Britain's War Crimes

[rowan]

How about a war memorial for the Nazis too?

BBC News:
'A memorial dedicated to those civilians killed in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will be unveiled by the Queen in central London on Thursday.'
No, wrong universe.
In *this* universe:
'A memorial dedicated to those who served in Afghanistan and both Iraq wars will be unveiled by the Queen in central London on Thursday.'
And let's take a moment to ponder what the sculptor has to say:
'people were united, he added, in support of "what the military and civilians did, in putting themselves in harm's way, securing British lives and improving the lives of Iraqi and Afghan civilians".'
'Improving the lives of Iraqi and Afghan civilians'....by bombing and torturing them, perhaps?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39202897

Conservative & already outdated . . . http://www.mintpressnews.com/do-the-mat ... re/208225/

Also intesreting . . . http://markcurtis.info/2017/03/08/brita ... -pakistan/

So in your world, British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were comparable in their actions to the worst of the German soldiers in WWII? Evidence for that or are you just talking bollocks again?

No, I'd rate the British as being much worse than the Nazis. These wars have continued for 14 and 16 years respectively. Millions have died. Tens of millions of lives have been ruined. And so it goes on. But this is only the tip of the iceberg where British war crimes are concerned of course, which have been going on for centuries, virtually without stop. The major difference with the Nazis is that they did it to Europe and were only around for a very short time. & they were punished.

[Sandydragon]

Did you actually read that?

I know. Really wished I hadn't bothered now.

[Sandydragon]

How about a war memorial for the Nazis too?

BBC News:
'A memorial dedicated to those civilians killed in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will be unveiled by the Queen in central London on Thursday.'
No, wrong universe.
In *this* universe:
'A memorial dedicated to those who served in Afghanistan and both Iraq wars will be unveiled by the Queen in central London on Thursday.'
And let's take a moment to ponder what the sculptor has to say:
'people were united, he added, in support of "what the military and civilians did, in putting themselves in harm's way, securing British lives and improving the lives of Iraqi and Afghan civilians".'
'Improving the lives of Iraqi and Afghan civilians'....by bombing and torturing them, perhaps?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39202897

Conservative & already outdated . . . http://www.mintpressnews.com/do-the-mat ... re/208225/

Also intesreting . . . http://markcurtis.info/2017/03/08/brita ... -pakistan/

So in your world, British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were comparable in their actions to the worst of the German soldiers in WWII? Evidence for that or are you just talking bollocks again?

No, I'd rate the British as being much worse than the Nazis. These wars have continued for 14 and 16 years respectively. Millions have died. Tens of millions of lives have been ruined. And so it goes on. But this is only the tip of the iceberg where British war crimes are concerned of course, which have been going on for centuries, virtually without stop. The major difference with the Nazis is that they did it to Europe and were only around for a very short time. & they were punished.

So you are confirming your ideological bias. Thanks, not that it needed confirming but its good to check every once in a while.

[rowan]

So in your world, British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were comparable in their actions to the worst of the German soldiers in WWII? Evidence for that or are you just talking bollocks again?

No, I'd rate the British as being much worse than the Nazis. These wars have continued for 14 and 16 years respectively. Millions have died. Tens of millions of lives have been ruined. And so it goes on. But this is only the tip of the iceberg where British war crimes are concerned of course, which have been going on for centuries, virtually without stop. The major difference with the Nazis is that they did it to Europe and were only around for a very short time. & they were punished.

So you are confirming your ideological bias. Thanks, not that it needed confirming but its good to check every once in a while.

No, I'm giving you my assessment as a neutral, and one who gives equal value to European and non-European life. Britain's war crimes vastly outnumber those of the Germans, and where the Nazis are concerned, that was a very brief chapter of history. Britain's war crimes in the former colonies were far worse, and Britain's war crimes continue as we speak. It's a no-contest. But you cannot possibly have a balanced perspective on this because you were brought up with all the propaganda that was part and package of it. When you speak of ideological bias, therefore, you are expressing both hypocrisy & arrogance.

