British Rule In India

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:32 am

The British rule over India forms a major part of the history of India. Read about British colonialism in India.

Modern History of India

The British rule over India changed the course of history in India. The British came to India at the start of the seventeenth century. This was the time when the British East India Company was established in India to break the Dutch monopoly over spice trade. With time the East India Company increased its powers and started to administer the country. However its policies were disliked by Indians and together they revolted against the company. This led to the downfall of the company and the administration of India went directly under the Queen. In the following lines, you shall find information regarding the period when India was under British rule. Read about the British colonialism in India.

The British annexed many princely states and formed laws and policies of their own. Slowly but rapidly the entire Indian sub continent came under the British rule. By mid nineteenth century, the British introduced the railways, telegraph and postal service in India. This was a move to establish their rule permanently in India. The first railway line was from Howrah in Calcutta to Raniganj in Bihar. The introduction of telegraph and postal services simplified communication all over the country.

The British passed many acts that were met with dissatisfaction and resentment by the Indians. As a result the Indians formed large groups and revolted against the British. Each movement was brutally crushed the British forces. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Lala Rajpat Rai, Subhash Chandra Bose, etc. arose and openly condemned the British. They were people's leaders who inspired the masses not to be afraid of the forces.

Finally after 200 years of British rule, India gained independence from them on 15th August, 1947. Many innocent lives were sacrificed for this achievement and India was also separated from Pakistan. The partition of India and Pakistan spread incidents of brutality and horror in both the countries. But due to the effort of the leaders and the ever sacrificing masses, India was able to gain freedom from the British and progress till the present times.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:40 pm

Are you just finding out about this or something? You do know while the British were were doing this you were busy dispossessing and trying to exterminate the stone age indigenous peoples and annexing whole chunks of your neighbours territory not to mention former spanish colonies and once independent pacific islands. Or are you seriously suggesting America is not also an empire in all but name?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:49 pm

gmc;1161649 wrote: Are you just finding out about this or something?

No Im making a point that the world in unison has made the same mistakes over and over again. Its meant to make a point to someone who thinks America is Satans personal assistant.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:10 pm

I dont know who this "someone" is but you really could have put 3 threads into one to prove your point.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:17 pm

Nomad;1161655 wrote: No Im making a point that the world in unison has made the same mistakes over and over again. Its meant to make a point to someone who thinks America is Satans personal assistant.

The mistakes made by the Bush administration are like nothing anyone in the world has ever done before even once, much less over and over again. They collectively committed treason to incense domestic public opinion into allowing the country's armed forces' despatch into the Middle East. You should be ashamed for doing nothing to bring them to justice. How you can try diverting attention elsewhere in an attempt to defend them leaves me both baffled and scornful.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:19 pm

abbey;1161669 wrote: I dont know who this "someone" is but you really could have put 3 threads into one to prove your point. Oh good, it's not just me then getting paranoid :wah: terribly anti-British don't you think? :wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:11 pm

Nomad;1161655 wrote: No Im making a point that the world in unison has made the same mistakes over and over again. Its meant to make a point to someone who thinks America is Satans personal assistant.

But you're a christian nation, the result of us don't believe in god or satan-can't have one without the other. or Haven't you been watching the religious channels?:sneaky: That makes the US the only likely candidate for satan's asistant.

Uncle sam in tights and tutu helping the great magician satan. The image seems odd somehow.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:46 pm

spot;1161676 wrote: The mistakes made by the Bush administration are like nothing anyone in the world has ever done before even once, much less over and over again. They collectively committed treason to incense domestic public opinion into allowing the country's armed forces' despatch into the Middle East. You should be ashamed for doing nothing to bring them to justice. How you can try diverting attention elsewhere in an attempt to defend them leaves me both baffled and scornful.
Treason?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:29 pm

abbey;1161669 wrote: I dont know who this "someone" is but you really could have put 3 threads into one to prove your point.

Is that a suggestion or just a bit of aggression ?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:49 pm

spot;1161676 wrote: The mistakes made by the Bush administration are like nothing anyone in the world has ever done before even once, much less over and over again. They collectively committed treason to incense domestic public opinion into allowing the country's armed forces' despatch into the Middle East. You should be ashamed for doing nothing to bring them to justice. How you can try diverting attention elsewhere in an attempt to defend them leaves me both baffled and scornful.

My few examples of similar British acts of deviating from accepted morality dont cause you alarm or outrage ?

Your bias clouds your objectivity.

Itemize Bushs indiscretions.

Dont forget to add Kuwait as a particularily repulsive act of aggression.

As you have stated soveriegn nations should be left to their own devices.

Also would you mind explaining how you differentiate between Britain's occupancy in Iraq from that of the US ? Theres a missing link you seem desperate to avoid.

And Italy, why do they get a pass ?

Canada ?

Australia ?

France ?

Japan ?

Latvia

Hungary ?

Denmark ?

Azerbaijan ?

Bulgaria ?

the Czech Republic ?

Dominican Republic ?

El Salvador ?

Estonia ?

Georgia ?

Honduras ?

Kazakhstan ?

South Korea ?

Latvia ?

Lithuania ?

Macedonia ?

Moldova ?

Mongolia

the Netherlands ?

Norway ?

Poland ?

Portugal ?

Romania

Slovakia ?

Ukraine ?

and last but not least

United Kingdom ???

[Ministry of Defence]

Put it all together for me.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:10 pm

spot;1161676 wrote: The mistakes made by the Bush administration are like nothing anyone in the world has ever done before even once, much less over and over again. They collectively committed treason to incense domestic public opinion into allowing the country's armed forces' despatch into the Middle East. You should be ashamed for doing nothing to bring them to justice. How you can try diverting attention elsewhere in an attempt to defend them leaves me both baffled and scornful.

