Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Britain has invaded 9/10 countries

Options
1…567810

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The rebels managed to kill their fair share of civilians as well did they not? which is why people lined up to spit on them as they were marched off to prison.

    and then of course, there's the civil war......

    Perhaps a small number, the vast majority of civilians were killed by British artillery and shot at in massacres. Thats criminal behaviour and yet again they got away with it, surprise surprise!


  • Options
    #273
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    you've already made the assumption that we are all Unionists...

    Are you or are you not in agreement with at least the sentiment of my post.

    Would you prefer that I said "Non-specific Political and value orientation Vs Non-specific Political and value orientation". I assume even this qualification could be used when referring to describe certain Democrats and Republicans, but it only serves pedantry when I'm trying to make a short and concise point.


  • Options
    #274
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    gurramok wrote: »
    Treated as crims, thats a new one! There were alleged instances of anger at our founding fathers. Shelling a historic building by the British was a criminal act, as you know shelling (at that time) from a distance away was indiscriminate, kills anybody in the area nevermind in the GPO itself.

    How was the GPO an historic building in 1916 given that it only opened in 1818?


  • Options
    #275
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Sound of Silence wrote: »

    Are you or are you not in agreement with at least the sentiment of my post.

    Would you prefer that I said "Non-specific Political and value orientation Vs Non-specific Political and value orientation". I assume even this qualification could be used when referring to describe certain Democrats and Republicans, but it only serves pedantry when I'm trying to make a short and concise point.

    I must remember that Sarcasm doesn't work on t 'internet:-D


  • Options
    #276
    Spread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Spread


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229576/Did-Britains-Commando-heroes-die-vain-Their-daring-raids-drove-Hitler-order-shot-sight-new-book-argues-soldiers-died-hundreds-did-little-change-course-war.html

    Could we have your thoughts Fred?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Spread wrote: »
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229576/Did-Britains-Commando-heroes-die-vain-Their-daring-raids-drove-Hitler-order-shot-sight-new-book-argues-soldiers-died-hundreds-did-little-change-course-war.html

    Could we have your thoughts Fred?

    You're a troll

    Not what you're looking for?


  • Options
    #278
    LincolnsBeard
    Registered Users Posts: 218 ✭✭LincolnsBeard


    Spread wrote: »
    In your utopian world ........ peoples of invaded lands should revere their invaders and revel in the atrocities imposed on them by the opressors. Do you realise that there are only 22 countries in the world that Britain hasn't invaded. Presumably all were invaded for altruistic purposes?

    Many of my ancestors are from Ireland. Most of them came to London after the famine (or so I assume based on the period they were alive).

    You are using a 21st century mind set to evaluate the British Empire. THE 18th to 20th century is not the same period that we live in today.

    Every European nation was trying to build empires. Ireland would have done the same had they not been a part of the British Empire.

    Even a country like the US that was founded on the natural rights of man had no problem cleansing the Natives and engaging in the slave trade.
    Spread wrote: »
    Regarding the embarrassment jibe? I think Britain is now a laughing stock - still clinging to the past. Football, cricket, athletics, manufacturing, the Royal Family, the race divides in the cities, the left behinds in the North Country and the oil that only benefitted the corporations. You see, ye have a lot to be proud of!

    Now you have simply expressed your hate.

    In what way is Britain still clinging to the past? If anything Britain is a forward thinking country that does a good job of looking to the future.

    For the record, football is the world's most popular sport. I'm not sure what's embarrassing about that? England invented a sport that is played in every corner of the world. When England doesn't win the world cup, it's because there's great competition around the world competing.

    Not sure why cricket is embarrassing either? It's played in many of the former colonies of the British Empire. It's the most popular sport in India, which has a billion plus people and will become one of the world's super powers this century.

    I'm not a fan of the Royal Family but they are a great tourist attraction.

    As a white person, I can go through any area of Britain and not worry about being attacked BECAUSE of the colour of my skin. Can the same be said about the country you live in? Most people in Britain get along just fine.

    Cheer up, Sleepy Jean. Oh, what can it mean? To a daydream believer...and a...homecoming queen.


