Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on August 12, 2005, 04:13:57 PM
-
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe – your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of
ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the
Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture
and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall
to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of
billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement...
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere?
By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls
are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical
Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort
of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot
be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have
proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-apeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the
Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World
Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral
compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd
rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or
listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces
of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house
Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
-
:rolleyes:
Clearly the man is a war mongering idiot!
-
Maybe you better give him a bunch of money so he doesn't monger war on you then?
dago
-
Those Jerrys tried to monger their war on us before! We gave em a good kicking. I don't think they'll do it again :lol
-
Just sounds like a man who calls a rat, a rat, to me.
-
I would punt the thread where this exact text was brought up, but it's almost one year old and it's against the forum rules...
Daniel
-
The man's entitled to his opinion, codswallop that it is.
-
Originally posted by AKH
The man's entitled to his opinion, codswallop that it is.
Have you hugged your jihadi today? I'm sure that will keep you safe!
-
Well, we all know that the world became a much safer place after we invaded Iraq. So who do you suggest we attack next in order to further reduce the terrorist threat?
-
Capitol hill ?
-
:rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Those Jerrys tried to monger their war on us before! We gave em a good kicking. I don't think they'll do it again :lol
no you didn't, you couldn't have managed it without our help for the second time in a half century. we had to cross the puddle to once again save your hides. all well and good that we did. perhaps we should stay out of this coming fight and see how well you guys acquit yourselves without the help of your stronger and considerably wiser younger brother.
-
interesting read...
-
oh yeah... that would be funny... finland and england attacking capitol hill... Oh well... maybe we could rebuild your countries afterwards.
Seems the man has it pretty close to right to me. The eurobarbarians allways take the timid way out while their fellows slaughter... don't see why a half a million or so killed by the sadman should have been any different.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKH
Well, we all know that the world became a much safer place after we invaded Iraq. So who do you suggest we attack next in order to further reduce the terrorist threat?
Of course they didn't attack folks before Iraq. That most certainly was what incited them. When your stated goal is to kill anyone who does not think just like you there is not much to work with.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Seems the man has it pretty close to right to me. The eurobarbarians allways take the timid way out while their fellows slaughter... don't see why a half a million or so killed by the sadman should have been any different.
lazs
The Invasion was opposed by the British government, as Grenada was part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and Queen Elizabeth was head of state as Queen of Grenada. Grenada requested help from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Margaret Thatcher contacted Ronald Reagan, telling him “in the strongest possible terms” that “Grenada was part of the British Commonwealth, and the United States had no business interfering in its affairs.” Reagan assured her that an invasion was not contemplated. Reagan later said “She was very adamant and continued to insist that we cancel our landings on Grenada. I couldn't tell her that it had already begun”.
And you have the sheer gall and audacity to refer to the Europeans as Barbarians? Well, in the interests of having a level playing field, I put it to you that you appear to bear all the requisite hallmarks of a seminal Ameri-tard
Yours barbarously
-
A simple yet time consuming means of taking over Europe can be used and may actually be in process right now. All they have to do is emigrate in force to the desired country. Once they are entrenched and citizens, they can control the governemtn simply by political force and voting. For those countries that take a bit more pursuation a few terrorist actions, from home grown terrorists, could lend a bit of impetus to the winds of political change.
These folks may just enjoy having large families and can shift the population balance in a very few generations. For a "society" with a "long view" this could be a very plausable means of effecting a very real change on the world and how the world deals with them. Think about it, a non violent invasion and all with the cooperation of the invaded country!
They could maintain the protection of the "homeland" by simply enacting legislation in their original nation to prohibit the granting of citizenship to "infidels" and those who are not of a "true" birth to the original nation. Hence they maintain a "purity of nation" back home while slowly taking over the target nation.
Now before you get your panties in a bunch, this IS wild conjecture with a bit of sarcasm mixed in and not terribly likely, but it IS plausable isn't it.
-
AKH..grenada? didn't like what we did? tough.
As for barbarians... the only barbarians capable of starting two world wars in one century are the euros. The brits were busy sujegating and opressing multiple countries under colonialism.
We had our turn at being a british colony... we didn't like it.
lazs
-
If you live in Birmingham UK Maverik its very plausible.
However as a percentage of the whole population they are only a minority still. As a non religious person I have no problem if someone wants to worship Allah, Jesus, Buddah, A myriad of monkey gods or whatever those Hindus believe in, Whatever floats the boat I don't care as long as I'm free not to have to believe in it.
When religion is used as a justification for war or killing then I'm against it. If it comes to that point we must get tough and kick em out. Something that our Govt seems to be doing at this very moment at long last. But that equally applies to whatever religion or creed.
If you want to come and live in Britain fine but accept the fact that when you do you are British. If you don't like us or our society then fiddadle off thanks. Thats the way I see it.
Likewise if they want to believe in some extreme Islamic religion thats fine as long asthey don't expect us to. In reality I don't think most Moslems do. Only the loony minority. We can lose them and the rest can stay as far as I'm concerned.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
AKH..grenada? didn't like what we did? tough.
As for barbarians... the only barbarians capable of starting two world wars in one century are the euros. The brits were busy sujegating and opressing multiple countries under colonialism.
We had our turn at being a british colony... we didn't like it.
lazs
Don't like the way we think or do things in Europe? Tough ;-)
Subjugation?
* US provides military aid to right-wing forces battling communist insurgents in Greece in 1947.
* CIA involvement in Italian elections, involving propaganda and the alleged buying of votes, in order to prevent the Communist Party of Italy coming to power, in 1948.
* US-led Korean War from 1950 until 1953.
* US-backed overthrow of the regime in Iran in 1953, support for the Shah until his overthrow in 1979.
* US-backed overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954.
* US support for dictator Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam from 1955 - 1963.
* US support for Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista until his overthrow in 1959.
* Alleged US-backed establishment of François Duvalier as dictator of Haiti.
* US-backed abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961.
* Alleged CIA assassination of Congo's democratically elected leader, Patrice Lumumba.
* US support of Ba'ath Party coup in Iraq in 1963; support for dictator Saddam Hussein until 1990.
* Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Juan Bosch, the democratically elected leader of the Dominican Republic.
* Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador in 1963.
* Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Joao Goulart in Brazil in 1964, CIA training for its death squads.
* Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia in 1965, resulting in estimated death of one million suspected Communists.
* Vietnam War - (1964-1975) - estimated deaths of three million Vietnamese.
* Bombing campaigns against Laos, with more US bombs dropped than during all of World War Two, from 1964 - 1975.
* Alleged CIA-backed military coup brings dictator Mobutu Sese Seko to power in the Congo in 1965.
* Alleged CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece in 1967.
* Alleged CIA-organised military operation ends in execution of Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1968.
* Alleged CIA-supported coup against Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia in 1970.
* Alleged CIA-supported military coup against President Juan Torres of Bolivia in 1971.
* Alleged CIA-supported overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile- 1973
* CIA support for UNITA rebels in Angola, from 1976 - 1984.
* Following overthrow of the dictator Samosa in Nicaragua by the Sandinistas, the CIA supports the Contras from 1979 - 1989. Nicaragua still has not received the U.S. restitutions for military and paramilitary activities as ruled by the International Court of Justice and as supported by a United Nations General Assembly resolution.
* CIA support for death-squads in El Salvador throughout the 1980s.
* US invasion of Grenada, overthrow of Marxist government (Operation Urgent Fury) - 1983.
* US invasion of Panama, overthrow of Manuel Noriega (Operation Just Cause) - 1989.
* US-led Gulf War following Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
* US-led sanctions against Iraq, resulting in the estimated deaths of over one million civilians, from 1990 to 2003.
* US-led bombing campaign, called Operation Desert Fox, against Iraq in 1998.
* US bombing of Afghanistan in 1998.
* US bombing of factory in Sudan - later admitted to be a mistake - in 1998.
* US invasion of Afghanistan, overthrow of Taliban in 2001.
* Alleged CIA-backed abortive coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002.
* US Invasion of Iraq, overthrow of Saddam Hussein - 2003
I'm glad that you threw off the yoke of imperial colonialism.
Anyone for tea?
-
I am always amused by Brits hoping on the high horse to lecture the USA about our supposed transgressions regarding other nations.
Get out of Ireland, let the Irish rule it, and maybe I could take you serious.
dago
-
OMG do you mean the US promoted freedom and democracy!!! AHHHH!!! Seriously did you dig up that BS drivel from some cummunist website?
-
I bet we'll be out of Ireland before you are out of Iraq ;)
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am always amused by Brits hoping on the high horse to lecture the USA about our supposed transgressions regarding other nations.
Get out of Ireland, let the Irish rule it, and maybe I could take you serious.
dago
well no doubt we did those things but it coming from somone's country who has almost 400 years history of colonization compared to a meak 60.......well it's laughable.
Lets not forget the painfull lessons the spaniards learned. Pull troops from Iraq = Madrid train bombings.
It doesn't matter what you apease them with they will still attack you. A muslim holliday in Germany will appear as a successfull win to muslims world wide that have a jihadist view of the rest of hte world.
Imagine our View if Iraqis/iranians/syrians suddunly celebrated the 4th of July or Christmas/passover/easter/yom kipour.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
OMG do you mean the US promoted freedom and democracy!!! AHHHH!!! Seriously did you dig up that BS drivel from some cummunist website?
OMG do you mean that wikipedia is a communist website!!!? AHHHH!!! Seriously, why don't you exercise your freedom and democracy to have this article History of United States imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_imperialism#Late_20th_century) modified or deleted?
Just like the rest of us.
-
Originally posted by AKH
OMG do you mean that wikipedia is a communist website!!!? AHHHH!!! Seriously, why don't you exercise your freedom and democracy to have this article History of United States imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_imperialism#Late_20th_century) modified or deleted?
Just like the rest of us.
I still think it's laughable being lectured by a brit on imperialism
:lol :lol :lol
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I still think it's laughable being lectured by a brit on imperialism
:lol :lol :lol
Well, seeing as you so ably pointed out, we have over 400 years experience of imperialism and you only have a "meak" 60 years, we are therefore emminently and unquestionably more qualified to give any form of schooling on the topic of imperialism.
Have a peanut. :p
-
:lol AKH. I think you got him:aok
Americans don't like to think that their global cultural and military domination is any kind of Imperialism. Its the land of the free don't you know?;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well no doubt we did those things but it coming from somone's country who has almost 400 years history of colonization compared to a meak 60.......well it's laughable.