[OptimisticJock]

FFS Sandy. You're more tenacious than the RAF Reg guarding the EFI.

[Crocked8]

No, I'd rate the British as being much worse than the Nazis. These wars have continued for 14 and 16 years respectively. Millions have died. Tens of millions of lives have been ruined. And so it goes on. But this is only the tip of the iceberg where British war crimes are concerned of course, which have been going on for centuries, virtually without stop. The major difference with the Nazis is that they did it to Europe and were only around for a very short time. & they were punished.

So you are confirming your ideological bias. Thanks, not that it needed confirming but its good to check every once in a while.

No, I'm giving you my assessment as a neutral, and one who gives equal value to European and non-European life. Britain's war crimes vastly outnumber those of the Germans, and where the Nazis are concerned, that was a very brief chapter of history. Britain's war crimes in the former colonies were far worse, and Britain's war crimes continue as we speak. It's a no-contest. But you cannot possibly have a balanced perspective on this because you were brought up with all the propaganda that was part and package of it. When you speak of ideological bias, therefore, you are expressing both hypocrisy & arrogance.

You need to look into the history of the German empire before WW1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rowan]

So you are confirming your ideological bias. Thanks, not that it needed confirming but its good to check every once in a while.

No, I'm giving you my assessment as a neutral, and one who gives equal value to European and non-European life. Britain's war crimes vastly outnumber those of the Germans, and where the Nazis are concerned, that was a very brief chapter of history. Britain's war crimes in the former colonies were far worse, and Britain's war crimes continue as we speak. It's a no-contest. But you cannot possibly have a balanced perspective on this because you were brought up with all the propaganda that was part and package of it. When you speak of ideological bias, therefore, you are expressing both hypocrisy & arrogance.

You need to look into the history of the German empire before WW1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, they don't have much history as a modern state before that, but I know all about Namibia and the rest of it. Still doesn't come close to Britain. Only America does that, and is on course to overtake with a few more invasions, wrecked nations and genocides under the belt . . .

[rowan]

Interesting take on the Raj in India . . .

Many modern apologists for British colonial rule in India no longer contest the basic facts of imperial exploitation and plunder, rapacity and loot, which are too deeply documented to be challengeable. Instead they offer a counter-argument: granted, the British took what they could for 200 years, but didn’t they also leave behind a great deal of lasting benefit? In particular, political unity and democracy, the rule of law, railways, English education, even tea and cricket?

Indeed, the British like to point out that the very idea of “India” as one entity (now three, but one during the British Raj), instead of multiple warring principalities and statelets, is the incontestable contribution of British imperial rule.

Unfortunately for this argument, throughout the history of the subcontinent, there has existed an impulsion for unity. The idea of India is as old as the Vedas, the earliest Hindu scriptures, which describe “Bharatvarsha” as the land between the Himalayas and the seas. If this “sacred geography” is essentially a Hindu idea, Maulana Azad has written of how Indian Muslims, whether Pathans from the north-west or Tamils from the south, were all seen by Arabs as “Hindis”, hailing from a recognisable civilisational space. Numerous Indian rulers had sought to unite the territory, with the Mauryas (three centuries before Christ) and the Mughals coming the closest by ruling almost 90% of the subcontinent. Had the British not completed the job, there is little doubt that some Indian ruler, emulating his forerunners, would have done so.

Continues here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... yths-gifts

[Sandydragon]

No, I'm giving you my assessment as a neutral, and one who gives equal value to European and non-European life. Britain's war crimes vastly outnumber those of the Germans, and where the Nazis are concerned, that was a very brief chapter of history. Britain's war crimes in the former colonies were far worse, and Britain's war crimes continue as we speak. It's a no-contest. But you cannot possibly have a balanced perspective on this because you were brought up with all the propaganda that was part and package of it. When you speak of ideological bias, therefore, you are expressing both hypocrisy & arrogance.