  • Options
    #279
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    LincolnsBeard wrote: »
    You are using a 21st century mind set to evaluate the British Empire. THE 18th to 20th century is not the same period that we live in today.

    Every European nation was trying to build empires. Ireland would have done the same had they not been a part of the British Empire.

    Even a country like the US that was founded on the natural rights of man had no problem cleansing the Natives and engaging in the slave trade.

    It would seem that the general argument here has been lost in translation.

    I imagine that the majority of people on this thread are more than capable of contextualising and rationalising historic events, and perhaps even determining for themselves whether such actions were right or wrong within the context of the era.

    The problem often lies with the fact that certain posters here tend not to be willing to entertain the less admirable but very real ramifications of Empire and Colonialism, preferring to glorify it's memory and immerse themselves in a sense of National pride and reverence. As such, one could forgive them for failing to see that this period in British history has had some long lasting and very real ramifications for people throughout the Globe; ramifications that continue to resonate to this day, whether it be in Kenya, Israel, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or even Northern Ireland. The spectre of Empire hasn't simply disappeared.

    Whilst those of a certain perspective may consider these criticisms to be inherently anti-British, I would have to disagree. I would argue that this is more an issue of clemency than anything else.


  • Options
    #280
    LincolnsBeard
    Registered Users Posts: 218 ✭✭LincolnsBeard


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    The problem often lies with the fact that certain posters here tend not to be willing to entertain the less admirable but very real ramifications of Empire and Colonialism, preferring to glorify it's memory and immerse themselves in a sense of National pride and reverence.

    I haven't seen this. I don't see this in real life. I rarely ever hear about the empire. I didn't even learn about it in school.

    This idea that Britain is living in the past is just nonsense.
    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    Whilst those of a certain perspective may consider these criticisms to be inherently anti-British, I would have to disagree. I would argue that this is more an issue of clemency than anything else.

    Sorry, but when you have posters saying "The British are the laughing stock of the world" it's clearly anti-Brit rhetoric.


  • Options
    #281
    caste_in_exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭caste_in_exile


    so who's the 1 in 10.. UB40 as Britons emselves??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    It would seem that the general argument here has been lost in translation.

    I imagine that the majority of people on this thread are more than capable of contextualising and rationalising historic events, and perhaps even determining for themselves whether such actions were right or wrong within the context of the era.

    The problem often lies with the fact that certain posters here tend not to be willing to entertain the less admirable but very real ramifications of Empire and Colonialism, preferring to glorify it's memory and immerse themselves in a sense of National pride and reverence. As such, one could forgive them for failing to see that this period in British history has had some long lasting and very real ramifications for people throughout the Globe; ramifications that continue to resonate to this day, whether it be in Kenya, Israel, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or even Northern Ireland. The spectre of Empire hasn't simply disappeared.

    Whilst those of a certain perspective may consider these criticisms to be inherently anti-British, I would have to disagree. I would argue that this is more an issue of clemency than anything else.

    aah, now this isn't sarcastic.

    When have you seen anyone on this thread glorify the empire? you are simply putting words into people's mouths to satisfy your own assumptions. Assumptions which, I hasten to add, are wrong.

    and lets face it, the posters on here who are are apparently bleeding heart liberals who are sobbing their hearts out for the Mau Maus couldn't actually give a flying **** about them, all they are interested in is point scoring.

    As I said in an earlier post, the article isn't very factual. Britain did not invade 90% of the world, it is a figure drawn from some very tenuous events. It was light hearted and thought provoking yet it has been jumped upon by the usual suspects in order that they can show how awful the British are.


  • Options
    #283
    caste_in_exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭caste_in_exile


    Newsflash: anti-British sentiment to spike tenfold on the release of Assassins Creed III


  • Options
    #284
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    aah, now this isn't sarcastic.

    When have you seen anyone on this thread glorify the empire? you are simply putting words into people's mouths to satisfy your own assumptions. Assumptions which, I hasten to add, are wrong.

    and lets face it, the posters on here who are are apparently bleeding heart liberals who are sobbing their hearts out for the Mau Maus couldn't actually give a flying **** about them, all they are interested in is point scoring.