2005-1776 != 60.
-
or some of us whole heartedly embrace it. afterall we do know better than most of you guys. now be a good subject and pipe down.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
:lol AKH. I think you got him:aok
Americans don't like to think that their global cultural and military domination is any kind of Imperialism. Its the land of the free don't you know?;)
I think the main point you miss is that most of that list was done covertly. Or at least was done without the general knowledge of the public, even if there was no attempt to actually HIDE it. When we the American public have found such instances of our Govt. acting in this manner, we have insisted they cease, and in some cases held criminal hearings against the officials that ordered them to go on. Brits consider themselves Imperialists with a sense of pride, as if meddling in another country's policies and subjugating others is part and parcel of their national identity. Spin it how you like.
-
Originally posted by storch
or some of us whole heartedly embrace it. afterall we do know better than most of you guys. now be a good subject and pipe down.
It? Know what better? Please pardon my ignorance, but I only speak English.
Actually, we are citizens (so you don't know that much). Maybe you'd better get back to the T.V. and occupy your mind in a more constructive fashion.
Fox News maybe?
-
Originally posted by straffo
2005-1776 != 60.
I was referring to the 60 years of history that was posted not the entire US history.
-
Ok Gun, I didn't understood it this way.
Btw Dago do you have memory troubles ?
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142030
And yes you posted in this thread :D
-
Originally posted by AKH
It? Know what better? Please pardon my ignorance, but I only speak English.
Actually, we are citizens (so you don't know that much). Maybe you'd better get back to the T.V. and occupy your mind in a more constructive fashion.
Fox News maybe?
nope. you are a subjects.
-
Subjects, citizens? who bloddy cares. Its a word that in practise means little. If you guys realy think that the Royal family have that much influence over us you are not reading very up to date history books. Whatever we are we are Brits and damn proud of it old chap! :D Now anything wrong in that?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Btw Dago do you have memory troubles ?
Well, I dont remember the previous posting, my life has been quite busy and this is a tiny part of it. I guess I am the first one to make a duplicate post.
But, I do remember you are French and as such deserve my sympathy.
dago:D
-
Not a citizen? That's odd because i'm a british citizen and also an EU citizen.
-
nope you guys are subject to will of GW Bush
-
Originally posted by storch
nope you guys are subject to will of GW Bush
:lol :rofl :lol :rofl :lol :aok
-
Originally posted by AKH
I bet we'll be out of Ireland before you are out of Iraq ;)
I bet your total time ruling Ireland while denying most of the Irish the ability to vote will greatly exceed the total time we spend in Iraq trying to give all of them the ability to vote. By a huge factor.
Not that I'd expect you folks to admit the difference.
It is laughable when you guys lecture on imperialism and colonialism. Sky's bit on the English ending slavery is a good example. Slave trading like rabbits mate until there was no money in it for you and then claiming you "ended" it as if you saw the evil of it. What the evil of not making money at it?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by storch
nope you guys are subject to will of GW Bush
(http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/image/s14.gif)
I see you're getting better at fishing... :)
-
so AKH... we have all these colonies in south and central america and east asia and the middle east and former soviet countries?
Can you name our colonies? Which ones bring in money and are under our rule? Allowing more freedom for a countries peoples is not the same as the british colonizing and enslaving it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
nope you guys are subject to will of GW Bush
Nowhere near as much as you are.
:rofl
-
nope. we hired him. we approve of all his actions. he's ruling your world and we rule his.
-
"oh yeah... that would be funny... finland and england attacking capitol hill..."
Well, at least the British can claim to have done it before.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"oh yeah... that would be funny... finland and england attacking capitol hill..."
Well, at least the British can claim to have done it before.
J_A_B
yes and we all know how that turned out :rolleyes: :cool: :D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes and we all know how that turned out :rolleyes: :cool: :D
We captured and burned it. Now what is your point, if any?
-
Originally posted by AKH
We captured and burned it. Now what is your point, if any?
scoot ahead in the history timeline.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
scoot ahead in the history timeline.
To when?
-
Originally posted by AKH
To when?
October 19, 1781 would do just fine for me.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by storch
to when we kicked your behinds so hard you returned to england wearing your bottom sides as hats circa 1815 iirc. be thankful we didn't ally with france or you would be eating croissants and napoleons now. er wait...... maybe we didn't do you any favors afterall.
Sure. That's why Canada is part of the USA, isn't it? Your primary aim was to remove Britain from the continent. You declared war. You attacked. You failed.
Status quo ante bellum doesn't imply an overwhelming victory as you do.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Your primary aim was to remove Britain from the continent. You declared war. You attacked. You failed.
I don't think we had a primary aim of removing Britain from the continent. From around 1776 on, our primary aim was to remove Britain from our new nation. YOU attacked , WE declared war, YOU lost. TWICE.
-
Originally posted by storch
you sir are a student of revisionist history. Oh btw nice hat, it suits you.
Please elaborate. Specifically, what exactly has been revised?
-
The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories were circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment being found on the field. By 1812 the westerners were convinced that their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada.
While the western "war hawks" urged war in the hope of conquering Canada, the people of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory entertained similar designs against Florida, a Spanish possession. The fact that Spain and England were allies against Napoleon presented the southern war hawks with an excuse for invading Florida. By this time, also, the balance of political power had shifted south and westward; ambitious party leaders had no choice but to align themselves with the war hawks, and 1812 was a Presidential election year.
President Madison's use of economic pressure to force England to repeal its blockade almost succeeded. The revival of the Non-Intercourse Act against Britain, prohibiting all trade with England and its colonies, coincided with a poor grain harvest in England and with a growing need of American provisions to supply the British troops fighting the French in Spain. As a result, on June 16, 1812, the British Foreign Minister announced that the blockade would be relaxed on American shipping. Had there been an Atlantic cable, war might have been averted. President Madison had sent a message to Congress on June 1 listing all the complaints against England and asking for a declaration of war. Dividing along sectional lines the House had voted for war on June 4, but the Senate approved only on June 18 and then by only six votes.
Revisionist or not?
-
Originally posted by storch
no you didn't, you couldn't have managed it without our help for the second time in a half century. we had to cross the puddle to once again save your hides. all well and good that we did. perhaps we should stay out of this coming fight and see how well you guys acquit yourselves without the help of your stronger and considerably wiser younger brother.
cuba sent troops to the eto?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I don't think we had a primary aim of removing Britain from the continent. From around 1776 on, our primary aim was to remove Britain from our new nation.
Well, you think wrong or this is a lie - take your pick.
The fundamental strategy was simple enough. The primary undertaking would be the conquest of Canada.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
YOU attacked , WE declared war, YOU lost. TWICE.
ONE LOSS, ONE DRAW, actually, but don't let HISTORICAL REALITY get in your way.
I hope the CAPS helped ;)
-
Historically, the UK has ended up being irrelevent.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Historically, the UK has ended up being irrelevent.
Historically, every imperial power has ended up being "irrelevent".
-
The main rub regarding the war of 1812 were two main issues.
1. the royal navy was interferring with American commerce on the high seas and pressing American merchant sailors into royal navy service.
2. blockading french ports and disallowing American ships to enter french ports.
after the miraculous allied defeat of napoleon in the northern french town of waterloo the english felt spunky and invaded the North American continent, we declared war and kicked their arse so as to make them wear them as hats, again.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Nice personal attack. It fits you.
Oh, the irony.
Hang on, let me rephrase that.
Oh, the irony :rolleyes: :cool: :D
-
Originally posted by storch
The main rub regarding the war of 1812 were two main issues.
1. the royal navy was interferring with American commerce on the high seas and pressing American merchant sailors into royal navy service.
2. blockading french ports and disallowing American ships to enter french ports.
...
Ad that from the end of the American Revolution, the United States had been irritated by the failure of the British to withdraw from American territory along the Great Lakes and their backing of the Indians on America's frontiers.
The Treaty of Ghent required the return of the sailors and other POW's, required that Great Britain withdraw from activities south of her Canadian colonies, defined the border, and required that HRH abolish alliances with Indian tribes in American territory.
-
1. To Great Britain the War of I8I2 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater struggle against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression. But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the war with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the nation to go to war.
2. The immediate origins of the war were seizure of American ships, insults and injuries to American seamen by the British Navy, and rapid expansion of the American frontier. The British outrages at sea took two distinct forms. One was the seizure and forced sale of merchant ships and their cargoes for allegedly violating the British blockade of Europe. Although France had declared a counterblockade of the British Isles and had seized American ships, England was the chief offender because its Navy had greater command of the seas. The second, more insulting, type of outrage was the capture of men from American vessels for forced service in the Royal Navy. The pretext for impressment was the search for deserters, who, the British claimed, had taken employment on American vessels.
source (http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/AMH/AMH-06.htm)
-
Originally posted by AKH
1. To Great Britain the War of I8I2 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater struggle against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression. But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the war with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the nation to go to war.
2. The immediate origins of the war were seizure of American ships, insults and injuries to American seamen by the British Navy, and rapid expansion of the American frontier. The British outrages at sea took two distinct forms. One was the seizure and forced sale of merchant ships and their cargoes for allegedly violating the British blockade of Europe. Although France had declared a counterblockade of the British Isles and had seized American ships, England was the chief offender because its Navy had greater command of the seas. The second, more insulting, type of outrage was the capture of men from American vessels for forced service in the Royal Navy. The pretext for impressment was the search for deserters, who, the British claimed, had taken employment on American vessels.
source (http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/AMH/AMH-06.htm)
gee, sounds alot like what some of us have been saying while doing it from memory without looking up sources. did I mention how much I admire your hat?
-
Another Eurobashing troll/US Chestbeating thread from Dago. And yet, mention something negative about the US and he adopts the "holier-than-thou" mantle and squeals like a piglet.
-
Originally posted by storch
gee, sounds alot like what some of us have been saying while doing it from memory without looking up sources. did I mention how much I admire your hat?
Well, of course, only a few "minor details" of difference, which obviously don't require any further discussion since we are now in full agreement :rolleyes:
Do you fish with dynamite on a regular basis?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Another Eurobashing troll/US Chestbeating thread from Dago. And yet, mention something negative about the US and he adopts the "holier-than-thou" mantle and squeals like a piglet.