You need to look into the history of the German empire before WW1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, they don't have much history as a modern state before that, but I know all about Namibia and the rest of it. Still doesn't come close to Britain. Only America does that, and is on course to overtake with a few more invasions, wrecked nations and genocides under the belt . . .

Only due to a lack of opportunity. The German rule in Africa was abhorrent, even the Belgians didn't sink that low. And your use of genocide is misleading and in fact plain wrong.

[Zhivago]

You need to look into the history of the German empire before WW1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, they don't have much history as a modern state before that, but I know all about Namibia and the rest of it. Still doesn't come close to Britain. Only America does that, and is on course to overtake with a few more invasions, wrecked nations and genocides under the belt . . .

Only due to a lack of opportunity. The German rule in Africa was abhorrent, even the Belgians didn't sink that low. And your use of genocide is misleading and in fact plain wrong.

Belgian rule in the Congo was much worse!

[rowan]

You need to look into the history of the German empire before WW1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, they don't have much history as a modern state before that, but I know all about Namibia and the rest of it. Still doesn't come close to Britain. Only America does that, and is on course to overtake with a few more invasions, wrecked nations and genocides under the belt . . .

Only due to a lack of opportunity. The German rule in Africa was abhorrent, even the Belgians didn't sink that low. And your use of genocide is misleading and in fact plain wrong.

Now that's an example of the arrogance I referred to. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people." America did this by bombing both South East Asia and the Middle East to smithereens, and it also did so by supporting genocidal dictatorships and their death squads in Latin America, Indonesia & elsewhere. The British most certainly did this in the former colonies, of course. As for the "lack of opportunity" comment, that merely smacks of anti-German prejudice. Seems the British don't really like anybody much, do they? I mean, if you couldn't point the finger at everybody else, you might end up having to face the horrifying truth about your own country - both past and present. But accountability requires some degree of moral fiber.

Belgian rule in the Congo was much worse!

Indeed. Probably the worst crime committed by Europeans outside of the Americas, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

[Zhivago]

Well, they don't have much history as a modern state before that, but I know all about Namibia and the rest of it. Still doesn't come close to Britain. Only America does that, and is on course to overtake with a few more invasions, wrecked nations and genocides under the belt . . .

Only due to a lack of opportunity. The German rule in Africa was abhorrent, even the Belgians didn't sink that low. And your use of genocide is misleading and in fact plain wrong.

Now that's an example of the arrogance I referred to. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people." America did this by bombing both South East Asia and the Middle East to smithereens, and it also did so by supporting genocidal dictatorships and their death squads in Latin America, Indonesia & elsewhere. The British most certainly did this in the former colonies, of course. As for the "lack of opportunity" comment, that merely smacks of anti-German prejudice. Seems the British don't really like anybody much, do they? I mean, if you couldn't point the finger at everybody else, you might end up having to face the horrifying truth about your own country - both past and present. But accountability requires some degree of moral fiber.

Belgian rule in the Congo was much worse!

Indeed. Probably the worst crime committed by Europeans outside of the Americas, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

Sandy doesn't know jack shit about history. He really ought to quit mouthing off like as if he is more knowledgeable on such topics, when he really doesn't have a clue.

He knows more about how to kill brown people though, I'll give him that.

[OptimisticJock]

it's nearly like the good old days.

[Sandydragon]

Only due to a lack of opportunity. The German rule in Africa was abhorrent, even the Belgians didn't sink that low. And your use of genocide is misleading and in fact plain wrong.

Now that's an example of the arrogance I referred to. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people." America did this by bombing both South East Asia and the Middle East to smithereens, and it also did so by supporting genocidal dictatorships and their death squads in Latin America, Indonesia & elsewhere. The British most certainly did this in the former colonies, of course. As for the "lack of opportunity" comment, that merely smacks of anti-German prejudice. Seems the British don't really like anybody much, do they? I mean, if you couldn't point the finger at everybody else, you might end up having to face the horrifying truth about your own country - both past and present. But accountability requires some degree of moral fiber.