Is this list a fair assessment of recent historys most treacherous and malignant stains on the people of the world ?

Tony Blair

George W Bush

Adolph Hitler

Joseph Stalin

Benito Mussolini

Francisco Franco

Robert Mugabe

Muammar al Gaddafi

Jean Bedel

Idi Amin

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:12 pm

gmc;1161685 wrote: But you're a christian nation, the result of us don't believe in god or satan-can't have one without the other. or Haven't you been watching the religious channels?:sneaky: That makes the US the only likely candidate for satan's asistant.

Uncle sam in tights and tutu helping the great magician satan. The image seems odd somehow.

Not as odd as spock would have you believe.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:58 am

Nomad;1161823 wrote: Not as odd as spock would have you believe.

Ah what would spock have made of GW-no prime directive restrictions for him were there:sneaky:

posted by nomad

My few examples of similar British acts of deviating from accepted morality dont cause you alarm or outrage ?

Your bias clouds your objectivity.

Course I can't speak for spot But If you can only find a few you're not looking very hard. perfidious albion has always been a sneaky self interested creature. We're nasty shits and at one point or other have been at war with everybody on the planet-even had a cod war with the icelanders. Fish supers at ten paces.

Are you outraged by americans deviating from accepted morality not cause you alarm and ourtrage? Are you not ashamed that you didn't end slavery until the 1860's, that native americans were declared to be aliens in a country that was taken from them by force. That your government was carrying out medical experiments on it's own population without them knowing and without their consent-clinton finally apologised only in 1997 to those who managed to survive.

Online NewsHour: Tuskegee Experiment and Apology -- May 16, 1997

No wonder Americans are so obsessed with conspiracy theories-the reality can be even more frightening.

If you're not outraged by your own history why should we expect us to be? We are not responsible for what has happened in the past any more than you are culpable for all the misery inflicted by the united states in it's expansion west and capturing it's colonies.

This is now our time so how do you feel about the same kind of things being done in your name? being lied to by your government and conned in to going to a war that arguably was not necessary?

At least in the days of the empire it was "honest" imperialism and a grab for resources and wealth. At the time there were in fact many who objected and protested and fought for change a brief glance through our social history will show you what I mean. in 1947 the british people turned our back on empire wholesale and voted in a socialist government. You got macarthyism and a climate of fear that still haunts you.

There were a great many who objected us getting involved in Iraq but we have faults with our political system that allow our politicians to get away with it. Speaking personally i would not justify our involvement in Iraq, I've objected since day one and we should not be involved in Afghanistan either. I hate Tony blair an his bum chum gordon brown. I can say that in the UK withouit being accused of being unpatriotic and hating the UK. Look at the bile heaped on those who opposed the invasion of iraq in the states and the accusations of treason and of being unamerican. (OK I'll concede I may not have an acrate picture)

At least Bush acted in what he thought were america's interests. **** knows what blair was doing-perhaps he just fancied the roughty toughty texan( he went to an all boys public school and they are all a bit suspect ) but I don't think it has been in our interests at all.

.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:04 am

gmc;1161847 wrote: Ah what would spock have made of GW-no prime directive restrictions for him were there:sneaky:

posted by nomad

Are you outraged by americans deviating from accepted morality not cause you alarm and ourtrage?

Yes. An emphatic yes !

Are you not ashamed that you didn't end slavery until the 1860's, that native americans were declared to be aliens in a country that was taken from them by force.

Without question. Im ashamed.

No wonder Americans are so obsessed with conspiracy theories-the reality can be even more frightening.

Are we conspiracy theorists in general ? I havent encountered that as a norm.

If you're not outraged by your own history why should we expect us to be?

Your missing the point Im trying to make in entirety. We all have shame. Spock has been blaming America for the worlds woes without accepting responsibility for his own countries actions. Fine blame the US. I do. I detest many of the things weve done "with God on our side"

But he cant be taken seriously unless he presents a full true and accurate portrayal of the worlds atrocities.

At least in the days of the empire it was "honest" imperialism and a grab for resources and wealth.

:wah::wah::wah: No doubt the recipients of Englands quest felt the same. Theyre killing us and stealing our land sure but its HONEST ! :yh_rotfl

At least Bush acted in what he thought were america's interests. **** knows what blair was doing-perhaps he just fancied the roughty toughty texan( he went to an all boys public school and they are all a bit suspect ) but I don't think it has been in our interests at all.

Bush started out on the right track. But then he ****ed it all up. There should never have been an Iraq. Certainly there didnt have to be a full blown invasion in Afghanistan but we had the right to hunt down and slaughter the ones that pled guilty to flying planes into our buildings and killing innocents.

Bush ****ed everything up. Cheney ****ed everything up. Rumsfeld ****ed everything up. The CIA ****ed everything up.

No argument from me.

But if what you want is resolution then you have to be willing to accept personal responsibility.

Thats all Ive been asking for.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:24 am

Nomad;1162037 wrote: Bush started out on the right track. But then he ****ed it all up. There should never have been an Iraq. Certainly there didnt have to be a full blown invasion in Afghanistan but we had the right to hunt down and slaughter the ones that pled guilty to flying planes into our buildings and killing innocents.Bush ****ed everything up. Cheney ****ed everything up. Rumsfeld ****ed everything up. The CIA ****ed everything up.

No argument from me.