Let me help you with that:
I think its another Eurobashing troll/US Chestbeating thread from Dago even though he made no comment. And yet, we bash the U.S. and he adopts the "holier-than-thou" mantle and squeals like a piglet.
-
so u brits still can't admit that your power model was a bad one that was doomed to failure? Have you noticed that your entire country can be walked across in a couple of days? We got texans with bigger ranch's
and... you drive on the wrong side of the road and talk funny too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Let me help you with that:
I think its another Eurobashing troll/US Chestbeating thread from Dago even though he made no comment. And yet, we bash the U.S. and he adopts the "holier-than-thou" mantle and squeals like a piglet.
Hey - let's test that theory:
rabbidrabbit - thy name is cowardice.
-
Royal Family? Which one is it again with the ugly hats?
Elton John.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by AKH
Hey - let's test that theory:
rabbidrabbit - thy name is cowardice.
Beyond a personal attack that will yet again get you moderated whats your point?
-
rabbidrabbit - he didn't need to make a comment. Just adding this to the board was enough.
:rolleyes:
-
Eureka!
:aok
-
He posted an article that stated a inflamatory title but backed it up with a legitimate series of observances that reinforce the title. Would you care to dispute the position instead of flaming it?
-
Chaps, Chaps. Settle down. I have in my hand a piece of paper personaly signed by Dago and signed by Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, garanteeing that there will be no hostilities between our nations for at least a few hours. War has been averted! God Save the Queen.
;) :lol :lol
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
He posted an article that stated a inflamatory title but backed it up with a legitimate series of observances that reinforce the title. Would you care to dispute the position instead of flaming it?
Not in dago's case, no.
Last year, I posted a thread entitled "Fat Americans cause plane crash" - find it here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134907). As you will see, it is a newspaper article, with no input from me except to say that the problem was worse than I thought.
And dago's indignant response was... The point of which is? Why did you feel you needed to start this thread? Why did you choose a rather insulting subject title?
Because you are a POS, a person with a sad physcological problem, stemming from an anger driven by envy and hate.
In this thread, the tables are turned, with Dago having posted a thread containing material which many will find to be insulting. Using Dago's own powers of reasoning, as used in MY thread, it seems reasonable to deduce that Dago is "a POS, a person with a sad physcological problem, stemming from an anger driven by envy and hate."
I hasten to add that this has not been dago's first eurobashing thread - the French, the British, the Germans and the Spanish have all been the butt of dago's "jokes".
In this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124392), it's the turn of the Phillipines to be insulted by dago.
While in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103312), it's two for the price of one with both the French and the Germans being called "a bunch of greedy tu*ds".
This is the one (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111578) in which he accuses Spain of a "loss of manhood". Its title (begun by Dago himself) was "Spain cowers, prostrates at the feet of Terrorists".
But... but... Dago once said to me Beetle, I will be happy to stay civil, as long as your refrain from posting negative threads about the USA, it's citizens or policies, even those thinly veiled with your supposed humor.
ROFL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Chaps, Chaps. Settle down. I have in my hand a piece of paper personaly signed by Dago and signed by Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, garanteeing that there will be no hostilities between our nations for at least a few hours. War has been averted! God Save the Queen.
;) :lol :lol
Peace in our time!!
-
Time to lock this thread. It's been successfully hijacked totally away from the original topic. WTG guys.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKH
I bet we'll be out of Ireland before you are out of Iraq ;)
you've got over a 100 years head start on us.:aok
-
Note also that he doesn't want to discuss the difference between British troops in Ireland for hundreds of years ensuring that the Catholics had no vote on Self Rule as opposed to US troops in Iraq for a few years ensuring that everyone gets a chance to vote on Self Rule.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In
this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124392), it's the turn of the Phillipines to be insulted by dago.
While in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103312), it's two for the price of one with both the French and the Germans being called "a bunch of greedy tu*ds".
This is the one (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111578) in which he accuses Spain of a "loss of manhood". Its title (begun by Dago himself) was "Spain cowers, prostrates at the feet of Terrorists".
But... but... Dago once said to me ROFL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
LMAO, Dago you impress me.:lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
Note also that he doesn't want to discuss the difference between British troops in Ireland for hundreds of years ensuring that the Catholics had no vote on Self Rule as opposed to US troops in Iraq for a few years ensuring that everyone gets a chance to vote on Self Rule.
Consider it as Angevin manifest destiny.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Consider it as Angevin manifest destiny.
not bad, not bad at all. against my better judgement I'm starting to like you.
-
The conquest, subjegation and (essentially) enslavement of Ireland may indeed have been "Angevin manifest destiny".
However, that merely highlights that when you finally get out of Ireland it will be after centuries of fighting to deny the voting rights of the Irish.
When we get out of Iraq, it will be after a few years of fighting to ensure the voting rights of the Iraqis.
-
My point is that we viewed the Irish as you viewed the Native American.
-
The Irish couldn't vote?
-
Oh, that was your point when you posted:
Originally posted by AKH
I bet we'll be out of Ireland before you are out of Iraq ;)
Thanks for clearing that up.
My point was that your reason for being in Ireland was quite a bit different than our reason for being in Iraq.
Come to think of it, your reason for being in India, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Uganda and some other places that are currently problematic on the world stage was quite a bit different than our reason for being in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Consider it as Angevin manifest destiny.
what mean Angevin in this context ?
I guess it's not someone living in Anjou ?
-
I believe he means Angevin as in Henry II.
-
Originally posted by AKH
My point is that we viewed the Irish as you viewed the Native American.
yes i got that immediately. quite a good answer. so are you saying the irish then?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I believe he means Angevin as in Henry II.
sorry ? it would be a "Plantagenêt" not a "Angevin"
-
I'm afraid you'd do better arguing with these kind folks:
Henry II, first of the Angevin kings (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon26.html)
-
Originally posted by Toad
when you finally get out of Ireland it will be after centuries of fighting to deny the voting rights of the Irish.
I don't think *we* are trying to deny voting rights to the Irish. I'm going to have to read up on Irish history! But - IIRC from school days, Ireland in the 19th century was 5% Protestant and 95% Catholic. The Protestants had the vast majority of wealth while the Catholics lived in penury - especially in 1845 when blighted by the potato famine. At some point, Ireland split in two - Northern Ireland (Ulster) and the Irish Republic (Eire). The Irish Republic is self governing, and is a separate EU member state. As such *we* are "not in Ireland", but have maintained a military presence in Ulster.
As for voting rights - In 1979, I was sharing a house with a few Irish nationals. One of them was a guy called Finbar! We had a general election that year and, IIRC, Finbar was eligible to vote not only in his home country, but also in the British general election.
If you get a chance, look out for the movie "Michael Collins" - Julia Roberts and Liam Neeson - all about the 1916 Irish Uprising. A good movie, worth a look.
-
Check out the Penal Laws, about 1690 and in effect until the Catholic Emancipation in 1829.
Basically the Penal Laws:
Forbid a Catholic from exercising his religion
Forbid the Catholic from receiving a Catholic education
Forbid the Catholic from entering a profession
Forbid the Catholic from holding Public Office
Forbid the Catholic from engaging in trade or commerce
Forbid the Catholic from living in a corporate town or within five miles of one
Forbid the Catholic from owning a horse worth more than 5 pounds
Forbid the Catholic from buying or leasing land
Forbid the Catholic from voting
Forbid the Catholic from receiving a gift or inheritance of land from a Protestant
Forbid the Catholic from renting any land that was worth more than thirty shillings
Forbid the Catholic from gaining any profit from his land over a third of the land's value
Forbid the Catholic from being the guardian of a child
Fined the Catholic for not attending Protestant services
Forbid the Catholic from sending their children abroad for an education
************
Just like what the US is doing to Muslims in Iraq, right?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm afraid you'd do better arguing with these kind folks:
Henry II, first of the Angevin kings (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon26.html)
A brittish Angevin king is a Plantagenêt by definition :)
It's just I think Angevin is too generic and can lead to confusion with the Capet-Anjou or René d'Anjou etc ...
But you need to know a bit more than Angland history to notice that :)
-
Well rgr that, but that has got bugger all to do with the British military presence in Ulster from 1969.
-
Well we are talking about military presence in Ireland in comparison with US military presence in Iraq. No starting or ending dates are specified for the comparison. I think you'll agree Britain has had troops in Ireland before 1969? Centuries before?
-
Originally posted by straffo
A brittish Angevin king is a Plantagenêt by definition :)
It's just I think Angevin is too generic and can lead to confusion with the Capet-Anjou or René d'Anjou etc ...
But you need to know a bit more than Angland history to notice that :)
You're just jealous because the King of England owned more French land than the Dauphin (the future King of Paris).
Now be good; or we'll throw another peasant girl on the fire......
-
Well it still true ,I think the queen of England still own more French land the "king" of France :)
()
-
Originally posted by straffo
Well it still true ,I think the queen of England still own more French land the "king" of France :)
()
heh
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well we are talking about military presence in Ireland in comparison with US military presence in Iraq. No starting or ending dates are specified for the comparison. I think you'll agree Britain has had troops in Ireland before 1969? Centuries before?
The two of us are stood at a bus stop, waiting to catch our respective buses. I turn to you and say "I bet my bus arrives before your bus".
Busses run to timetables, yet sometimes you wait a lot longer for your bus than you expected.
-
Yeah, your bus was a prison bus and it was very slow to leave.
Ours is a Freedom bus and no matter how late it leaves it'll be a joyous day for all.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, your bus was a prison bus and it was very slow to leave.
So tell me, how far is your Native American Genocide bus on its journey? At least we know what the fair will be - "one buck".
Ours is a Freedom bus and no matter how late it leaves it'll be a joyous day for all.
Doubly so for the Iraqis. Yep, no doubt about that one.
-
At least we don't deny we oppressed the Native Americans and stole their land. Of course, that's all familar to you, as the English started that bus rolling here first too. We merely replaced the English in the driver's seat after 1776.
Yep, doubly so for us and the Iraqis. Nice that both the US soldiers and citizens have the same goals as the Iraqis.
Unlike some other situations we've discussed, eh? At least the Iraqis know we didn't come to institute Penal Laws that would prevent them from holding office, voting, exercising their religion, eductaing their children in their religion and so on.
-
Originally posted by Toad
At least we don't deny we oppressed the Native Americans and stole their land. Of course, that's all familar to you, as the English started that bus rolling here first too. We merely replaced the English in the driver's seat after 1776.