Belgian rule in the Congo was much worse!

Indeed. Probably the worst crime committed by Europeans outside of the Americas, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

Sandy doesn't know jack shit about history. He really ought to quit mouthing off like as if he is more knowledgeable on such topics, when he really doesn't have a clue.

He knows more about how to kill brown people though, I'll give him that.

And of course, your reply demonstrated your thorough knowledge. Makes me want to hand my MA history certificate back because that's me told by junior. Bit odd really as you normally last a bit longer before having a melt down.

[Sandydragon]

Well, they don't have much history as a modern state before that, but I know all about Namibia and the rest of it. Still doesn't come close to Britain. Only America does that, and is on course to overtake with a few more invasions, wrecked nations and genocides under the belt . . .

Only due to a lack of opportunity. The German rule in Africa was abhorrent, even the Belgians didn't sink that low. And your use of genocide is misleading and in fact plain wrong.

Now that's an example of the arrogance I referred to. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people." America did this by bombing both South East Asia and the Middle East to smithereens, and it also did so by supporting genocidal dictatorships and their death squads in Latin America, Indonesia & elsewhere. The British most certainly did this in the former colonies, of course. As for the "lack of opportunity" comment, that merely smacks of anti-German prejudice. Seems the British don't really like anybody much, do they? I mean, if you couldn't point the finger at everybody else, you might end up having to face the horrifying truth about your own country - both past and present. But accountability requires some degree of moral fiber.

Belgian rule in the Congo was much worse!

Indeed. Probably the worst crime committed by Europeans outside of the Americas, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

Most definitions of genocide refer to the deliberate attempted destruction of a defined group, which requires a greater degree of intent than just deaths involved in warfare. At leat those provided by international organisations do.

The German colonial experience was another level entirely, experiments on people for example, not unlike what the Nazis did in various concentration camps. The British empire had its low points, but it was comparably less brutal than others. Only someone with an anti west axe to grind would argue to the contrary.

As for moral fibre. Please. You can't even accept that the countries you support have committed war crimes, despite the UN reporting to the contrary.

[rowan]

Now that's an example of the arrogance I referred to. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people." America did this by bombing both South East Asia and the Middle East to smithereens, and it also did so by supporting genocidal dictatorships and their death squads in Latin America, Indonesia & elsewhere. The British most certainly did this in the former colonies, of course. As for the "lack of opportunity" comment, that merely smacks of anti-German prejudice. Seems the British don't really like anybody much, do they? I mean, if you couldn't point the finger at everybody else, you might end up having to face the horrifying truth about your own country - both past and present. But accountability requires some degree of moral fiber.

Belgian rule in the Congo was much worse!

Indeed. Probably the worst crime committed by Europeans outside of the Americas, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

Sandy doesn't know jack shit about history. He really ought to quit mouthing off like as if he is more knowledgeable on such topics, when he really doesn't have a clue.

He knows more about how to kill brown people though, I'll give him that.

And of course, your reply demonstrated your thorough knowledge. Makes me want to hand my MA history certificate back because that's me told by junior.

I'm guessing from your warped view of things that you received that MA in Britain

So you're presuming to lecture me on English vocabulary now? Well, guess who majored in English at university, worked as a journalist for several years and has spent almost two decades teaching the language...

You're still pointing the finger at others in an attempt to play down your own country's countless crimes against humanity. That's the language of denialism. So the genocides in the former colonies were less brutal than others' crimes, you say? Go tell that to the Native Americans, Australia Aborigines and New Zealand Maori. Go tell that to the people of India or Bangladesh. Try spouting it to the Kenyans, or to the people of West Africa whence Britain gots its slaves. & you do know who the first people to use concentration camps were, don't you? So your comment about the British being less brutal is extremely ironic. You sound like a German trying to play down the Holocaust, or a white American or Australian trying to play down the extermination of the natives. There's no difference at all.