But if what you want is resolution then you have to be willing to accept personal responsibility.

Thats all Ive been asking for. Could you perhaps then explain something that i have asked many times on other threads and never get an answer?

The pilots in the 9/11 planes were Saudi..... Why did Bush not invade Saudi?

Al-Queda is not limited to one country that we can invade and bomb the shyte out of innocent civilians for. All nationalities have extremists that belong to Al-Queda. We have them here and they brought about The London Tube Bombings. Out of interest?.... What would Bush have done if the pilots had been English?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:38 am

oscar;1162050 wrote: Could you perhaps then explain something that i have asked many times on other threads and never get an answer?

The pilots in the 9/11 planes were Saudi..... Why did Bush not invade Saudi?

Al-Queda is not limited to one country that we can invade and bomb the shyte out of innocent civilians for. All nationalities have extremists that belong to Al-Queda. We have them here and they brought about The London Tube Bombings. Out of interest?.... What would Bush have done if the pilots had been English?

They originated from Saudi Arabia but were stationed all over the world. Atta was in Germany others were in Afghanistan. Bin Laden himself was Saudi but his country renounced him. The event wasnt Saudi sanctioned.

Saudi ties were coincidental.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:37 pm

Nomad;1162063 wrote: They originated from Saudi Arabia but were stationed all over the world. Atta was in Germany others were in Afghanistan. Bin Laden himself was Saudi but his country renounced him. The event wasnt Saudi sanctioned.

Saudi ties were coincidental. If my memory serves me correctly, after 9/11 Bush demanded that Afghanistan handed over Bin Laden. I have always had the theory that they couldn't have handed him over even if they wanted to. He was long gone over the borders into Syria or Pakistan if he was ever there in the first place. We had no reason in my eyes to ever be in Afghan let alone 5 years later when there is still no sign of him or any hard evidence that the Taliban is linked to Al-Queda. Obama may be withdrawing from Iraq but i read that he intends to send thousands more troops in Afghan...... For what?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:54 pm

oscar;1162050 wrote: Could you perhaps then explain something that i have asked many times on other threads and never get an answer?

The pilots in the 9/11 planes were Saudi..... Why did Bush not invade Saudi?

Al-Queda is not limited to one country that we can invade and bomb the shyte out of innocent civilians for. All nationalities have extremists that belong to Al-Queda. We have them here and they brought about The London Tube Bombings. Out of interest?.... What would Bush have done if the pilots had been English?

What would Bush have done if the pilots had been English

probably invade Scotland as we are the ones with the oil and he wants revenge for a scot successfuly taking the American oil companies to court for pinching his patents on the oil refining process.

Because they were selling the opil and bush's mates were happpily doing business with the saudi royal family. Iraq n the other hand has 20% of the world's oil reserves and they wanted control of it. Don't kid yourself there is any higher motive in all of this. In another age iot would be seen as imperialism-nowadays we have economic imperialism

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel (11/22/05)

posted by nomad

They originated from Saudi Arabia but were stationed all over the world. Atta was in Germany others were in Afghanistan. Bin Laden himself was Saudi but his country renounced him. The event wasnt Saudi sanctioned.

Saudi ties were coincidental.

Some coincidence though. Best way to stop a terrorist is cut their source of finance. Wonder what saudi is doing about that?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 pm

gmc;1162120 wrote: probably invade Scotland as we are the ones with the oil and he wants revenge for a scot successfuly taking the American oil companies to court for pinching his patents on the oil refining process.

Because they were selling the opil and bush's mates were happpily doing business with the saudi royal family. Iraq n the other hand has 20% of the world's oil reserves and they wanted control of it. Don't kid yourself there is any higher motive in all of this. In another age iot would be seen as imperialism-nowadays we have economic imperialism

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel (11/22/05)

posted by nomad

Some coincidence though. Best way to stop a terrorist is cut their source of finance. Wonder what saudi is doing about that? I'm under no illusions.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:29 pm

oscar;1162100 wrote: If my memory serves me correctly, after 9/11 Bush demanded that Afghanistan handed over Bin Laden. I have always had the theory that they couldn't have handed him over even if they wanted to. He was long gone over the borders into Syria or Pakistan if he was ever there in the first place. We had no reason in my eyes to ever be in Afghan let alone 5 years later when there is still no sign of him or any hard evidence that the Taliban is linked to Al-Queda. Obama may be withdrawing from Iraq but i read that he intends to send thousands more troops in Afghan...... For what?

Theyre trying to build infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, power plants, clean water supply stations. Theyre trying to provide an alternative crop to poppy growing. Theyre trying to give girls an opportunity to pursue an education free from acid being thrown in their faces.

Theyre trying to give the average citizens freedom to pursue a life free of terror. Any stability in the region is good for everyone.

All evil stuff.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:37 pm

Nomad;1162178 wrote: Theyre trying to build infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, power plants, clean water supply stations. Theyre trying to provide an alternative crop to poppy growing. Theyre trying to give girls an opportunity to pursue an education free from acid being thrown in their faces.

Theyre trying to give the average citizens freedom to pursue a life free of terror. Any stability in the region is good for everyone.

All evil stuff. Well, here i do agree with you however, if we hadn't of bombed the shyte out of the place in the beggining, we would not have to re-build.

One thing i have looked into is opium cultivation in Afghan. Under Taliban rule, production is at it's lowest in the north of Afghan. In the south were the mujahideen still rule, that is where the cultivation is most highest. The Taliban have always frowned upon and dished out their own justice to poppy farmers.