The British deny that we oppressed the Irish? What an hilarious concept! When are you going to give the Native Americans 5/6 of their lands back?
And who created "Pimp My Ride"? Lets have some figures from you - Native American deaths at our hands as opposed to yours.
Yep, doubly so for us and the Iraqis. Nice that both the US soldiers and citizens have the same goals as the Iraqis.
Really? Where did you get this "fact"? Have you been on a recent field trip to the area? Do you have a source, or is it just a deep intuitive empathy that you have with the Iraqi people?
Unlike some other situations we've discussed, eh? At least the Iraqis know we didn't come to institute Penal Laws that would prevent them from holding office, voting, exercising their religion, eductaing their children in their religion and so on.
WTG on the score (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
-
Toad me thinks you might just be a little bit in danger of being a terrorist sympathiser. Call it a hunch but you got a bit of thing going about us terrible mean oppressive Brits, and the poor downtrodden Irish at the mo.
The poor downtrodden, terminaly divided backward looking murdering IRA, UDA, UDF whoever. Maybe you ought to let this one go before you realy offend someone!
-
Originally posted by AKH
The British deny that we oppressed the Irish? What an hilarious concept!
[/b]
You must have missed the last thread on it.
When are you going to give the Native Americans 5/6 of their lands back?
[/b]
I expect there will be reparations before too awfully long. I doubt we'll ever give it all back though.
Lets have some figures from you - Native American deaths at our hands as opposed to yours.
[/b]
I've been through the numbers before on this board. Do a search.
The Native American tribes within the boundaries of what is now the US suffered far more deaths attributable to Europeans between the arrival of the Europeans and the establishment of the United States than can be attributed to US citizens since the establishment of the Republic.
Where did you get this "fact"?
[/b]
Well I'd say the American people and our soldiers can't wait to leave Iraq. I'd also say the Iraqi people feel the same. Seems like a shared goal to me. Do you disagree?
-
Methinks you don't read what I post. I have no sympathy for the IRA or any other terrorist group.
OTOH, I'm not blind to US history......... or British history.
Face facts; you guys pretty much wrote the book on worldwide imperial colonialism. Generally speaking you didn't treat your colonial subjects with much respect during that period.
Your "dismount" left a lot to be desired as well. Many of trouble spots in today's world are a result of your initial colonialization, less than "politically correct" rule and then your hasty retreat from empire.
I've said before, many times, that I admire Brits. I have a lot of friends native to your island and I've visited many times. I get my Labradors there too.
But most of my friends are quite unlike the few Brits that populate this board. Most of them are aware of their colonial heritage, the abuses of that period and the continuing problems that resulted.
Just like most of my US friends admit that we treated the Native Americans quite poorly.
-
Read the article. I have to say I agree with most of it. I think Europe and Britain (and Canada) have been too lax with muslim extremists, in terms of enforcement and immigration. Al Queda recruiters operate openly in most European cities, with no real fear of reprisals, thinly disguised as religious groups, protected by the democracies they obviously hate.
You can also debate the war in Iraq all you want, for or against, but that wont get rid of the problem of muslim extremist terrorists. They will be around after the Iraq business is over and done with. They still seek to come back to power in Afghanistan, and to destabilise our allies in the middle east and elsewhere.
...wether the U.S. was kind to the Indians in the 1800s, or not...:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKH
Lets have some figures from you - Native American deaths at our hands as opposed to yours.
I appreciate your interest in Native American history and issues.
The vast majority of deaths of Native Americans were not due to the policy of the United States, but due to European disease, as the majority of the population decline happened well before independence.
The Spanish brought slaves used on the sugar plantation of the West Indies and with them came smallpox. In 1495, fifty to eighty percent of the native population of Santa Domingo and in 1515, two-thirds of Puerto Rico was wiped out by smallpox. Ten years after Cortez arrived in Mexico the native population had been reduced from twenty-five million to six million five hundred thousand. The most conservative estimates place the deaths from smallpox above sixty-five percent.
Smallpox reached what was to become the United States either from Canada or the West Indies. The first major outbreak of an infectious disease recorded on the northeastern Atlantic coast was 1616-19. The Massachusetts and other Algonquin tribes in the area were reduced from an estimated thirty thousand to three hundred. When the Pilgrims landed a year later in 1620, there were few Indians left to greet them.
By the end of the sixteen hundreds smallpox had spread up and down the eastern seaboard and as far west as the Great Lakes. There were approximately one million two hundred thousand Indians living north of the Rio Grande in the early sixteenth-century, but by 1907, there were less than four hundred thousand. In the journals of Lewis and Clark from the Mandan village to the headwaters of the Missouri, the Corp of Discovery saw only one native.
As for non-disease related deaths from Europeans, in response to an uprizing in 1622, a British colonist of Virginia said this:
"The proper response of the British against this 'viperous brood . . . of pagan infidels should be the same as that meted out by the Spanish: extermination." Sir Edward Waterhouse
1622 -- 150 years before independance.
-
The Spanish, French, British, American and Canadian response to the Natives was the same. We ignored them when they didnt bother us, we took what we wanted when it suited us, used them when it suited us (in our wars with each other), and when they opposed us militarily, we crushed them and put them on reserves. End of story.
-
One thing at least that the article and the general reaction to it proves is that there are equally delusional people on both side of the pond. Now, why would the new-right want to promote the irrational proposition that a relatively small number of extremists constitute a threat to our way of life of the same order as nazism or communism?
(http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/images/us_spending2.gif)
Why? I wonder....
-
Originally posted by Momus--
...the irrational proposition that a relatively small number of extremists constitute a threat...
no threat at all
(http://www.mirrors.org/historical/2001-09-11-World-Trade_Center/wtc/wtc_005.jpg)
Oh, sorry, you said on par with nazis and commies...
(did you know that more Americans died on 9/11/2001 than on 12/7/1941?)
-
Like I said, irrational.....
-
irrational: Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment:
"...the irrational proposition that a relatively small number of extremists constitute a threat... "
That a relatively small number of extremists have constituted a threat in the recent past is certainly a reason to suspect the possibility still exists, and therefore is totally rational.
-
Nice selective quoting. you missed this bit..twice..
of the same order as nazism or communism?
So, do you really think that a handful of extremists with a sunni revivalist agenda who have appropriated a few long standing middle-east grievances for their own political ends are really a threat to western civilization the equal of imperial japan, nazi germany or the warsaw pact at its height? If so, why? By what measure do you judge?
-
you are also forgeting that the American indians didn't have a country or land. Their idea of nation and country was....
The strongest tribe got to live on the land. We played by their rules. We were the strongest tribe and we took the land we wanted just as they did before us. Once we had the land we made the rules... the guy with the papers owned the land.
They never believed in ownership of land until we gave em the concept and the land.
I am speaking of the plains tribes. the euros had allready slaughtered the eastern tribes.
Also..I doubt that many of the victims of british imperialism could tell the difference in the brutal rule of their british masters from that of a modern sadam hussein.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Momus--
..... the irrational proposition that a relatively small number of extremists constitute a threat to our way of life of the same order as nazism or communism?
Ya I guess your right they are FEW in number :lol :rolleyes:
http://www.terrorism.com/index.php
Abdulaziz al-Muqrin Brigades
Other names: Lions of the Peninsula Brigades
Abu Bakr al-Seddiq Battalions
Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Other names: Fatah Revolutionary Council (FRC), Arab
Revolutionary Brigades (ARB), Black September (Organization - BSO), Black June Organization (BJO), and Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims (ROSM)
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
Other names: Al Harakat Al Islamiyya
African National Congress (ANC)
Other names: South African Native National Congress, Umkhonto We Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), MK
Ahmed Abu Reesh Brigades
Other names: Abu Rish Brigades, Martyr Ahmed Abu al Reesh Brigades
Ahyaul Turaz al-Islami
Akhil Bharat Nepali Ekta Samaj
Other names: ABNES
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Al Arabiya
Al Assirat al Moustaquim
Other names: The Righteous Path
Al Badr
Other names: al-Badhr, Al Badr Mujahidin
Al Barq
Other names: Jammu and Kashmir Freedom Force Kashmir Freedom Force
Al Gama’a al Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
Other names: Jamaat al-Islamiyya
Al Haramein Brigades
Other names: al Haramain Brigades
Al Ittihad al Islami (AIAI)
Other names: Islamic Union, al-Ittihad al-Islamiya, Ittihad Al Islamiya
Al Jama’a al Islamiyyah al Muqatilah bi Libya
Other names: Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Fighting Islamic Group, Libyan Fighting Group, Libyan Islamic Group
Al Jehad
Al Jehad Force
Other names: combines Muslim Janbaz Force and Kashmir Jehad Force
Al Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
Other names: Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Jihad Group, Islamic Jihad, Society of Struggle
Al Mansooran
Al Mujahid Force
Al Muqrin Brigade
Al Mustafa Liberation Fighters
Al Nasreen
Al Qa'nun
Al Qaeda in Lebanon
Other names: Tanzim [the organization of] al-Qaeda in Lebanon Ansar Tanzim al-Qaeda in Lebanon Qaidat al-Jihad in Lebanon
Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers
Other names: Al-Tawhid Tawhid wal-Jihad Jama’a Tawhid wal-Jihad (the Society of Tawhid and Jihad) Qaedat al-Jihad fi balad ar-Rafidayn (The base [Qaeda] of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers) Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia
Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula
Other names: Qaedat al-Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Holy Places Qaedat al-Jihad in the Land of the Haramain [Two Holy Places] The Fallujah Squadron (cell name) Al-Haramain Brigades (cell name) Al-Quds Brigade (cell name) The
Al Qaida
Other names: al Qaeda al Qadr "The Base" Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Shrines Islamic Sal
Al Sadr Militia
Al Umar Mujahideen
Other names: AuM Al-Umar-Mujahideen
Al-Jamaa wal Sunnah
Al-Muhajiroun
Al-Takfir Wal-Hijra
Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB)
Alfaro Lives, Damn It! (AVC)
All Tripura Tiger Forces
Allied Democratic Forces (ADF)
American Independence Group
Other names: AIG
Anarchic Attack Groups
Other names: Anarchists Attack Team
Anatolian Federated Islamic State
Andres Castro United Front (FUAC)
Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
Other names: ALF
Ansar al Islam
Ansar al Sunna
Other names: Ansar al-Sunna, (“Defenders of the Tradition,” “Supporters of the Tradition”) Jaish al-Ansar Jaish Ansar al-Sunna Army of al-Ansar Al-Ansar [Note: “al-Sunna” may also be written “as-Sunna”]
Ansar Al-Zawahri
Anti-Abortion Extremists
Other names: Army of God
Anti-Imperialist Territorial Nuclei (NTA)
Arab Commando Cell
Other names: Arab Revolutionary Cell Arab Fedayeen Cell
Arab Liberation Front
Arab Organization of 15 May
Arab Revolutionary Council
Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)
Other names: Since alliance with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), some attacks are attributed to RUF/AFRC.
