AgentAxeman 90 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 These people down the food chain who get prosectuted for war crimes oh dear. Realistically what could he do? Go to Hitler and say right I can't be arsed killing all these four be's, you can guarantee Hitler would have him killed too, horrible situation to be in. Quite the opposite, the Germans went about it with gusto and vigour and in their world renowned efficent manner. To this day they busy themselves watching each other and noting if No.5 hasn't changed to his 'winter wheels' or Wolfgang down the road seems to have too big a car (Is he paying his tax??) etc..Essentially a country full of boring and over officious cunts with an eye to correctness and status and all the tedium that goes with it. A humourless pack of automatons fresh out of the black forest, riddled with angst and guilt. Only the Swiss are more boring. Who do I blame for the war crimes? The Germans not Hitler, the were asking for it and imo almost willed Hitler into existence. A dark moody race that can nerver be fully trusted. The British invented concentration camps yup, to subjugate the Boers in S.Africa. they put all the Boer farmers wives and kids in the camps. conditions were pretty bad in these camps and there were quite a few deaths from disease but the British didnt go out of their way to exterminate them. Perhaps the name was invented around that time or as a result of that (not sure tbh) but similar camps existed before that so you couldn't even say the British invented them imo. "The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45. Literally, a Concentration Camp is a place where enemies, perceived undesirables and others are "concentrated", or all placed together, in one controlled environment, usually very unpleasantly. Similar camps existed earlier, such as in the United States (concentration camps for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s), in Cuba (1868–78) and in the Philippines (1898–1901) by Spain under the Restoration and the US respectively[5]. The term finds its roots in the "reconcentration camps" set up in Cuba by Valeriano Weyler in 1897 to quell opposition to Spanish rule in Cuba. During the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the term "concentration camp" was used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa.[6] Ostensibly conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were used to confine and control large numbers of civilians as part of a scorched earth tactic. Polish historian Władysław Konopczyński has suggested the first concentration camps were actually created in the 18th century, during Bar Confederation, when Russians organized 3 concentration camps in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for Polish rebel captives, where internees awaited deportation on to Siberia. [7] Use of the word concentration comes from the idea of concentrating a group of people who are in some way undesirable in one place, where they can be watched by those who incarcerated them. For example, in a time of insurgency, potential supporters of the insurgents are placed where they cannot provide them with supplies or information." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4028 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 My understanding was that the British ones for the Boers weren't "death" camps by any stretch but were the first ones to have a less than humanitarian reaction to care - ie they weren't too bothered by the diseases and their consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39248 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 My understanding was that the British ones for the Boers weren't "death" camps by any stretch but were the first ones to have a less than humanitarian reaction to care - ie they weren't too bothered by the diseases and their consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I can't see the earlier ones having decent sanitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. That was widely condemned and charges were pressed afterwards I believe. If that was the Russians or Krauts in their evil past they'd be getting medals. I'm not Billy Britain, but I believe as people and as a way of life, along with our Scandanavian neighbours, and our British sphere of influence (apart from America), we have to be the fairest most human of all countries on earth, I mean look at the Japs at Nanking, and twatting our soldier through Bamboo cells with sticks, fucking scum, look at the Krauts, look at the Russians, the Turks, the Argies, all them fuckin dictatorial South American cunts down the years, and the junta's, the Poles the ones who are here, all fuckin cunts, Eastern Europeans why they here? It's no wonder there's so many disatisfied people. Cue 20 contradictory examples.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. That was widely condemned and charges were pressed afterwards I believe. If that was the Russians or Krauts in their evil past they'd be getting medals. I'm not Billy Britain, but I believe as people and as a way of life, along with our Scandanavian neighbours, and our British sphere of influence (apart from America), we have to be the fairest most human of all countries on earth, I mean look at the Japs at Nanking, and twatting our soldier through Bamboo cells with sticks, fucking scum, look at the Krauts, look at the Russians, the Turks, the Argies, all them fuckin dictatorial South American cunts down the years, and the junta's, the Poles the ones who are here, all fuckin cunts, Eastern Europeans why they here? It's no wonder there's so many disatisfied people. Cue 20 contradictory examples.... The british empire wasnt exactly built on the principle of fairness. and it could be argued we committed our fair share of atrocities during ww2 Edited December 1, 2009 by Lazarus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. Sounds like you know what you're on about there like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39248 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. Sounds like you know what you're on about there like. This what you mean Stevie? Amritsar Massacre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. Sounds like you know what you're on about there like. This what you mean Stevie? Amritsar Massacre Aye you quite clearly understood what I was on about, unlike some... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. Sounds like you know what you're on about there like. This what you mean Stevie? Amritsar Massacre Aye you quite clearly understood what I was on about, unlike some... I was joking man. The details were a bit sketchy tbf. Worse than loads of other events though? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. Sounds like you know what you're on about there like. This what you mean Stevie? Amritsar Massacre Aye you quite clearly understood what I was on about, unlike some... anyone who watched "Ghandi" wold know - the usual error of sending troops to break up a civil disturbance - see also Peterloo, Bloody Sunday, Kent State etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 The biggest cuntish action of this country was when the "British Indians" shot 1,000 dead for no reason in some province of India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9313 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 well sure Kitman, but to be fair, they could have eaten something other than potato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 well sure Kitman, but to be fair, they could have eaten something other than potato Yes, there are no reports of a Pot Noodle shortage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 It has become a modern orthodoxy that Europe's 20th century was the bloodiest in history and that atrocities must be recorded and remembered by society as a whole. But while a Black Book of Communism has been compiled and everybody is aware of the horrors of nazism, popular historians have been surprisingly uninterested in the dark side of the British Empire. There are exceptions, such as Mike Davis's powerful Late Victorian Holocausts, but much else still lies buried in the academic literature. Davis and others have estimated that there were between 12 and 33 million avoidable deaths by famine in India between 1876 and 1908, produced by a deadly combination of official callousness and free-market ideology. But these were far from being a purely Victorian phenomenon. As late as 1943 around 4 million died in the Bengal famine, largely because of official policy. No one has even attempted to quantify the casualties caused by state-backed forced labour on British-owned mines and plantations in India, Africa and Malaya. But we do know that tens of thousands of often conscripted Africans, Indians and Malays - men, women and children - were either killed or maimed constructing Britain's imperial railways. Also unquantified are the numbers of civilian deaths caused by British aerial bombing and gassing of villages in Sudan, Iraq and Palestine in the 1920 and 1930s. Nor was the supposedly peaceful decolonisation of the British Empire without its gory cruelties. The hurried partition of the Indian subcontinent brought about a million deaths in the ensuing uncontrolled panic and violence. The brutal suppression of the Mau Mau and the detention of thousands of Kenyan peasants in concentration camps are still dimly remembered, as are the Aden killings of the 1960s. But the massacre of communist insurgents by the Scots Guard in Malaya in the 1950s, the decapitation of so-called bandits by the Royal Marine Commandos in Perak and the secret bombing of Malayan villages during the Emergency remain uninvestigated. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4028 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 ^^ You can add the Irish potato famine dead to the victims of "official callousness" as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I'll see your potato famine and raise you a slave trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 "Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Very interesting Pew Survey out today http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/569.pdf Loads of fascinating stats, including.... The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February. So Obama has done the job of legitimising torture for a further 10% of Americans where the majority now believe concentration camps like Guantanamo and the abuses that occur can be justified. Only a quarter think torture should not be tolerated. Edited December 4, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 90 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Very interesting Pew Survey out today http://people-press.org/report/569/america...ce-in-the-world Loads of fascinating stats, including.... The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February. So Obama has done the job of legitimising torture for a further 10% of Americans where the majority now believe concentration camps like Guantanamo and the abuses that occur can be justified. Only a quarter think torture should not be tolerated. tbf Happy, i dont think you can compare Guantanamo to the other concentration/death camps mentioned in this thread. scary stats there. not sure what i would answer to those questions as i have relatives in the army who have been on front line duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 Very interesting Pew Survey out today http://people-press.org/report/569/america...ce-in-the-world Loads of fascinating stats, including.... The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February. So Obama has done the job of legitimising torture for a further 10% of Americans where the majority now believe concentration camps like Guantanamo and the abuses that occur can be justified. Only a quarter think torture should not be tolerated. tbf Happy, i dont think you can compare Guantanamo to the other concentration/death camps mentioned in this thread. scary stats there. not sure what i would answer to those questions as i have relatives in the army who have been on front line duties. So a little bit of torture and murder is ok? Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. At least he had the good grace to put a respectable face on his torture programs. I'd have thought that having family on the front line would ensure your opposition to the use of torture, given it's power as recruitment propaganda for radical jihadi's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 90 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Very interesting Pew Survey out today http://people-press.org/report/569/america...ce-in-the-world Loads of fascinating stats, including.... The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February. So Obama has done the job of legitimising torture for a further 10% of Americans where the majority now believe concentration camps like Guantanamo and the abuses that occur can be justified. Only a quarter think torture should not be tolerated. tbf Happy, i dont think you can compare Guantanamo to the other concentration/death camps mentioned in this thread. scary stats there. not sure what i would answer to those questions as i have relatives in the army who have been on front line duties. So a little bit of torture and murder is ok? Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. At least he had the good grace to put a respectable face on his torture programs. I'd have thought that having family on the front line would ensure your opposition to the use of torture, given it's power as recruitment propaganda for radical jihadi's. i dont recall saying torture was ok? but if the information gained by the 'intelligence services' has helped save the lives of my relatives on the front line then i guess it puts me in a bit of a quandry. ie. its wrong but i'll gladly take the wrong to protect my own. a shitty state of affairs to be sure, but i dont know anybody that would sacrifice a member of their own family for the sake of their 'principles'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Very interesting Pew Survey out today http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/569.pdf Loads of fascinating stats, including.... The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February. So Obama has done the job of legitimising torture for a further 10% of Americans where the majority now believe concentration camps like Guantanamo and the abuses that occur can be justified. Only a quarter think torture should not be tolerated. [/quote Getting information from people being waterboarded 70/80 times and kept in a blacked out 'dogbox' for days on end basically means they will say almost anything as they feel their minds going. Torture rarely if ever gets good intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Very interesting Pew Survey out today http://people-press.org/report/569/america...ce-in-the-world Loads of fascinating stats, including.... The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February. So Obama has done the job of legitimising torture for a further 10% of Americans where the majority now believe concentration camps like Guantanamo and the abuses that occur can be justified. Only a quarter think torture should not be tolerated. tbf Happy, i dont think you can compare Guantanamo to the other concentration/death camps mentioned in this thread. scary stats there. not sure what i would answer to those questions as i have relatives in the army who have been on front line duties. Toture is against the Geneva convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Very interesting Pew Survey out today http://people-press.org/report/569/america...ce-in-the-world Loads of fascinating stats, including.... The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February. So Obama has done the job of legitimising torture for a further 10% of Americans where the majority now believe concentration camps like Guantanamo and the abuses that occur can be justified. Only a quarter think torture should not be tolerated. tbf Happy, i dont think you can compare Guantanamo to the other concentration/death camps mentioned in this thread. scary stats there. not sure what i would answer to those questions as i have relatives in the army who have been on front line duties. So a little bit of torture and murder is ok? Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. At least he had the good grace to put a respectable face on his torture programs. I'd have thought that having family on the front line would ensure your opposition to the use of torture, given it's power as recruitment propaganda for radical jihadi's. i dont recall saying torture was ok? but if the information gained by the 'intelligence services' has helped save the lives of my relatives on the front line then i guess it puts me in a bit of a quandry. ie. its wrong but i'll gladly take the wrong to protect my own. a shitty state of affairs to be sure, but i dont know anybody that would sacrifice a member of their own family for the sake of their 'principles'. Have you got any hard proof of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now