There is no doubt that yes the Taliban are on some aspects still living in the dark ages but why are they the enemy and why are we fighting them? However much we dis-agree with their way of life, let us not forget that they are the elected government of the Afghan people exactly the same as Hamas is the elected government of Palistine. It is not reason to occupy and rage war against any country because we do not agree with their elected government. If that was the case, Britain would have been bombed into oblivion during the Thatcher regime.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:56 pm

[quote=oscar;1162181]Well, here i do agree with you however, if we hadn't of bombed the shyte out of the place in the beggining, we would not have to re-build.

The cowards were hiding among farmers and peasants, in their homes after being ousted. They brought war to people homes assuming we wouldnt retaliate.

One thing i have looked into is opium cultivation in Afghan. Under Taliban

rule, production is at it's lowest in the north of Afghan. In the south were the mujahideen still rule, that is where the cultivation is most highest. The Taliban have always frowned upon and dished out their own justice to poppy farmers.

Production is down because weve had an effect on the cultivation and because now Mexico is the main supplier. Its easier and cheaper to get the product into the states from our own borders. If Afghan farmers have a profitable alternative to the current risk theyve been taking they will take it.

There is no doubt that yes the Taliban are on some aspects still living in the dark ages but why are they the enemy and why are we fighting them? However much we dis-agree with their way of life, let us not forget that they are the elected government of the Afghan people exactly the same as Hamas is the elected government of Palistine. It is not reason to occupy and rage war against any country because we do not agree with their elected government. If that was the case, Britain would have been bombed into oblivion during the Thatcher regime.

They openly threat the worlds security. Do you think their elections are like ours ? Monitored, secure voting processes and who is their opposition ? If they lost an election do you think theyd give their blessings and become law abiding citizens ?

These people will stop at nothing to fulfill their personal self fulfilling prophecy. The citizens of Afghanistan have no alternative but to comply and they live in fear. No one wants to live in an under developed shithole.

Do you ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:52 pm

[QUOTE=Nomad;1162189]

Production is down because weve had an effect on the cultivation and because now Mexico is the main supplier. Its easier and cheaper to get the product into the states from our own borders. If Afghan farmers have a profitable alternative to the current risk theyve been taking they will take it.

?

I beg to differ. I can get the statistics as a link easiy but it took me hours whe i first went through them. The statistics i have seen were from before 'Desert Storm'. Here i one interesting link that will back up what i have said.

Opium and the Taliban Story (www.islaam.org.uk)

As for living in a shithole........ No i would not live in a **** hole because i wa not born into one and i don't live in one now. Afghans know no different. It is only Western culture that makes us believe that we have a better life than them. Who are we to tell them how to live?

I myself often yearn for life before technology came along and if i could persuede Mr O, i'd be very happy on some remote island off the coast of Scotland with a small farm.

We just assume they can not be happy because they don't have the trappings of western life.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:21 pm

quote=oscar;1162233

I beg to differ.

Then beg.

It feeds my insatiable thirst for power.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:40 pm

Nomad;1162063 wrote: They originated from Saudi Arabia but were stationed all over the world. Atta was in Germany others were in Afghanistan. Bin Laden himself was Saudi but his country renounced him. The event wasnt Saudi sanctioned.

Saudi ties were coincidental.

Whatever the words that were said, I think you'll find it was Saudi financed.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:46 pm

Bryn Mawr;1162280 wrote: Whatever the words that were said, I think you'll find it was Saudi financed. I thought that Bryn but i wasn't sure so i didn't post it. I will google.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:51 pm

Bryn Mawr;1162280 wrote: Whatever the words that were said, I think you'll find it was Saudi financed.

Intelligence Reports on Iraq and Saudi Arabia

An interesting link

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:53 pm

Bryn Mawr;1162280 wrote: Whatever the words that were said, I think you'll find it was Saudi financed.

Youre implying governmentally financed or dollars funneled through, originating from Saudi Arabia ?

We all know Bin Ladens money is Saudi but I think you can hardly hold the Saudis responsible for that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:55 pm

Nomad;1162291 wrote: Youre implying governmentally financed or dollars funneled through, originating from Saudi Arabia ?

We all know Bin Ladens money is Saudi but I think you can hardly hold the Saudis responsible for that.

I'm implying that the oft repeated statements that the Bin Laden family and the Saudi government have disowned Osama are a smokescreen and that money has continued to come out of Saudi to finance the terrorism.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:57 pm

Nomad;1162291 wrote: Youre implying governmentally financed or dollars funneled through, originating from Saudi Arabia ?

We all know Bin Ladens money is Saudi but I think you can hardly hold the Saudis responsible for that. Did you read the report link about Saudi funding that i put on a few posts ago?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:02 pm

Nomad;1162267 wrote: Then beg.

It feeds my insatiable thirst for power. My God......this is what i have just found on the web posted by an AMERICAN. I have cut and pasted.

Afghanistan? Bombed by the U.S. (When was the last time Afghani

>planes bombed America?)

>

>Sudan? Bombed by the U.S

>

>Pakistan? Bombed by the U.S. (supposedly by accident)

>

>Libya? Bombed by the U.S.

>

>Bosnia? Hell no! The U.S. prevented Bosnians from defending

>themselves against rape/torture-hungry, trigger happy Serbs by

>imposing a lopsided

>arms embargo on the Bosnian Muslims.

>

>Algeria? Hell never. The U.S. supports the French backed military

>dictatorship which commenced after the botched democratic elections

>in which the Islamic party was winning by a land slide!

>

>Vietnam? Oh please, don't make me laugh. They burned all the faces,

>jungles, and houses of that country Eight hundred thousand

>Vietnamese were killed.