Armed French Islamic Front
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Armed Revolutionary Left
Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA)
Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR)
Other names: Interahamwe, Former Armed Forces (ex-FAR)
Army of Ansar al-Sunna
Other names: ansar al sunna
Aryan Nations
Other names: Church of Jesus Christ Christian
Aryan Republican Army
Asbat al Ansar
Other names: Osbat al-Ansar The League of Ansar [Supporters] The Partisans’ League Jama’at al-Noor (an offshoot group of Asbat al-Ansar)
Asif Raza Commandoes
Aum Shinrikyo
Other names: Aum Shinrikyo (means "teaching the supreme truth" on the "powers of destruction and creation in the universe.") Aleph (“To Start Anew”) new name of group as of 2000 Aum Divine Wizard Association (name of organization prior to Aum Shinrikyo) Aum Supreme
AZF
Babbar Khalsa International
Balik-Islam
Other names: reverters, Balik Islam Group
Baluch People's Liberation Front (BPLF)
Baluch Students Organisation (BSO)
Baluch Students' Organistaion - Awami (BSO-A)
Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA)
Other names: Balochistan Liberation Army, Baloch Liberation Army, Baluch Liberation Army
Bandera Roja (Red Flag - GBR)
Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN)
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Other names: Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) Basque Homeland and Freedom
Bayat
Besi Merah Putih Militia
Beyyiat el-Imam
Black Bloc
Other names: Black Block
Black September
Breton Liberation Army (ARB)
Other names: Breton Resistance Army Breton Revolutionary Army
Brotherhood of al-Ma’unah
Other names: Al-Ma'unah Spiritual Brotherhood Al-Ma'unah
Caliphate State
Other names: Union of Islamic Communities, Anatolian Federative Islamic State
Cambodian Freedom Fighters (CFF)
Other names: Cholana Kangtoap Serei Cheat Kampouchea
Cameria Liberation Army (UCC)
Other names: Ushtria Climentare e Camerise, Liberation Army of Chameria
Carlos the Jackal
Other names: Carlos Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the Carlos Apparat, and Organization of the Armed Arab Sruggle (OAAS)
Casamance Movement of Democratic Forces
Chechen Rebels
Chukaku Ha
Other names: Nucleus or Middle-Core Faction
Cinchoneros Popular Liberation Movement (MPL)
Clara Elizabeth Ramirez Front (CERF)
Comando Jaramillista Morelense 23 de Mayo
Combatant Communist Cells (CCC)
Congolese Revolutionary Movement (MRC)
Congress of the Peoples of Ichkeria
Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)
Other names: Continuity Army Council Republican Sinn Fein
Crazy Gas Cannisters
Dal Khalsa
Dashmesh Regiment
Deendar Anjuman
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)
Other names: Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP)
Dhamat Houmet Daawa Salafia
Other names: Group Protectors of Salafist Preaching, Houmat Ed Daawa Es Salifiya, Katibat El Ahoual, Protectors of the Salafist Predication, El-Ahoual Battalion, Katibat El Ahouel, Houmate Ed-Daawa Es-Salafia, the Horror Squadron, Djamaat Houmat Eddawa Essalafia, Djam
Direct Action (AD)
Dukhtaran-E-Millat
Other names: DEM
-
Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
Other names: ELF
East Turkestan Islamic Movement
Other names: Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party, ETIM, ETIP
East Turkistan Information Center
Other names: ETIC
Eastern Turkistan Liberation Organization
Other names: ETLO
Enough is Enough in the Niger River
Enraged Anarchists
Fallen Angel
Falluja Squadron
Other names: Falluja Squadron in the Arabian Peninsula Al Falluja Squadron
Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)
Fatah
Other names: The Fatah used the name Black September Organization (BSO) from 1971 to 1974 and the cover name al-Asifa (The Storm) in 1965. In the 1980s, Force 17, the Hawari group, and security elements of the Fatah have been involved in terrorist operations. The name
Fatah – The Reformist Path
First of October Antifascist Resistance Group (GRAPO)
Force for the Defense of Democracy
Forces Democratiques de Liberation du Rwanda (FDLR)
Other names: Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR), Ex-FAR (Armed Forces of Rwanda), Interahamwe, Party for the Liberation of Rwanda (PALIR) • Political Wing
Forces for National Liberation (FNL)
Other names: Forces Nationales de Liberation
Free Aceh Movement
Other names: Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM) Aceh Merdeka Acheh Sumatra National Liberation Front (ASNLF) Aceh Security Disturbance Movement (GPK)
Free Papua Movement (OPM)
Other names: The Willem Onde Group is a splinter group of the OPM.
Front for the Liberation of Cabinda Enclave-Renewed (FLEC-Renewed)
Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave
Other names: Frente de Libertaco do Enclave de Cabinda (FLEC)
Gerakan Mujahadeen Islam Pattani (GMIP)
God's Army
God’s Brigade
Other names: Jund Allah
Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C)
Other names: Islamic Union Front Islamic Raid Eastern Union Front
Group of People’s Combatant (GCP)
Other names: GCP
Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG)
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Other names: HAMAS is an Arabic acronym for “Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya,” meaning Islamic Resistance Movement. However, the word “hamas” means “zeal” in Arabic.
Haqiqi Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM-H)
Other names: Spinter of the original Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM)
Harakat ul Jihad I Islami (HUJI) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
Harakat ul Jihad I Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
Harakat ul Mujahidin (HUM) (Movement of Holy Warriors)
Other names: Harkat-Ul-Mujahideen Harkat-Ul-Ansar Harkat-Ul-Jehad-E-Islami
Harkat ul Ansar
Other names: Formed by merger of Harkat ul-Jihad al-Islami and Harkat ul-Mujahedin Now known as Harkat ul-Mujahideen
Hezb e Islami
Hikmat-ul-Jihad
Hizb ul Mujahedin
Other names: Hizb-Ul-Mujahideen Hizb-Ul-Mujahideen Pir Panjal Regiment
Hizb ut-Tahrir - Western Europe
Other names: Hizb al-Tahrir, Hezb al-Tahrir, The Ideological Society
Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)
Hizballah (Party of God)
Other names: Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine
Hofstad Network
Holders of the Black Banner
Iduwini National Movement for Peace and Development
Other names: Iju-Warri
Ijaw Youth
Other names: Ijaw Youth Movement
Ikhwan ul Mujahideen
Imam al-Hassan al-Basri Brigades
Informal Anarchic Federation (FAI)
Insurgents, terrorists, militants in Iraq
International Sikh Youth Federation
Intigami Al-Pakistani
Iraultza
Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)
Irish Republican Army (IRA)
-
Other names: Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), the Provos (Now almost universally referred to as the PIRA to distinguish it from RIRA and CIRA.)
Islambouli Brigades of al Qaeda
Islami Inquilabi Mahaz
Islami Jamaat e Tulba
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites
Islamic Army in Iraq
Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)
Other names: Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (AAIA)
Islamic Brigades of Pride in Egypt
Islamic Defenders Front
Other names: Fron Pembela Islam, (FPI)
Islamic Front
Other names: Islamic Front (of Kashmir ?)
Islamic International Brigade
Other names: International Battalion, Islamic Peacekeeping International Brigade, Peacekeeping Battalion, The International Brigade, The Islamic Peacekeeping Army, The Islamic Peacekeeping Brigade
Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)
Islamic Jihad Group in Uzbekistan
Islamic Jihad Organization in Iraq
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
Other names: Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Renamed in 2002/03 to Islamic Party of Turkestan
Islamic Party of Turkestan
Other names: former Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Response
Islamic Students League
Italian Anarchist Black Cross
Jaish e Mohammed E Tanzeem(JEM)
Other names: Army of Mohammed Army of the Prophet, Mohammed Tahrik-E-Furqan
Jaish-e-Muslimeen
Jamaat al Islah al Ijtimai
Jamaat I Islami
Jamaat Shariat
Jamaat ul Fuqra (JF)
Other names: Jamaat ul-Fuqra (JF) or "community of the impoverished"
Jamaat ul Mujahideen
Jamiat ul Mujahideen (JUM)
Other names: JUM
Jammu & Kashmir National Liberation Army
Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front
Jammu and Kashmir Freedom Force
Other names: Kashmir Freedom Force JKFF
Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front
Janjaweed
Japanese Red Army (JRA)
Other names: Anti-Imperialist International Brigade (AIIB) Nippon Sekigun Nihon Sekigun
Japanese Red Army Faction (JRAF)
Other names: Sekigunha NOTE: Group was founded before, and is distinct from the Japanese Red Army (JRA). JRA was a splinter group formed in 1972 supporting efforts by the PFLP.