    As I said in an earlier post, the article isn't very factual. Britain did not invade 90% of the world, it is a figure drawn from some very tenuous events. It was light hearted and thought provoking yet it has been jumped upon by the usual suspects in order that they can show how awful the British are.


    Mau maus? This may come as a shock Fred, but when thousands and herded into camps and tortured and raped, some of us do actually give a crap. Referring to it as "point scoring" is just another method employed to allow dismissal without acknowledging what was done.


  • Options
    #285
    caste_in_exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭caste_in_exile


    There's a reason you're portrayed a certain way in historical adaptations, fred.. a bit evil, a bit sinister... a bit "sure they'll never realize our major motivation; or what we really think of em".. ring any bells my son


  • Options
    #286
    billybudd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭billybudd


    Every European nation was trying to build empires. Ireland would have done the same had they not been a part of the British Empire.


    So hitler had the right idea? doesnt matter if he was evil and wanted to exterminate certain parts of society cause after all that was the empire he was trying to build.


  • Options
    #287
    billybudd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭billybudd


    LincolnsBeard wrote: »
    I haven't seen this. I don't see this in real life. I rarely ever hear about the empire. I didn't even learn about it in school.

    This idea that Britain is living in the past is just nonsense.



    Sorry, but when you have posters saying "The British are the laughing stock of the world" it's clearly anti-Brit rhetoric.


    Rule Britania, britania rules the waves!!! still a poplular song.


  • Options
    #288
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    When have you seen anyone on this thread glorify the empire? you are simply putting words into people's mouths to satisfy your own assumptions. Assumptions which, I hasten to add, are wrong.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81586271&postcount=84
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81633409&postcount=257

    Reading the comments at the end of the articles also gives this impression to some degree. Then again, you don't necessarily need to qualify yourself as a glorifier of imperialism when I make sure to preface my point with "certain posters".
    and lets face it, the posters on here who are are apparently bleeding heart liberals who are sobbing their hearts out for the Mau Maus couldn't actually give a flying **** about them, all they are interested in is point scoring.

    Didn't you just criticize me for making assumptions? I've seen you make some bonkers assumptions in other threads.
    As I said in an earlier post, the article isn't very factual. Britain did not invade 90% of the world, it is a figure drawn from some very tenuous events. It was light hearted and thought provoking yet it has been jumped upon by the usual suspects in order that they can show how awful the British are.

    I think you will find that the first post to even display any sort of antagonism was posted by Golden Lane, who felt the need to preemptively take pot shots at the Irish, claiming that we are inherently more hateful than the British.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81583036&postcount=12


  • Options
    #289
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    gurramok wrote: »
    The shelling of the GPO by the British was indeed criminal, was that what you asked?

    Tbf, in an historical context - it did belong to the British at that period of time. Whether that makes is "legal" or not, I'm not entirely sure...


  • Options
    #290
    phoenix999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 581 ✭✭✭phoenix999


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    apologies, getting mixed up. Interesting article about the Four Courts and whether or not it was the British that shelled it.

    Still, why was it criminal to shell the GPO. We can look back with black and white views on history, but to the people in Dublin at the time, the people who took the GPO were the criminals.

    As we are oft told on this board, the victors write the history...

    The British never shelled the Four Courts. It was Free State troops under Michael Collins who shelled it after the IRA refused to leave it in 1922. The Brits threatened military intervention if he didnt move on them. The IRA leader, Rory O'Connor, an experienced mining engineer, deliberately set explosives in the treasury of The Record Office and destroyed almost all of its precious records. Attempts by the distinguished historians Eoin MacNeill and Seamus O Ceallaigh to persuade him not to do this failed. He believed, fatuously, that this destroyed the records of 'Irish slavery.' Just as fatuously the then leader of the Labour Party stated: 'we all start equal now.' It was the greatest single act of cultural vandalism ever committed on the historical records of Ireland. The IRA in their wisdom also set fire to James Gandon's 18th century Custom House. Not to mention the destruction of most of the country's railways, bridges, etc during the mindless Civil War. The economic cost crippled the New Free State from birth.


  • Options
    #291
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    phoenix999 wrote: »
    The British never shelled the Four Courts. It was Free State troops under Michael Collins who shelled it after the IRA refused to leave it in 1922. The Brits threatened military intervention if he didnt move on them. The IRA leader, Rory O'Connor, an experienced mining engineer, deliberately set explosives in the treasury of The Record Office and destroyed almost all of its precious records. Attempts by the distinguished historians Eoin MacNeill and Seamus O Ceallaigh to persuade him not to do this failed. He believed, fatuously, that this destroyed the records of 'Irish slavery.' Just as fatuously the then leader of the Labour Party stated: 'we all start equal now.' It was the greatest single act of cultural vandalism ever committed on the historical records of Ireland. The IRA in their wisdom also set fire to James Gandon's 18th century Custom House. Not to mention the destruction of most of the country's railways, bridges, etc during the mindless Civil War. The economic cost crippled the New Free State from birth.

    Good post that^
    I also read somewhere that about 500 stately homes+ all their historical contents were also lost (burnt) during this crazed period of Irish history.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Good post that^
    I also read somewhere that about 500 stately homes+ all their historical contents were also lost (burnt) during this crazed period of Irish history.

    Stately? Not in the hands of the state but aristocrats who were planters on Irish land.


  • Options
    #293
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    gurramok wrote: »

    Stately? Not in the hands of the state but aristocrats who were planters on Irish land.

    Planters like the O 'Connells?


  • Options
    #294
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Planters like the O 'Connells?

    Who? You sure it was not Lord something?


  • Options
    #295
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    gurramok wrote: »

    Who? You sure it was not Lord something?

    I was thinking of Aristocrats like Daniel O 'Connell, he lived in a stately home.


  • Options
    #296
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I was thinking of Aristocrats like Daniel O 'Connell, he lived in a stately home.

    Aristocrat, you sure? Sounds like he was born into a wealthy family who earned their way from dispossessed lands unlike their planter cousins who stole them.

    Funny you pick out a single prominent person out of Irish politics who actually did great for Irish freedom, are you educated now on Irish matters Fred?


  • Options
    #297
    phoenix999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 581 ✭✭✭phoenix999


    gurramok wrote: »

    Aristocrat, you sure? Sounds like he was born into a wealthy family who earned their way from dispossessed lands unlike their planter cousins who stole them.

    Funny you pick out a single prominent person out of Irish politics who actually did great for Irish freedom, are you educated now on Irish matters Fred?

    What does it matter? Lord Edward Fitzgerald was an aristocrat, was a great great grandson of King Charles II and lived in one of the finest houses in Ireland (Carton House). But he also happened to be a revolutionary and gave his life in the cause of Irish freedom in 1798. Everything isn't black and white in Irish history.


  • Options
    #298
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    phoenix999 wrote: »
    What does it matter? Lord Edward Fitzgerald was an aristocrat, was a great great grandson of King Charles II and lived in one of the finest houses in Ireland (Carton House). But he also happened to be a revolutionary and gave his life in the cause of Irish freedom in 1798. Everything isn't black and white in Irish history.

    Rare indeed, if only they were all like that. Pity it wasn't a bit like English planters in USA turning on their masters hence USA independence.


  • Options
    #299
    phoenix999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 581 ✭✭✭phoenix999


    The cruelest irony being that Ulster was the most Gaelic of all the provinces of Ireland before the plantations.


  • Options
    #300
    long range shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭long range shooter


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Aye but Norway and Denmark deserved it for the Viking raids

    When did Britain invade Norway and Denmark??
    I know the Vikings invaded Britain allright!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    long range shooter wrote: »
    When did Britain invade Norway and Denmark??
    I know the Vikings invaded Britain allright!!:D


    Churchill sent troops to Norway in WWII.
    Not realy an invasion, it'll do

    And that one eyed guy, Lord Nelson burned a fleet of ships in Copenhagen.


Advertisement