>

>North Korea? Half a million killed by the U.S.

>

>Maybe Cambodia and Laos? No, the U.S mined and bombed those places

>so much that they caused the death of a million and people in that

>part of the world are still losing limbs due to left over mines.

>

>Perhaps the only place in this world which doesn't have a justified

>motive to hate America is America itself. Wait! Don't forget about

>the "Red" Indians, the natives, the indigenous, the aboriginal, no

>matter how politically correct the U.S. government has tried to make

>it's vocabulary,

>it still doesn't wipe out the fact that the natives were completely

>wiped out. Yesterday, before Columbus came to the west, there were

>twenty five million natives in North America, today, there are a

>little more than five million. Where did twenty million natives

>go?!?!? It's as if the American government (at least for a while)

>believed that the only good Indian was a dead Indian.

>

>WHAT THE HELL!?!?!?

>

>Every inch on the face of this earth has the right to hate America.

>We

>enslave all of Africa, nuke Japan, bomb and burn Iraq, Libya, Sudan,

> Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos and Cambodia, we

>commit large scale genocide on the natives of this continent, we

>pollute the entire world, we support and finance tyrannical

>governments from Israel to Saudi Arabia, we divide and conquer, we

>starve to death the entire world -35000 children die every day due

>to hunger because of U.S. foreign economic policy- by putting them

>into debts with excruciatingly high interest rates?!?!?!

>

>And then we ask WHY WE ARE HATED!

>

>That's the dumbest question I've ever heard, "Why would anyone want

>to do this to freedom loving America?"

>

>"Freedom loving America" jails one out of every four black men,

>freedom

>loving America harbors the worlds largest jailed population, (2

>million prisoners out the worlds 8 million, a quarter of the

>incarcerated world is in the U.S.), over half of our two million

>inmates are in there for non violent crimes,...so what are they in

>there for? Remember Rome was not made into the power that it was

>from peaceful and diplomatic measures, it climbed to the top by

>jailing and killing all those who opposed it -and as it stands,

>there are still black panthers in jail today. More African Americans

>in the U.S. are killed every year, than the number of Africans that

>were killed on a yearly bases in apartheid South Africa.

>

>

>Why would the Muslims hate us? In addition to the obvious reasons

>stated above, our very first continental leader El-Hajj-Malik

>El-Shabbaz a.k.a. Malcolm X was shot down 21 times in the freedom

>loving New York. The FBI was involved, as one of the guns used by

>one of the assassins was found to be supplied to him by an FBI

>agent, (he was caught and convicted).

>

>So who are the usual suspects, despite the fact that the entire

>world has the right to hate America? The Muslims,.......interesting

>to note is the fact that in 1994 there were over two hundred

>terrorist attacks on U.S. targets world wide. Over a hundred were in

>Latin America (a predominantly Catholic place), only eight were in

>the middle east. Who's the real coward? The one who sits two hundred

>miles off the coast of Saudi Arabia, pushing buttons to shoot

>missiles at Iraqi targets on a radar, or the Palestinian kids who

>throws pebbles and rocks in the face of American bought Israeli

>machine guns.

>

>Doesn't this qualify us to be a justified target for the entire

>world?

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:09 am

Nomad;1162189 wrote: Production is down because weve had an effect on the cultivation and because now Mexico is the main supplier. Its easier and cheaper to get the product into the states from our own borders. If Afghan farmers have a profitable alternative to the current risk theyve been taking they will take it. Right. Now, instead of making up what you wish was true, go and look up what's real. Opium production in Afghanistan is now over ten times as high it was under the Taliban government, before the US occupation. The Taliban government has been the one group capable of reducing opium production and achieving results. They had a spectacular effect on bringing the production figures down.

You can't just make up tales because they sound good.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:13 am

Nomad;1162291 wrote: We all know Bin Ladens money is Saudi but I think you can hardly hold the Saudis responsible for that.

Have you read nothing in the last four years? That's exactly what's been alleged, time and again. Of course the man has support from within the Saudi royal family (which, for some reason, you prefer to call a "government"). There are factions, they reach accommodations rather than blow up palaces and start civil wars.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:58 am

oscar;1162181 wrote: Well, here i do agree with you however, if we hadn't of bombed the shyte out of the place in the beggining, we would not have to re-build.

One thing i have looked into is opium cultivation in Afghan. Under Taliban rule, production is at it's lowest in the north of Afghan. In the south were the mujahideen still rule, that is where the cultivation is most highest. The Taliban have always frowned upon and dished out their own justice to poppy farmers.

There is no doubt that yes the Taliban are on some aspects still living in the dark ages but why are they the enemy and why are we fighting them? However much we dis-agree with their way of life, let us not forget that they are the elected government of the Afghan people exactly the same as Hamas is the elected government of Palistine. It is not reason to occupy and rage war against any country because we do not agree with their elected government. If that was the case, Britain would have been bombed into oblivion during the Thatcher regime.

It is not reason to occupy and rage war against any country because we do not agree with their elected government.

Ah so you mean we should never have gone to war with germany then?:sneaky:

Actually no they weren't. They won out in the civil war that followed the expulsion of the russians who , if you remember, were helping what was the elected secular government of Afghanistan at the time against muslim extremists trying to take over the country. It was portraued in the west as the nasty corrupt left wing government trying to curb freedom of expression. They wouldn't have succeeded without help from the US especially in giving them stinger missiles so they could down Russia helicopters. Afghanistan is the victim in power politics between the west and the USSR, come to that always has been one way or the other. everybody's had a go at invading them. Left alone the Taliban would have inevitably lost power in Afghanistan. people can stand religious extremists running the place for only a short while. You notice syria, egypt, turkey, jordan are all fairly quick to jump on islamic extremists, ordinary people are **** scared of them.

posted by nomad

Youre implying governmentally financed or dollars funneled through, originating from Saudi Arabia ?