Jemaah Islamiya (JI)
Jenin Martyrs Brigade
Jund al-Sham -- Ein al-Hilweh
Other names: Organization of Soldiers of the Levant; Soldiers of Syria; Soldiers of Damascus; Soldiers of the Greater Syria
Jund al-Shem
Other names: (Spelling Variations): Jund al-Sham, Jund a-Shem, Jund ash-Shem, Jund a-Sham, Jund ash-Sham
Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
Other names: JEM
Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG)
Kahane Chai (Kach)
Kamtapur Liberation Organization
Other names: KLO
Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup
Other names: KYKL
Kangleipak Communist Party
Other names: KCP
Karbala Squadron
Other names: Karbala Brigade
Kashmir Jehad Force
Khalid Ibn al-Walid Brigade
Khalistan Commando Force
Khalistan Zindabad Force
Khan Younes
Other names: Khan Younis Militia
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
Other names: Ushtria Clirimtare E Kosoves (UCK)
Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM)
Kurdistan Freedom Falcons
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
Other names: KONGRA-GEL Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress (KADEK) Freedom and Democracy Congress of Kurdistan Kurdistan People's Congress (KHK) Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan People's Defense Force Halu Mesru Savunma Kuvveti (HSK) People's Congress of Kurd
Lashkar e Jabbar (LJ)
Lashkar e Jhangvi (LJ)
Lashkar e Tayyiba (LT)
Other names: Army of the Righteous Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) Army of the Pure Laskar-I-Taiba Lashkar-E-Taiba Pasban-E-Ahle Hadis
Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Faction (LARF)
Liberation Party
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Other names: World Tamil Association (WTA) World Tamil Movement (WTM) Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils (FACT) Ellalan Force
Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy
Other names: LURD
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Other names: Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya Libyan Fighting Group Libyan Islamic Group Fighting Islamic Group (FIG)
Lions of the Allah Brigade
Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)
Lorenzo Zelaya Popular Revolutionary Forces (FPR-LZ)
Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF)
Macheteros (Machete Wielders)
Mahaz e Azadi
Other names: Jammu and Kashmir Mahaz e Azadi
Manipur People’s Liberation Front
Other names: MPLF
Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front (FPMR)
Maoist Communist Center
Other names: Maoist Communist Centre (MCC)
Maoists
Other names: Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M); United People's Front (UPF), Maoist Rebels, Maoist Insurgents, Maoist Insurgency
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13)
Other names: MS-13, MS, Maras, mareros
Mara-18
Mavro Asteri (Black Star)
Mehdi Army
Other names: Imam Mehdi Army
MLKP-FEST
Mohammed’s Army (Iraq)
Other names: Jaish Mohammed
Mohammed’s Army (Sudan)
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
Other names: Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces (BIAF), MILF Special Operations Group (MILF-SOG)
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)
Other names: Moro Liberation Front (MLF)
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
Other names: Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain, GICM
Movement for the Freedom of Jerusalem
Movement for the Struggle of the Jordanian Islamic Resistance
Other names: Jordanian Islamic Resistance Movement Jordanian Islamic Resistance Movement for Holy Struggle Jordanian Islamic Resistance Movement for Jihad Jordanian Islamic Resistance Movement for Struggle Jordanian Islamic Resistance
Movement of the Revolutionary Left
Mujahedeen Kompak
Mujahedin e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
Other names: The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People’s Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), Muslim Iranian Student’s Society (front organization used to garner financial support)
Mujahideen Corps
Mujahideen in Kuwait
Muslim Army of the Taliban
Other names: Taliban Jamiat Jaish-e-Muslimeen
Muslim Brotherhood (BM)
Other names: Jamiat al-ikhwan al-Muslimun
Muslim Janbaz Force
Muslim Mujahideen
Mutahida Majlis e Amal (United Action Forum)
Muttahida Jehad Council (MJC)
Other names: 'United Jehad Council'
Muttahida Quomi Mahaz - MQM (A)
Other names: faction of Mohajir Quomi Movement (MQM)
Nadeem Commando (NC)
National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB)
Other names: Bodo Security Force (BdSF)
National Liberation Army (ELN)—Colombia
National Liberation Forces (FNL)
National Liberation Front of Corsica
Other names: FLNC, Front de Libération Nationale de la Corse Corsican Revolutionary Brigades The Army of National Release Corsica (ALNC)
National Liberation Front of Tripura
National Movement of the Land of Two Rivers
National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA)
Other names: Union Nacional Por La Independence Totale Do Angola
Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI)
Native Insurgent Army
Other names: Krajowa Armia Powstañcza
Neo-Nazi movement
New People’s Army (NPA)
Other names: Bagong Hukbong Bayan
New Red Brigades/Communist Combatant Party (BR/PCC)
Other names: Brigate Rosse/ Partito Comunista Combattente
-
Ogaden National Liberation Front
Orange Volunteers (OV)
Organization of the Armed Arab Struggle (OAAS)
Other names: Carlos Apparat
Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Other names: Front for the Liberation of Palestine (FLP)
Palestinian Hezbollah
Patriotic Committee for Venezuela
Patriot’s Council
Other names: Minnesota Patriot’s Council
Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO)
Other names: Caddan Army, PULO Army Command Council (MPTP), PULO 88
Pentagon Gang
People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD)
People's Liberation Army (PLA)
People's Revolutionary Militia (PRM)
People's War Group (PWG)
Other names: The Communist Party of India (Marxist Leninist) (People’s WAR) – CPI-ML (PW)
People’s League
People’s Liberation Army
Other names: PLA
People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak
Other names: Prepak
Popular Forces 25 April (FP-25)
Popular Front for Armed Resistance (PFAR)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command (PFLP-GC)
Popular Liberation Army (EPL)
Popular Palestinian Resistance Force
Popular Resistance Committee
Popular Struggle Front
Proletarian Combatant Groups (NPC)
Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA)
Other names: Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), the Provos (Now almost universally referred to as the PIRA to distinguish it from Real IRA and Continuity IRA.)
Purbo Banglar Communist Party (PBCP)
Rajah Solaiman Movement
Other names: RSM, linked to Balik-Islam
Rajneeshee Cult
Other names: Osho, Rajneeshism
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
Other names: Sangh (National Volunteer Corps), RSS
Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA)
Other names: True IRA
Red Army Faction (RAF)
Other names: Baader-Meinhof Group, Rote Armee Faktion
Red Brigades (BR)
Other names: Brigate Rosse
Red Hand Commando
Red Hand Defenders (RHD)
Return Party
Revenge of the Trees (ROTT)
Other names: ROTT
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Other names: FARC
Revolutionary Cells (RZ)
Revolutionary Nuclei
Other names: Revolutionary Cells
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)
Other names: November 17 N-17
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
Other names: Devrimci So, Revolutionary Left, Dev Sol
Revolutionary Perspective
Revolutionary Popular Struggle (ELA)
Other names: Epanastatikos Laikos Agonas; Popular Revolutionary Struggle; June 78; Organization of Revolutionary Internationalist Solidarity; Liberation Struggle; Revolutionary People's Solidarity, a splinter group was formed in 1998 called "Revolutionary Cells"; Peop
Revolutionary Proletarian Initiative Nuclei (NIPR)
Revolutionary Struggle
Revolutionary United Front (RUF)
Ricardo Franco Front (RFF)
Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM)
Other names: Riyadh-as-Saliheen, Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Shahids (Martyrs), Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion, the Sabotage and Military Surveillance Group of the Riyadh al-Salihin Martyrs
Sa'iqa
Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
Other names: Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC)
Salifiya Jihadiya
Other names: Salafiya Jihadiya Salafiya Jihadia
Saraya al-Mujahideen
Save Kashmir Movement
Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe
Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path, or SL)
Other names: Shining Path, Sendero Luminoso, Communist Party of Peru for the Shining Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui
Sikh Extremists
Sipah e Mohammed Pakistan (SMP)
Other names: Army of Muhammad
Sipah I Sahaba/Pakistan
Other names: Sipah e Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba Millat-e-Islamia Pakistan
Special Purpose Islamic Regiment
Other names: Islamic Regiment of Special Meaning, the al-Jihad-Fisi-Sabililah Special Islamic Regiment, the Islamic Special Purpose Regiment
Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR)
Students Islamic Movement of India
Sudan Liberation Movement and Army (SLM)
Other names: SLM
Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA)
Other names: Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement
Suicide Brigades of Andalucía
Support to Ocalan--The Hawks of Thrace
Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)
Taliban
Other names: Taleban, Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement
Tamil Nadu Liberation Army
Other names: TNLA
Tamil National Retrieval Troops
Other names: TNRT
Tawhid and Jihad
Other names: Al-Tawhid Tawhid wal-Jihad Jama’a Tawhid wal-Jihad (the Society of Tawhid and Jihad) Qaedat al-Jihad fi balad ar-Rafidayn (The base [Qaeda] of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers) Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia
Tehreek e Jaferia Pakistan (TJP)
Other names: Tehrik Jaferia Pakistan Tehreek Nifaz Fiqah-e-Jafria (TNFJ) Islami Tehrik Pakistan (ITP) Tehrik-e-Islami Pakistan Tehreek-e-Fiqa Jafria of Allama Sajid Naqvi
Tehreek e Nafaz e Shariat e Mohammadi (TNSM)
Other names: 'Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws'
Tehrik e Hurriat e Kashmir
Tehrik e Jehad
Tehrik e Jehad e Islami
Tehrik e Nifaz e Fiqar Jafaria
Tehrik i Jihad
Tehrik ul Mujahideen
The Committee for the Security of the Roads
The Corsican People’s Army (APC)
The Martyr Abdullah Azzam Brigades of the Al-Qaeda Organization
Other names: The Martyr Abdullah Azzam Brigades of the al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of Shem and the Land of Canaan.
Tunisian Combat Group
Other names: Groupe Combattant Tunisien (GCT), Jama'a Combattante Tunisien (JCT); Tunisian Combatant Group
Tunisian Combatant Group (TCG)
Tunisian Islamic Front
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)
Turkish Hizballah
Ulster Defense Association/Ulster Volunteer Force (UDA/UVF)
Other names: Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)
Unified Forces of Caucasian Mujaheddin
Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC)
United Liberation Front of Assam
Other names: Ulfa
United Movement of Liberia (ULIMO)
Other names: United Liberation Front for Democracy in Liberia ULIMO-J (Gen. Roosevelt Johnson - ethnic Krahns) ULIMO-K (Section Kromah - ethnic Mandingos) LURD
United National Liberation Front
Other names: UNLF
United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia (AUC–Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia)
Other names: AUC
United Tajik Opposition
Vigorous Burmese Student Warriors
Willem Onde Group
Other names: a splinter group of the Free Papua Movement (OPM)
World Church of the Creator
Other names: The Creativity Movement
World Uighur Youth Congress
Yarmuk
Zapatistas
-
Good work JBA. You can cut and paste a wall of text irrespective of context, did you even read it before posting?
Please read the original article that Dago (re)posted. It pertains to revivalist Sunni islam and makes a series of arguments about it's often violent relationship with the west. Now, in that wall of text you posted there are maybe half a dozen to a dozen organisations out several hundred listed that currently fit that description, as I said, a relative few, espcecially when you consider that some are splinter groups and some are the same organisations under different names.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Your "dismount" left a lot to be desired as well. Many of trouble spots in today's world are a result of your initial colonialization, less than "politically correct" rule and then your hasty retreat from empire.
current trouble spots being iraq and iran?
considering it was a cia coup that installed the baathists a minority party into power in iraq and a cia coup that overthrew the iranian democracy and then subsequent support of a dictatorship for nearly three decades.
maybe you were referring to south american.
the one thing america learned from the brits, it was more cost effective to colonize govn'ts rather than geography to subvert basic human rights to aquire resource.