Accountability requires moral fiber, yes. I have a British passport and I am recognising that Britain was the most barbaric nation in modern history - by some distance. The country I grew up in committed genocide and failed to acknowledge the fact. Of course, the settlers, also, were British. But your brilliant riposte is to accuse me of supporting countries which have committed war crimes, when you yourself are clearly an apologist for your own country's war crimes.

[Sandydragon]

Sandy doesn't know jack shit about history. He really ought to quit mouthing off like as if he is more knowledgeable on such topics, when he really doesn't have a clue.

He knows more about how to kill brown people though, I'll give him that.

And of course, your reply demonstrated your thorough knowledge. Makes me want to hand my MA history certificate back because that's me told by junior.

I'm guessing from your warped view of things that you received that MA in Britain

So you're presuming to lecture me on English vocabulary now? Well, guess who majored in English at university, worked as a journalist for several years and has spent almost two decades teaching the language...

You're still pointing the finger at others in an attempt to play down your own country's countless crimes against humanity. That's the language of denialism. So the genocides in the former colonies were less brutal than others' crimes, you say? Go tell that to the Native Americans, Australia Aborigines and New Zealand Maori. Go tell that to the people of India or Bangladesh. Try spouting it to the Kenyans, or to the people of West Africa whence Britain gots its slaves. & you do know who the first people to use concentration camps were, don't you? So your comment about the British being less brutal is extremely ironic. You sound like a German trying to play down the Holocaust, or a white American or Australian trying to play down the extermination of the natives. There's no difference at all.

Accountability requires moral fiber, yes. I have a British passport and I am recognising that Britain was the most barbaric nation in modern history - by some distance. The country I grew up in committed genocide and failed to acknowledge the fact. Of course, the settlers, also, were British. But your brilliant riposte is to accuse me of supporting countries which have committed war crimes, when you yourself are clearly an apologist for your own country's war crimes.

Where have I lectured you in English vocabulary? I have questioned your bias. You are supporting war crimes. The UN has uncovered enough evidence in a few months to make those accusations, yet you still provide apologies for Assad and Putin.

The British did use concentration camps in the Boer War and they were badly run resulting in hardship and death. It wasn't a deliberate policy of genocide. The administration of Ireland during the famine was dreadful, but only a very small minority of historians have labelled that as a deliberate genocide. Elsewhere the British empire did some dreadful things, but our role in stoppingslavery makes up for our earlier dalliances in this area. I other major power was bothered, the British stopped it. That is something to be genuinely proud of.

The German empires by comparison were far more brutal. Whilst the British covered a huge amount of territory for hundreds of years, the Germans managed to commit atrocities in Africa despite only acquiring their empire late and not having a huge area to colonise, hence my comment on lack of opportunity. Of course, the actions of the Germans in Eastern Europe don't need further introduction. not even the Armenian genocide comes close to the intent, or scale of the carnage. 5.5 million Jews and who knows how many other Slavs killed due to official racism? That would be why only a tiny minority of historians, mostly those in the fringe, would take your view.

[rowan]

Where have I lectured you in English vocabulary? I have questioned your bias. You are supporting war crimes. The UN has uncovered enough evidence in a few months to make those accusations, yet you still provide apologies for Assad and Putin.