We all know Bin Ladens money is Saudi but I think you can hardly hold the Saudis responsible for that.

You can if it is in saudi banks and they do nothing to prevent it being used to fund terrorism. Too bad he didn't invest in an american hedge fund-he might have lost it all.:sneaky: He's probably pissing himself laughing at what's happened to the western economy.

If Bush hadn't been so obsessed with iraq and really gone after bin laden this might all have been over by now. Certainly he would hav found it harder to con his fellow Americans in to invading Iraq.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:23 am

spot;1162410 wrote: Right. Now, instead of making up what you wish was true, go and look up what's real. Opium production in Afghanistan is now over ten times as high it was under the Taliban government, before the US occupation. The Taliban government has been the one group capable of reducing opium production and achieving results. They had a spectacular effect on bringing the production figures down.

You can't just make up tales because they sound good.

Our heroin is coming from Mexico where it once was supplied from Afghanistan via various European countries.

If Ive erred in production calculations then I stand corrected.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:25 am

spot;1162411 wrote: Have you read nothing in the last four years? That's exactly what's been alleged, time and again. Of course the man has support from within the Saudi royal family (which, for some reason, you prefer to call a "government"). There are factions, they reach accommodations rather than blow up palaces and start civil wars.

Allegations are facts now ?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:27 am

oscar;1162301 wrote: My God......this is what i have just found on the web posted by an AMERICAN. I have cut and pasted.

Afghanistan? Bombed by the U.S. (When was the last time Afghani

>planes bombed America?)

>

>Sudan? Bombed by the U.S

>

>Pakistan? Bombed by the U.S. (supposedly by accident)

>

>Libya? Bombed by the U.S.

>

>Bosnia? Hell no! The U.S. prevented Bosnians from defending

>themselves against rape/torture-hungry, trigger happy Serbs by

>imposing a lopsided

>arms embargo on the Bosnian Muslims.

>

>Algeria? Hell never. The U.S. supports the French backed military

>dictatorship which commenced after the botched democratic elections

>in which the Islamic party was winning by a land slide!

>

>Vietnam? Oh please, don't make me laugh. They burned all the faces,

>jungles, and houses of that country Eight hundred thousand

>Vietnamese were killed.

>

>North Korea? Half a million killed by the U.S.

>

>Maybe Cambodia and Laos? No, the U.S mined and bombed those places

>so much that they caused the death of a million and people in that

>part of the world are still losing limbs due to left over mines.

>

>Perhaps the only place in this world which doesn't have a justified

>motive to hate America is America itself. Wait! Don't forget about

>the "Red" Indians, the natives, the indigenous, the aboriginal, no

>matter how politically correct the U.S. government has tried to make

>it's vocabulary,

>it still doesn't wipe out the fact that the natives were completely

>wiped out. Yesterday, before Columbus came to the west, there were

>twenty five million natives in North America, today, there are a

>little more than five million. Where did twenty million natives

>go?!?!? It's as if the American government (at least for a while)

>believed that the only good Indian was a dead Indian.

>

>WHAT THE HELL!?!?!?

>

>Every inch on the face of this earth has the right to hate America.

>We

>enslave all of Africa, nuke Japan, bomb and burn Iraq, Libya, Sudan,

> Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos and Cambodia, we

>commit large scale genocide on the natives of this continent, we

>pollute the entire world, we support and finance tyrannical

>governments from Israel to Saudi Arabia, we divide and conquer, we

>starve to death the entire world -35000 children die every day due

>to hunger because of U.S. foreign economic policy- by putting them

>into debts with excruciatingly high interest rates?!?!?!

>

>And then we ask WHY WE ARE HATED!

>

>That's the dumbest question I've ever heard, "Why would anyone want

>to do this to freedom loving America?"

>

>"Freedom loving America" jails one out of every four black men,

>freedom

>loving America harbors the worlds largest jailed population, (2

>million prisoners out the worlds 8 million, a quarter of the

>incarcerated world is in the U.S.), over half of our two million

>inmates are in there for non violent crimes,...so what are they in

>there for? Remember Rome was not made into the power that it was

>from peaceful and diplomatic measures, it climbed to the top by

>jailing and killing all those who opposed it -and as it stands,

>there are still black panthers in jail today. More African Americans

>in the U.S. are killed every year, than the number of Africans that

>were killed on a yearly bases in apartheid South Africa.

>

>

>Why would the Muslims hate us? In addition to the obvious reasons

>stated above, our very first continental leader El-Hajj-Malik

>El-Shabbaz a.k.a. Malcolm X was shot down 21 times in the freedom

>loving New York. The FBI was involved, as one of the guns used by

>one of the assassins was found to be supplied to him by an FBI

>agent, (he was caught and convicted).

>

>So who are the usual suspects, despite the fact that the entire

>world has the right to hate America? The Muslims,.......interesting

>to note is the fact that in 1994 there were over two hundred

>terrorist attacks on U.S. targets world wide. Over a hundred were in

>Latin America (a predominantly Catholic place), only eight were in

>the middle east. Who's the real coward? The one who sits two hundred

>miles off the coast of Saudi Arabia, pushing buttons to shoot

>missiles at Iraqi targets on a radar, or the Palestinian kids who

>throws pebbles and rocks in the face of American bought Israeli

>machine guns.