-
No, you must have missed the references to continual problem areas in the world.
The Balfour Declaration/Palestine, Somalia, Uganda, the India/Pakistan Kashmir nuke showdown, the odd border lines of Iraq waved a wand and put Kurds, Sunnis and Shia into one country (bit of a problem still), Afhganistan, Zimbabwe...
But dont' take my word for it:
The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain's imperial past for many of the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Kashmir dispute.
"A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now - I have to deal with now - are a consequence of our colonial past," he said.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Toad me thinks you might just be a little bit in danger of being a terrorist sympathiser.
ROFL! That's the funniest (and most ridiculous) thing I've read on this board in months. :lol
Originally posted by Toad
Ours is a Freedom bus and no matter how late it leaves it'll be a joyous day for all.
Hmmm. I used to think the same thing - that *we* (being the occupying forces in Iraq) would have the indigenous population of Iraq wanting to carry us shoulder high through the streets of Baghdad in recognition of our gift of democracy; that there would be a sea of happy, smiling Iraqi faces. It happened, for a time, before things started getting ugly again.
The thing is - I don't think it's possible to judge an Arabian society using a yardstick based on western values. Sure, *we* enjoy our democracy, being able to vote, freedom of speech etc. But I don't think we can simply presuppose that these are rights that an Arabian society necessarily wants. The Arab mind is quite different from the western mind. I am reminded of certain small African tribes who were quite happy to worship their little tin god - until the Christian Missionaries arrived, and decided to "liberate" the tribespeople from their "erroneous beliefs" in the tin god they had created, and to force them to worship the Christian god. They might also have thought they were doing the tribespeople a favour by telling them that there was only one proper way to "do it". Hence, this method of "doing it" became known as the "Missionary position". The missionaries probably thought they were doing the tribespeople a huge service in meting out this advice. I'm not so sure. I'd like to have heard what the tribespeople had to say about it. Same thing goes for the Iraqis in post war Iraq.
As for how Britain treated the indigenous peoples of its colonies, I think the answer is: probably a damn sight better than the treatment they are now receiving in the days since declaring independence. Let's consider Zimbabwe. I believe that the African state of southern Rhodesia was founded c1924. There were many whites who would live there, and the standard of living was very high, with low taxation because there was no social underclass (benefits claimants) leeching off the economy, unlike modern day Britain. Life was good for the blacks too, as they were able to find work on white owned farms, or in service. The problem was that the PM, Ian Smith, maintained a society in which the blacks continued to be uneducated. UDI was declared in 1965, and the father of a certain Rhodesian family that I know took the view that all the other African states that had gone independent had gone down the tubes and, being a German Jew and a refugee from Nazi Germany, had all his children naturalised as Germans, so that they would have passports to leave Rhodesia when the time came. Sure enough, southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) went down the tubes - not surprising when the president is a criminal. From a once prosperous nation, Zimbabwe has become an impoverished state with half its population at risk of starvation. Black families who had the temerity not to support Zanu-PF at the elections have been bulldozed out of their homes; in some cases before they'd had time to leave.
I rather think the status quo was much more palatable under British rule - for blacks and whites alike.
-
"They might also have thought they were doing the tribespeople a favour by telling them that there was only one proper way to "do it". Hence, this method of "doing it" became known as the "Missionary position". The missionaries probably thought they were doing the tribespeople a huge service in meting out this advice. I'm not so sure. I'd like to have heard what the tribespeople had to say about it. Same thing goes for the Iraqis in post war Iraq.
"
So your saying the Iraqis are sexually frustrated?
-
An article on one of my favorite blogs covers this subject from a POV of the current election campaign.
David's Medienkritk (http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blind Pacifism Prevails in Germany: Merkel's CDU Caves on Iran
(By Ray D.)
There was only so much the CDU could do. The party was stuck between a rock and a hard place. When Gerhard Schroeder decided to make peace-at-all-costs a campaign issue for the second election in a row, he knew he was putting his political opponents under enormous pressure. To understand why, one need only rewind to the last national election. In 2002, Schroeder pulled off a come-from-behind victory by mercilessly playing on the pacifist fears of the German people on Iraq. And the tactic worked brilliantly, particularly in eastern Germany, where Schroeder made enormous gains at the expense of the Communist PDS party.
Now its election time again. And the "peace Chancellor" is hoping the same emphasis on foreign policy will carry his party back to power. This time it's Iran. After President George W. Bush commented this past week that he would not rule out military force as a last option in confronting Iran over its nuclear program, Schroeder quickly seized the opportunity by declaring that he was for "taking military options from the table," a position enormously popular with German voters. That left Angela Merkel's CDU (Christian Democrats) with a difficult choice: Either reject Schroeder's position on principle and incur massive electoral losses (as they did in 2002) at a time when the party is stumbling and struggling to hold its majority, or cave on the issue and assume a pacifist position to neutralize Schroeder's ability to exploit it.
It now appears that the CDU has adopted Schroeder's position, thereby abandoning its earlier ideals and diminishing its commitment to a strong transatlantic partnership. But at the same time, it is a position forced on them by the shameless, populist exploitation of the issue by Schroeder. Above all, it is a position forced on the CDU by the majority of the German electorate which has long been staunchly pacifist and would severely punish the party were it to decide differently. Considering Germany's history over the past century, the nation's knee-jerk pacifism is hardly surprising. But it also makes it difficult for Germany to play a leading, responsible role in world affairs and leaves the country looking like a geopolitical lightweight. The mullahs in Iran would certainly be delighted if all the world's nations adopted such a dangerously naive "negotiations only" approach to its nuclear program.
So what does this all mean? It means that whoever wins the election and whatever constellation emerges in the next German government, it will be extremely difficult for Germany's next set of leaders to stand firmly beside the United States when future international conflicts arise. Now that both major parties have adopted a diplomacy-only approach to Iran, it will be difficult to find common ground with the United States should the Iranians decide to push the matter. And the new German position of peace-at-all-costs certainly emboldens Persia's Mullahs to do just that.
-
This just in, political parties decide to base policy on public opinion, more at our next bulletin..
-
Don't read too deeply into it Beet.
All I said was I think we'll be happy to leave as soon as we can and they'll be happy to see us go. Mutual happiness.
As for paternal colonialism... I just have to laugh. Yes, you folks were fine masters. Amazing there was ever any effort for independence in any of your colonies.
Wonder what would have happened to Rhodesia if it had just been left alone to evolve in its own way at its own pace from the beginning instead of being benevolently colonized.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Wonder what would have happened to Rhodesia if it had just been left alone to evolve in its own way at its own pace from the beginning instead of being benevolently colonized.
billy jeff never would have become a rhodes scholar. :D
-
Mr. Toad,
From 1890-1923, the land was administered by the British South Africa Company. Instrumental in bringing European pioneers to the area was the 19th century British imperialist and financier, Cecil John Rhodes, whose British South African Company (BSACo) was later given prospecting and mining rights by the Matabele king, Lobengula.
Source: http://www.z6.com/z6files/z6files/fotw/flags/zw-hist.html#his
As you can see, Rhodesia was named after its founder, the British financier Cecil John Rhodes.
So in answer to your question - Originally posted by Toad
Wonder what would have happened to Rhodesia if it had just been left alone to evolve in its own way at its own pace from the beginning instead of being benevolently colonized.
the answer is that Rhodesia would not have existed at all.
I never said that the British had an impeccable record of "colony management", but it seems clear to me that the people of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, were much better off than they are now - blacks as well as whites.
-
Originally posted by Toad
At least we don't deny we oppressed the Native Americans and stole their land. Of course, that's all familar to you, as the English started that bus rolling here first too. We merely replaced the English in the driver's seat after 1776.
Good point.
But then you don't give us; the present generation of Brits, any credit for taking up our share of the white man's burden (and perhaps more than our share, we're well aware of our causative role); and doing what little we can to sort out our Grandfather's mistakes.
Greatest Generation? Yeah riiiight; look at the mess they left behind 'em.
You're spilling your blood (and ours) trying to "free" the Iraqui's; we've been spilling our blood _protecting Catholic_ Irishmen from _Loyalist_ Protestant Irishmen. And spilling it on mainly Soviet weaponry financed by Americans.
Why the hell would we do that? Where's the colonial self interest?
How is it you guys can so proudly joke "It'll happen our way or we'll nuke 'em" and "you're just sucking on our teat; we is yo' Daddy" and then complain when much of the world whines "You're in charge; it's your fault!".
Either live up to your Imperial responsibilities or get off the pot.....
(Tips cap; goes back to the plantation; I've a few Irish serfs to whip)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
This just in, political parties decide to base policy on public opinion, more at our next bulletin..
more like some people were capable of self-delusion and hypocrisy to a level seldom attained except among the very religious.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You must have missed the last thread on it.
Yes I missed it. Some British may deny that we oppressed the Irish people. Many others do not. I'm in the second group.
I've been through the numbers before on this board. Do a search.
The Native American tribes within the boundaries of what is now the US suffered far more deaths attributable to Europeans between the arrival of the Europeans and the establishment of the United States than can be attributed to US citizens since the establishment of the Republic.
Wouldn't most deaths of Native Americans from Old World diseases be attributable to the Europeans?
Having said that, my use of the term genocide was incorrect and inflammatory. My apologies.
Well I'd say the American people and our soldiers can't wait to leave Iraq. I'd also say the Iraqi people feel the same. Seems like a shared goal to me. Do you disagree?
Not at all. However, you originally said that they have the same goals, which implies something other than a single common goal.
-
Somalia?
After the war, the British gradually relaxed military control of Somalia, and attempted to introduce democracy, and numerous native Somalian political parties sprang into existence, the first being the Somali Youth League (SYL) in 1945. The Potsdam conference was unsure of what to do with Somalia, whether to allow Britain to continue its occupation, to return control to the Italians, who actually had a significant amount of people living there, or grant full independence. This question was hotly debated in the Somalian political scene for the next several years. Many wanted outright independence, especially the rural citizens in the west and north. Southerners enjoyed the economic prosperity brought by the Italians, and preferred their leadership. A smaller faction appreciated Britain's honest attempt to maintain order the second time around, and gave their respect.