Once again, a complete distortion of the truth and inversion of the facts. The UN accused all sides, as has already been pointed out to you. But it was you who refused to acknowledge this referred to the US & Britain and others as well, and this from an organization which is heavily influenced by Washington. It really doesn't get any more damning. So which is worse? Invading other countries and committing war crimes, or defending a country and committing war crimes? Whose war crimes do we remember from WWII? Does Hollywood make movies about the Holocaust, or does it make them about Dresden? The Syrian government was obliged to defend the country from the terrorists America armed, trained and sent in there, and was framed for the chemical attack in Damascus, while the Russians were invited to help. America was not invited, but still managed to bomb plenty of innocent people, including 80 Syrian soldiers during a crucial cease-fire. Of course, Syria was only one of 7 Middle Eastern countries the US was bombing at the time

The British only decided to stop the practice of slavery once it had no longer become profitable for them to do so. Prior to that they had, of course, been one of the major perpetrators. In fact, it was quite typical of the hypocrisy and arrogance the British developed during the imperial era they they immediately began to preach to others the moment they decided to withdraw from the sordid business themselves. & you think this is something to be genuinely proud of? The British transported 15 million slaves across the Atlantic, at least 2 million of whom died during the journey (many simply thrown overboard if they became ill). Countless more slaves were executed in the colonies, of course, with slow-burning to death one of the various methods of torture used. Oh, but never mind all that. Once the practice was no longer profitable to them, the British led the charge against it...

The British and their descendents were to the fore of a genocide in North America that claimed millions of lives. This pointing the finger at others tactic of yours is really weak and does not diminish the horrors of Britain's past and present one iota. In Kenya they devised the most horrific methods of torture imaginable - shoving broken bottles into women's vaginas and dragging men behind cars to their death, for example, while in India they fired them out of cannons for amusement. The main difference between the Germans and the British is that the latter have been at it much, much longer - centuries, in fact - and still are. But the greatest evil of the British is that they have refused to be held fully accountable and rather whitewashed it all with despicable propaganda.

[Zhivago]

Now that's an example of the arrogance I referred to. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people." America did this by bombing both South East Asia and the Middle East to smithereens, and it also did so by supporting genocidal dictatorships and their death squads in Latin America, Indonesia & elsewhere. The British most certainly did this in the former colonies, of course. As for the "lack of opportunity" comment, that merely smacks of anti-German prejudice. Seems the British don't really like anybody much, do they? I mean, if you couldn't point the finger at everybody else, you might end up having to face the horrifying truth about your own country - both past and present. But accountability requires some degree of moral fiber.

Belgian rule in the Congo was much worse!

Indeed. Probably the worst crime committed by Europeans outside of the Americas, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

Sandy doesn't know jack shit about history. He really ought to quit mouthing off like as if he is more knowledgeable on such topics, when he really doesn't have a clue.

He knows more about how to kill brown people though, I'll give him that.

And of course, your reply demonstrated your thorough knowledge. Makes me want to hand my MA history certificate back because that's me told by junior. Bit odd really as you normally last a bit longer before having a melt down.

I am just baffled how you can say that the German rule in Namibia was worse than the atrocities in the Congo Free State under King Leopold of Belgium. If that's the kind of conclusions they taught you to draw when you studied for your MA in history, then perhaps you should hand it back and demand a refund.

[Sandydragon]

Sandy doesn't know jack shit about history. He really ought to quit mouthing off like as if he is more knowledgeable on such topics, when he really doesn't have a clue.

He knows more about how to kill brown people though, I'll give him that.

And of course, your reply demonstrated your thorough knowledge. Makes me want to hand my MA history certificate back because that's me told by junior. Bit odd really as you normally last a bit longer before having a melt down.

I am just baffled how you can say that the German rule in Namibia was worse than the atrocities in the Congo Free State under King Leopold of Belgium. If that's the kind of conclusions they taught you to draw when you studied for your MA in history, then perhaps you should hand it back and demand a refund.

Belgian rule was a disgrace. German rule on what is now Namibia was full blown, deliberate genocide. The Belgian monarchy was fleecing the country to a huge degree and brutally repressed any dissent. Genocide is much worse.

[Sandydragon]

Where have I lectured you in English vocabulary? I have questioned your bias. You are supporting war crimes. The UN has uncovered enough evidence in a few months to make those accusations, yet you still provide apologies for Assad and Putin.

Once again, a complete distortion of the truth and inversion of the facts. The UN accused all sides, as has already been pointed out to you. But it was you who refused to acknowledge this referred to the US & Britain and others as well, and this from an organization which is heavily influenced by Washington. It really doesn't get any more damning. So which is worse? Invading other countries and committing war crimes, or defending a country and committing war crimes? Whose war crimes do we remember from WWII? Does Hollywood make movies about the Holocaust, or does it make them about Dresden? The Syrian government was obliged to defend the country from the terrorists America armed, trained and sent in there, and was framed for the chemical attack in Damascus, while the Russians were invited to help. America was not invited, but still managed to bomb plenty of innocent people, including 80 Syrian soldiers during a crucial cease-fire. Of course, Syria was only one of 7 Middle Eastern countries the US was bombing at the time

The British only decided to stop the practice of slavery once it had no longer become profitable for them to do so. Prior to that they had, of course, been one of the major perpetrators. In fact, it was quite typical of the hypocrisy and arrogance the British developed during the imperial era they they immediately began to preach to others the moment they decided to withdraw from the sordid business themselves. & you think this is something to be genuinely proud of? The British transported 15 million slaves across the Atlantic, at least 2 million of whom died during the journey (many simply thrown overboard if they became ill). Countless more slaves were executed in the colonies, of course, with slow-burning to death one of the various methods of torture used. Oh, but never mind all that. Once the practice was no longer profitable to them, the British led the charge against it...

The British and their descendents were to the fore of a genocide in North America that claimed millions of lives. This pointing the finger at others tactic of yours is really weak and does not diminish the horrors of Britain's past and present one iota. In Kenya they devised the most horrific methods of torture imaginable - shoving broken bottles into women's vaginas and dragging men behind cars to their death, for example, while in India they fired them out of cannons for amusement. The main difference between the Germans and the British is that the latter have been at it much, much longer - centuries, in fact - and still are. But the greatest evil of the British is that they have refused to be held fully accountable and rather whitewashed it all with despicable propaganda.

I've never denied that rebel groups committed war crimes. But your denials of Syrian and Russian crimes are repeated and delusional. Did you not claim that Assad was entitled to use any means to defend his position, and that indiscriminate Russian bombing was fine because they had an invitation to be there? Was it not you who tried to rubbish any source which tried to prove the government atrocities.

There is one propagandist on here. If confused, look in the mirror.

[Sandydragon]

And that quip about slavery no longer being profitable. That's a kick in the balls for the anti slavery movement which got the support it needed by making it unprofitable. A deliberate policy of engendering enough support. You make it sound like circumstances outside of British control made it unprofitable which is completely wrong.

Furthermore the Royal Navy was then sent to stop slavery. If it were all about profit, why bother? Once again your bias is distorting your view of the facts.

[Zhivago]

And of course, your reply demonstrated your thorough knowledge. Makes me want to hand my MA history certificate back because that's me told by junior. Bit odd really as you normally last a bit longer before having a melt down.

I am just baffled how you can say that the German rule in Namibia was worse than the atrocities in the Congo Free State under King Leopold of Belgium. If that's the kind of conclusions they taught you to draw when you studied for your MA in history, then perhaps you should hand it back and demand a refund.

Belgian rule was a disgrace. German rule on what is now Namibia was full blown, deliberate genocide. The Belgian monarchy was fleecing the country to a huge degree and brutally repressed any dissent. Genocide is much worse.

Genocide is worse because you place such a high value on nationality/ethnicity. But if we compare the scale of the loss of human life, The Congo was at least 10x worse than German atrocities in Southwest Africa.

[rowan]

Where have I lectured you in English vocabulary? I have questioned your bias. You are supporting war crimes. The UN has uncovered enough evidence in a few months to make those accusations, yet you still provide apologies for Assad and Putin.