>

>Doesn't this qualify us to be a justified target for the entire

>world?

Can you define your point ?

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:22 am

Nomad;1162451 wrote: Allegations are facts now ?

You're claiming al Qaida has no support from within the Saudi royal family - the thing you term the Saudi Government.

All of the following discussions argue otherwise. One of them's an article in "Middle East Policy" Volume 13 Issue 4. What constitutes a fact in this context? A court verdict after a criminal trial? It seems nonsensical to say there are no elements among the Sauds who are unsympathetic toward Osama bin Laden. He represents a strand of thinking in Saudi Arabia. How could he not?

The Blotter: U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers

U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers ..... We don't do anything against countries that support and harbor Al-Queda like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan ...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 ... still.html

Jihad Watch: Link: Al-Qaeda and Saudi intelligence agency

Two private Saudi firms linked to Al-Qaeda are also mixed up with .... the support of Islamic terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. ...

Jihad Watch: Link: Al-Qaeda and Saudi intelligence agency

SCHUMER: US MUST SHOW 9/11 FAMILIES THE BLUEPRINTS OF SAUDI ...

19 Mar 2003 ... SCHUMER: US MUST SHOW 9/11 FAMILIES THE BLUEPRINTS OF SAUDI SUPPORT FOR AL QAEDA. New US documents identify Saudi Arabian families as among ...

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsit ... 01566.html

MBEAW: Al-Qaeda & Osama bin Laden

16 Oct 2006 ... Saudi support for Al-Qaeda, & how it handicaps "war on terrorism." Corbin, Jane. Al Qaeda: The Terror Network that Threatens the World (NY: ...

MBEAW: Al-Qaeda & Osama bin Laden

SY HERSH: Al Qaeda back on our friends list for Iran War ...

Bandar has admitted Saudi support for Al Qaeda and setting up a car bombing for us during our brief military presence in Lebanon in the 80s. ...

SY HERSH: Al Qaeda back on our friends list for Iran War? - Democratic Underground

Terrorist Recruitment and Radicalization in Saudi Arabia

Saudi support for al-Qaeda or questionable loyalties within the Saudi security services. Rather, it is to be found in the crucial role ...

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1475-4967.2006.00269.x

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:55 am

spot;1162462 wrote: You're claiming al Qaida has no support from within the Saudi royal family - the thing you term the Saudi Government.

All of the following discussions argue otherwise. One of them's an article in "Middle East Policy" Volume 13 Issue 4. What constitutes a fact in this context? A court verdict after a criminal trial? It seems nonsensical to say there are no elements among the Sauds who are unsympathetic toward Osama bin Laden. He represents a strand of thinking in Saudi Arabia. How could he not?

The Blotter: U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers

U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers ..... We don't do anything against countries that support and harbor Al-Queda like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan ...

The Blotter: U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers

Jihad Watch: Link: Al-Qaeda and Saudi intelligence agency

Two private Saudi firms linked to Al-Qaeda are also mixed up with .... the support of Islamic terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. ...

Jihad Watch: Link: Al-Qaeda and Saudi intelligence agency

SCHUMER: US MUST SHOW 9/11 FAMILIES THE BLUEPRINTS OF SAUDI ...

19 Mar 2003 ... SCHUMER: US MUST SHOW 9/11 FAMILIES THE BLUEPRINTS OF SAUDI SUPPORT FOR AL QAEDA. New US documents identify Saudi Arabian families as among ...

www.senate.gov - This page cannot be found.

MBEAW: Al-Qaeda & Osama bin Laden

16 Oct 2006 ... Saudi support for Al-Qaeda, & how it handicaps "war on terrorism." Corbin, Jane. Al Qaeda: The Terror Network that Threatens the World (NY: ...

MBEAW: Al-Qaeda & Osama bin Laden

SY HERSH: Al Qaeda back on our friends list for Iran War ...

Bandar has admitted Saudi support for Al Qaeda and setting up a car bombing for us during our brief military presence in Lebanon in the 80s. ...

SY HERSH: Al Qaeda back on our friends list for Iran War? - Democratic Underground

Terrorist Recruitment and Radicalization in Saudi Arabia

Saudi support for al-Qaeda or questionable loyalties within the Saudi security services. Rather, it is to be found in the crucial role ...

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Well I suppose wealthy Saudis and firms have the right to fund anyone they care to much the way Britain funded their role in the invasion of Iraq.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:04 am

Nomad;1161655 wrote: No Im making a point that the world in unison has made the same mistakes over and over again. Its meant to make a point to someone who thinks America is Satans personal assistant.

Actually I agree with you about this. It so happens America is the most powerful player. You would think they would learn from past mistakes. I think it's a truism that Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It as are those who don't think it has any relevance in the modern world. Some Americans and most of our politicians come to that seem to be incapable of appreciating that actions taken ten or twenty years ago will still have repercussions in the here and now just as what we do now will determine what is happening in our children's time. people don't forget what was done to them.

There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.

Otto von Bismarck

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:59 am

spot;1162410 wrote: Right. Now, instead of making up what you wish was true, go and look up what's real. Opium production in Afghanistan is now over ten times as high it was under the Taliban government, before the US occupation. The Taliban government has been the one group capable of reducing opium production and achieving results. They had a spectacular effect on bringing the production figures down.

You can't just make up tales because they sound good.