In 1948 a commission led by representatives of the victorious Allied nations wanted to decide the Somalian question once and for all. They made one particular decision, granting Ogaden to Ethiopia, which would spark war decades later. After months of vaciliations and eventually turning the debate over to the United Nations, in 1949 it was decided that in recognition of its genuine economic improvements to the country, Italy would retain a nominal trusteeship of Somalia for the next 10 years, after which it would gain full independence. The SYL, Somalia's first and most powerful party, strongly opposed this decision, preferring immediate independence, and would become a source of unrest in the coming years.
Despite the SYL's misgivings the 1950s were something of a golden age for Somalia. With UN aid money pouring in, and experienced Italian administrators who had come to see Somalia as their home, infrastructural and educational development bloomed. This decade passed relatively without incident and was marked by positive growth in virtually all parts of Somali life. As scheduled, in 1959, Somalia was granted independence, and power transferred smoothly from the Italian administrators to the by then well developed Somali political culture.
-
As a fellow comrade of the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, I must congratulate AKH on his reponses here.
Toad, your anachronistic analysis of the British treatment of Ireland continues unabated I see. I assume your qualified condemnation of the IRA does also.
Oppression of Catholics in Britain has to be put into context. When England was a fledgling Protestant State, it was surrounded by Papal enemies. Until France was completely beaten in the early 1800s, there was always a risk that England as a Protestant state would be assimilated by France and Spain and come under the influence of the Vatican. Power was completely removed from anyone who could attack from within. It was oppression and it was a mistake; anyone with a modicum of sense will realise that.
The view from the saddle must be pretty spectacular, Toad. We all know America has no 'secret history' and not a blemish on its moral record...
Some of us have the moral fibre to recognise our country's failings and historical wrongs... others just excuse them and call it patriotism.
-
Uganda?
Britain granted internal self-government to Uganda in 1961, with the first elections held on March 1, 1961. Benedicto Kiwanuka of the Democratic Party became the first Chief Minister. Uganda maintained its Commonwealth membership.
In succeeding years, supporters of a centralized state vied with those in favor of a loose federation and a strong role for tribally-based local kingdoms. Political maneuvering climaxed in February 1966, when Prime Minister Milton Obote suspended the constitution, assumed all government powers, and removed the president and vice president. In September 1967, a new constitution proclaimed Uganda a republic, gave the president even greater powers, and abolished the traditional kingdoms.
...
1971 saw Idi Amin take power, ruling the country with the military for the coming decade.
-
Somalia? Yes.
The British opportunity came when Egyptian forces, having occupied much of the region in the 1870s, withdrew in 1884 to fight the Mahdi in Sudan. British penetration led to a series of agreements (1884–86) with local tribal leaders and, in 1887, to the establishment of a protectorate. France first acquired a foothold in the area in the 1860s. An Anglo-French agreement of 1888 defined the boundary between the Somalian possessions of the two countries.
Uganda? Yes.
The Imperial East Africa Company annexed the share of East Africa allocated to it by Britain in 1888. The company signed a treaty with the kingdom of Buganda in 1890. With the demise of the company, Buganda became a Crown protectorate in 1894. Other protectorates were established in 1896 and the colony of Uganda was created in 1905. Uganda became independent in 1962.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Nice selective quoting. you missed this bit..twice..
Go back and look... I did not miss it.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
But then you don't give us; the present generation of Brits, any credit for taking up our share of the white man's burden (and perhaps more than our share, we're well aware of our causative role); and doing what little we can to sort out our Grandfather's mistakes.
[/b]
In fact, I don't believe I've said anything about the present generation of Brits at all wrt to sorting out your "Grandfather's mistakes".
All I've done is point out that many of the world's troubles in some spots are directly linkable to British Imperialism. That's it.
I understand there was a worldwide "colonial period" and that it was the "in" thing to do then.
Nonetheless, the results have been problematic at best.
You're spilling your blood (and ours) trying to "free" the Iraqui's; we've been spilling our blood _protecting Catholic_ Irishmen from _Loyalist_ Protestant Irishmen. And spilling it on mainly Soviet weaponry financed by Americans.
Why the hell would we do that? Where's the colonial self interest?
[/b]
I don't deny some Americans gave money to the IRA. I never did, never would. I'm glad the US government finally acted on it.
I sort of understand it though. There's an awful lot of Irish Americans and the "family histories" are not kind when memories of what was lost and treatment received are retold. There's plenty of hard feeling towards the English in some Irish American circles. Again, though, for those who are challenged: I don't support the IRA, I never did and I think Americans who did were wrong to do so.
Now, why would you protect Catholics in N.I.? Perhaps because if you allowed the N.I. Prods to keep killing N.I. Catholics there'd have been a much larger problem with the IRA because of much more support in the Republic of Ireland? Because it might finally have led to war or something close to it with the Republic of Ireland?
In other words, how long would the rest of the Irish have put up with the N.I. Prods killing Catholics if you'd have done nothing?
(Tips cap; goes back to the plantation; I've a few Irish serfs to whip)
Best have some British Infantry with you I think. ;)
In London one day, as I walked down the street,
A quarrelsome fellow I happened to meet,
And, lookin' me over, he gave me some jaw,
Sayin', "What brings ye over from Erin-Go-Bragh?"
Well, the big blackthorn stick that I held in me fist
Around his big body I gave it a twist,
And I silenced his mouth with a blow to the jaw,
And I showed him the game played in Erin-Go-Bragh.
Well, they are all gathered round like a pack of wild geese.
"So here's our old Paddy disturbin' the peace.
We'll lock him in prison for breakin' the law,
This quarrelsome ruffi'n from Erin-Go-Bragh."
"The devil you'll get me, you pack of shelawns,
For here comes Mike Brophy from valley Natlong,
And me mother's first cousin, McQuay from Fort Law,
And big Paddy Kelly from Erin-Go-Bragh."
Well, the lickin' we gave 'em was delightful to see,
And, oh, how we waved our shillelaghs with glee,
As we lathered them well and we laughed at them long,
And we showed 'em the game played in Erin-Go-Bragh,
And we showed 'em the game played in Erin-Go-Bragh."
(Tips cap, wishes you luck whipping the serfs)
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Somalia? Yes.
Uganda? Yes.
Dismounts. How should we have done it?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Toad, your anachronistic analysis of the British treatment of Ireland continues unabated I see.
[/b]
There are a lot of anachronistic things that continued unabated during the British occupation of Ireland. :)
Originally posted by Dowding
I assume your qualified condemnation of the IRA does also.
[/b]
You assume a lot of things. You know where that leads, don't you?
Please post any quote you can find showing me "qualifying" a condemnation of the IRA.
Oppression of Catholics in Britain has to be put into context.
[/b]
Of course! Putting it in "context" makes it right!
How's this for context: It wasn't until 1829 the Catholic Emancipation Act was put through parliament.
From 1727 until 1793, Catholics could not vote.
From 1793 to 1829, all who met the forty-shilling qualification, Catholic and Protestant, were entitled to vote.
The Catholic emancipation in 1829 came with a catch; the basic qualification for voting was raised to ten pounds. The electorate in Ireland, roughly 200,000, fell by 80%.
Legislation in 1884 created a uniform qualification to vote that was everywhere the same and included most adult males.
1884! You mentioned "anacrhonistic"?
The view from the saddle must be pretty spectacular, Toad. We all know America has no 'secret history' and not a blemish on its moral record...
[/b]
Attack me if it makes you feel better, Dowding. Attack the messenger, not the message.
See anywhere in either thread that I've said the US doesn't have some pretty sorry parts in it's historical record? No, I didn't think you did. Don't blame you for trying to change the subject though.
Some of us have the moral fibre to recognise our country's failings and historical wrongs... others just excuse them and call it patriotism.
Yep. We have both types in the US and you have both types in Great Britain.
Which type are you?
-
Originally posted by AKH
Dismounts. How should we have done it?
Easiest way to get down from riding a tiger is ...........
............. never ride a tiger.
How should you have done it? Specifics for each problem country?
It'd take more research and writing than I'm prepared to do.
In general though, I'd say it should have been started far earlier (of course imperialism was probably still too profitable to give up when it should have been done), done a lot more slowly (the rush out of India as an example) and done with more consideration of how things were before the British took up the white man's burden in those lands (the drawing of the map boundaries of Iraq perhaps?).
It's always very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Easiest way to get down from riding a tiger is ...........
............. never ride a tiger.
How should you have done it? Specifics for each problem country?
It'd take more research and writing than I'm prepared to do.
In general though, I'd say it should have been started far earlier (of course imperialism was probably still too profitable to give up when it should have been done), done a lot more slowly (the rush out of India as an example) and done with more consideration of how things were before the British took up the white man's burden in those lands (the drawing of the map boundaries of Iraq perhaps?).
It's always very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, isn't it?
Grabbing a tiger by the tail has similar results to riding one. I'd have thought you would have realised that after Vietnam.
So I put it to you: How long will you be in Iraq before you are confident that freedom and democracy can survive longer than in Somalia and Uganda?
Its very easy to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. On the other hand, it is impossible to resurrect the dead.
-
Yep. Those Saddam killed will never be resurrected.
How long? I don't know. No one does. The merging of the the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia into one country ensured problems, don't you think?
As one history of Iraq states:
The current borders of Iraq and most Middle Eastern nations, such as Syria and Palestine/Israel, were drawn by the conquering Europeans, often with little regard to the preferences of the people who were to live in these newly created nations.
I guessed Afghanistan at about 5 years. I think we'll be pretty much out of there in something close to that. There may still be bases and support units (we're building them a huge hospital right now; I here we'll man it for them until the get enough medical personnnel trained), but we'll be essentially out in around that time I think.
Iraq? Probably longer now because of the Iranian nuke situation. Earlier I'd have said about 5 -7 years. Now I have this feeling we're going to try for a major military presence due to Iran.
I'm just speculating though.
How long do you think? How long will the Brits stay?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Clearly the man is a war mongering idiot! [/B]
.....or possibly one that has the guts to point out that he is sick and tired of the "head in the sand" attitude by the incense and peppermint Local 101 Soap Droppers Society. :)
Your time would be better spent on proving Toad to be a terrorist "sympathiser". :)
Such as this gem.
Toad me thinks you might just be a little bit in danger of being a terrorist sympathiser.
At least that line, I`m sure, got a giggle from the large majority who read it, simply due to the complete lack of comprehension of what he is stating.
That and it being a rerun of an earlier attempt with the same lack of understanding.