Once again, a complete distortion of the truth and inversion of the facts. The UN accused all sides, as has already been pointed out to you. But it was you who refused to acknowledge this referred to the US & Britain and others as well, and this from an organization which is heavily influenced by Washington. It really doesn't get any more damning. So which is worse? Invading other countries and committing war crimes, or defending a country and committing war crimes? Whose war crimes do we remember from WWII? Does Hollywood make movies about the Holocaust, or does it make them about Dresden? The Syrian government was obliged to defend the country from the terrorists America armed, trained and sent in there, and was framed for the chemical attack in Damascus, while the Russians were invited to help. America was not invited, but still managed to bomb plenty of innocent people, including 80 Syrian soldiers during a crucial cease-fire. Of course, Syria was only one of 7 Middle Eastern countries the US was bombing at the time

The British only decided to stop the practice of slavery once it had no longer become profitable for them to do so. Prior to that they had, of course, been one of the major perpetrators. In fact, it was quite typical of the hypocrisy and arrogance the British developed during the imperial era they they immediately began to preach to others the moment they decided to withdraw from the sordid business themselves. & you think this is something to be genuinely proud of? The British transported 15 million slaves across the Atlantic, at least 2 million of whom died during the journey (many simply thrown overboard if they became ill). Countless more slaves were executed in the colonies, of course, with slow-burning to death one of the various methods of torture used. Oh, but never mind all that. Once the practice was no longer profitable to them, the British led the charge against it...

The British and their descendents were to the fore of a genocide in North America that claimed millions of lives. This pointing the finger at others tactic of yours is really weak and does not diminish the horrors of Britain's past and present one iota. In Kenya they devised the most horrific methods of torture imaginable - shoving broken bottles into women's vaginas and dragging men behind cars to their death, for example, while in India they fired them out of cannons for amusement. The main difference between the Germans and the British is that the latter have been at it much, much longer - centuries, in fact - and still are. But the greatest evil of the British is that they have refused to be held fully accountable and rather whitewashed it all with despicable propaganda.

I've never denied that rebel groups committed war crimes. But your denials of Syrian and Russian crimes are repeated and delusional. Did you not claim that Assad was entitled to use any means to defend his position, and that indiscriminate Russian bombing was fine because they had an invitation to be there? Was it not you who tried to rubbish any source which tried to prove the government atrocities.

There is one propagandist on here. If confused, look in the mirror.

No, it is plainly you who is focusing on the resistance rather than the perpetrators. You are an apologist for American and British war crimes whose tactic is to point the finger at everyone else.

[rowan]

If we are to focus on the resistance then we also blame the Native Americans and Maori for what happened during the colonial era, the Kikuyu for what happened during British rule, the Armenians for what happened at the end of the Ottoman Empire, the French Resistance for what happened during WWII, and the ORAF for what happened during the Algerian War of Independence - just as a few random example. That's in Sandy Land, of course; not in the real world, which applies the opposite view.

The West has, inevitably, highly exaggerated the war crimes accusations against Damascus and Moscow, as you would expect them to do, partly to try and smokescreen their own vastly more horrific war crimes in starting the conflict, as they had planned to do ever since 9/11 (as confessed by former general Wesley Clark on a widely circulated video that annoys people here so much). Even Obama admitted arming the rebels, most of whom came from outside Syria, and went on to acknowledge that many of the weapons had ended up in the hands of terrorists. Well, you don't liberate towns and cities by skipping in and tossing daisies in the air (except when you're Americans in a Hollywood move). But suddenly the war on terror goes out the window when its Syrians and Russians defending Syria itself.

The truth is you are actually very bitter about the UN Resolution because it blamed ALL sides, whereas having been brainwashed by Western propaganda you were fully expecting Damascus and Moscow to be blamed for everything, since that is obviously your own twisted perspective. . .