I did post an imformative link re: poppy cultivation under the Taliban for Nomad that showed the truth.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:05 pm

Nomad;1162452 wrote: Can you define your point ? My point was that i was shocked to find such a post from an American. It made me wonder how many other American's feel that way. very un-patriotic i felt.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:13 pm

gmc;1162430 wrote: Ah so you mean we should never have gone to war with germany then?:sneaky:

Actually no they weren't. They won out in the civil war that followed the expulsion of the russians who , if you remember, were helping what was the elected secular government of Afghanistan at the time against muslim extremists trying to take over the country. It was portraued in the west as the nasty corrupt left wing government trying to curb freedom of expression. They wouldn't have succeeded without help from the US especially in giving them stinger missiles so they could down Russia helicopters. Afghanistan is the victim in power politics between the west and the USSR, come to that always has been one way or the other. everybody's had a go at invading them. Left alone the Taliban would have inevitably lost power in Afghanistan. people can stand religious extremists running the place for only a short while. You notice syria, egypt, turkey, jordan are all fairly quick to jump on islamic extremists, ordinary people are **** scared of them.

You can if it is in saudi banks and they do nothing to prevent it being used to fund terrorism. Too bad he didn't invest in an american hedge fund-he might have lost it all.:sneaky: He's probably pissing himself laughing at what's happened to the western economy.

If Bush hadn't been so obsessed with iraq and really gone after bin laden this might all have been over by now. Certainly he would hav found it harder to con his fellow Americans in to invading Iraq.

Don't be a Rodney. What do you think would have happened if they'd have hopped the Channel for one.

I am aware of the power politics of Afghan..... Just didn't want to bring America into it. :sneaky:

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:23 pm

oscar;1162720 wrote: My point was that i was shocked to find such a post from an American. It made me wonder how many other American's feel that way. very un-patriotic i felt.

Un patriotic...

Im not sure I even know what that means.

When a citizen finds wrong within the country its his/her perogative to speak out.

I love the United States. Im proud to be an American.

At the same time Im frequently disappointed or outraged by some of our actions.

We have many faults and weve done some bad things, things many of us are ashamed of.

Politics, its such a dirty game and good people do bad things while playing the game.

I can love my country and disagree with my country in the same breath.

I honor the core of our intentions and despise our leaders when we go astray.

Someone such as the person you quoted very likely loves his country as well.

Perhaps thats why he screams so loudly when he finds hes been deceived or our elected officials have broken the sacred trust bestowed upon them.

I love what my country tries to stand for. We fail, we use poor judgement, we are divided down the middle not in our love for country but in how to achieve our goals. For every one of me that thinks protest is a duty theres another that will call me un patriotic and welcome me to renounce my citizenship.

I applaud a citizen that shouts for justice in an unjust world.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:48 pm

just us!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:57 pm

Accountable;1162992 wrote: just us!

Fat chance. :rolleyes:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:54 am

posted by nomad

For every one of me that thinks protest is a duty theres another that will call me un patriotic and welcome me to renounce my citizenship.

I applaud a citizen that shouts for justice in an unjust world.

I always knew you were a liberal at heart. I'm proud of you.

posted by oscar

My point was that i was shocked to find such a post from an American. It made me wonder how many other American's feel that way. very un-patriotic i felt.

You've got to be kidding. I would never have thought of you as someone that bought in to this my country right or wrong nonsense. You don't support british involvement in the war in iraq or afghanistan does that make you somehow unpatriotic? a true patriot is one that stands up and speaks out when they think something is wrong. A true liberal is one that doesn't allow anyone to tell him he can't.

they're not all right wing, bible thumping creationist, gun-toting lunatics. They just happen to be the ones that make the most noise.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:24 am

Nomad;1162984 wrote: Un patriotic...

Im not sure I even know what that means.

When a citizen finds wrong within the country its his/her perogative to speak out.

I love the United States. Im proud to be an American.

At the same time Im frequently disappointed or outraged by some of our actions.

We have many faults and weve done some bad things, things many of us are ashamed of.

Politics, its such a dirty game and good people do bad things while playing the game.

I can love my country and disagree with my country in the same breath.

I honor the core of our intentions and despise our leaders when we go astray.

Someone such as the person you quoted very likely loves his country as well.

Perhaps thats why he screams so loudly when he finds hes been deceived or our elected officials have broken the sacred trust bestowed upon them.

I love what my country tries to stand for. We fail, we use poor judgement, we are divided down the middle not in our love for country but in how to achieve our goals. For every one of me that thinks protest is a duty theres another that will call me un patriotic and welcome me to renounce my citizenship.

I applaud a citizen that shouts for justice in an unjust world.

what a fantastic post:-6:-6

my thoughts exactly

i'm a member of the human race that wants justice for all,my country i love but when she is wrong she is wrong i can say that whilst still loving her :-6:-6

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:25 am

farmer giles;1163047 wrote: what a fantastic post:-6:-6

my thoughts exactly

i'm a member of the human race that wants justice for all,my country i love but when she is wrong she is wrong i can say that whilst still loving her :-6:-6 Is this you Jumbo????

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:28 am

gmc;1163043 wrote:

You've got to be kidding. I would never have thought of you as someone that bought in to this my country right or wrong nonsense. You don't support british involvement in the war in iraq or afghanistan does that make you somehow unpatriotic? . Well then, Yes, I must be un-patriotic because i know that Tony Blair is a lying, back-stabbing, bastard who should be brought to trial for war crimes.

The post i copied by the American on here was basically saying that America was responsible for everything bad in the world. I have never supported the war but that does not mean i am against everything my country has ever done. I am merely selective in my biased opinions. :sneaky: