tan” outfit because of the shortage of police uniforms. In seeking to thwart the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army, the Black and Tans themselves engaged in fierce reprisals. Notably, on “Bloody Sunday,” November 21, 1920, the IRA murdered 11 Englishmen suspected of being intelligence agents; and the Black and Tans took revenge the same afternoon, attacking spectators at a Gaelic football match in Croke Park, Dublin, killing 12 and wounding 60. The Black and Tans were withdrawn after the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921.

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/...6/Black-and-Tan