Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" Do you think he was? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. " I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. "   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. " Abhorrent views by 21st century standards yes. It has to be remembered however that he was brought up in the period when the British Empire was at its height. And, like most others at the time, he looked at the world from a British Empire viewpoint. He was stubborn and often quite rash with some of his decisions. (Lusitania?) and was often at odds with other politicians even in his own party (which he changed twice) Then along came 1940. After the Norwegian debacle at Narvik there were many voices in the establishment who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. An already weak Chamberlain was further weakened by the result of the debate about Narvik and Churchill was chosen (supported by Attlee I would add) as PM. The very next day Hitlers tanks rolled through Holland and Belgium and soon after had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. It is from this point where everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, should be eternally grateful to Churchill. Lesser mortals would have chucked in the towel there and then. But a combination of his world viewpoint and his stubbornness (OK tinted with a bit of what today we would call racism) was pretty much the only thing that stopped Britain capitulating. Had Britain packed it in (as many wanted) in the summer of 1940 Hitler would have been able to free up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment for his attack on the Soviet Union the following year. With Britain out of the war the eastern front could (probably would) have had a completely different conclusion. Also when the Americans (better late than never) entered the war, where the hell would they have entered it from if Britain had not been available as a springboard? D Day? forget it, it would never had happened. Yes Churchill was far from perfect and he was a pretty hopeless peacetime PM. But thank god we had him when we needed him. So I think it's time to stop the mud slinging and accept him as the great (albeit flawed) wartime leader that he was. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. Abhorrent views by 21st century standards yes. It has to be remembered however that he was brought up in the period when the British Empire was at its height. And, like most others at the time, he looked at the world from a British Empire viewpoint. He was stubborn and often quite rash with some of his decisions. (Lusitania?) and was often at odds with other politicians even in his own party (which he changed twice) Then along came 1940. After the Norwegian debacle at Narvik there were many voices in the establishment who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. An already weak Chamberlain was further weakened by the result of the debate about Narvik and Churchill was chosen (supported by Attlee I would add) as PM. The very next day Hitlers tanks rolled through Holland and Belgium and soon after had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. It is from this point where everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, should be eternally grateful to Churchill. Lesser mortals would have chucked in the towel there and then. But a combination of his world viewpoint and his stubbornness (OK tinted with a bit of what today we would call racism) was pretty much the only thing that stopped Britain capitulating. Had Britain packed it in (as many wanted) in the summer of 1940 Hitler would have been able to free up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment for his attack on the Soviet Union the following year. With Britain out of the war the eastern front could (probably would) have had a completely different conclusion. Also when the Americans (better late than never) entered the war, where the hell would they have entered it from if Britain had not been available as a springboard? D Day? forget it, it would never had happened. Yes Churchill was far from perfect and he was a pretty hopeless peacetime PM. But thank god we had him when we needed him. So I think it's time to stop the mud slinging and accept him as the great (albeit flawed) wartime leader that he was. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. Abhorrent views by 21st century standards yes. It has to be remembered however that he was brought up in the period when the British Empire was at its height. And, like most others at the time, he looked at the world from a British Empire viewpoint. He was stubborn and often quite rash with some of his decisions. (Lusitania?) and was often at odds with other politicians even in his own party (which he changed twice) Then along came 1940. After the Norwegian debacle at Narvik there were many voices in the establishment who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. An already weak Chamberlain was further weakened by the result of the debate about Narvik and Churchill was chosen (supported by Attlee I would add) as PM. The very next day Hitlers tanks rolled through Holland and Belgium and soon after had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. It is from this point where everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, should be eternally grateful to Churchill. Lesser mortals would have chucked in the towel there and then. But a combination of his world viewpoint and his stubbornness (OK tinted with a bit of what today we would call racism) was pretty much the only thing that stopped Britain capitulating. Had Britain packed it in (as many wanted) in the summer of 1940 Hitler would have been able to free up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment for his attack on the Soviet Union the following year. With Britain out of the war the eastern front could (probably would) have had a completely different conclusion. Also when the Americans (better late than never) entered the war, where the hell would they have entered it from if Britain had not been available as a springboard? D Day? forget it, it would never had happened. Yes Churchill was far from perfect and he was a pretty hopeless peacetime PM. But thank god we had him when we needed him. So I think it's time to stop the mud slinging and accept him as the great (albeit flawed) wartime leader that he was. "Brilliant summary! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. Abhorrent views by 21st century standards yes. It has to be remembered however that he was brought up in the period when the British Empire was at its height. And, like most others at the time, he looked at the world from a British Empire viewpoint. He was stubborn and often quite rash with some of his decisions. (Lusitania?) and was often at odds with other politicians even in his own party (which he changed twice) Then along came 1940. After the Norwegian debacle at Narvik there were many voices in the establishment who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. An already weak Chamberlain was further weakened by the result of the debate about Narvik and Churchill was chosen (supported by Attlee I would add) as PM. The very next day Hitlers tanks rolled through Holland and Belgium and soon after had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. It is from this point where everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, should be eternally grateful to Churchill. Lesser mortals would have chucked in the towel there and then. But a combination of his world viewpoint and his stubbornness (OK tinted with a bit of what today we would call racism) was pretty much the only thing that stopped Britain capitulating. Had Britain packed it in (as many wanted) in the summer of 1940 Hitler would have been able to free up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment for his attack on the Soviet Union the following year. With Britain out of the war the eastern front could (probably would) have had a completely different conclusion. Also when the Americans (better late than never) entered the war, where the hell would they have entered it from if Britain had not been available as a springboard? D Day? forget it, it would never had happened. Yes Churchill was far from perfect and he was a pretty hopeless peacetime PM. But thank god we had him when we needed him. So I think it's time to stop the mud slinging and accept him as the great (albeit flawed) wartime leader that he was. " He wasn't perfect but he was perfect for the job at the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. Abhorrent views by 21st century standards yes. It has to be remembered however that he was brought up in the period when the British Empire was at its height. And, like most others at the time, he looked at the world from a British Empire viewpoint. He was stubborn and often quite rash with some of his decisions. (Lusitania?) and was often at odds with other politicians even in his own party (which he changed twice) Then along came 1940. After the Norwegian debacle at Narvik there were many voices in the establishment who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. An already weak Chamberlain was further weakened by the result of the debate about Narvik and Churchill was chosen (supported by Attlee I would add) as PM. The very next day Hitlers tanks rolled through Holland and Belgium and soon after had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. It is from this point where everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, should be eternally grateful to Churchill. Lesser mortals would have chucked in the towel there and then. But a combination of his world viewpoint and his stubbornness (OK tinted with a bit of what today we would call racism) was pretty much the only thing that stopped Britain capitulating. Had Britain packed it in (as many wanted) in the summer of 1940 Hitler would have been able to free up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment for his attack on the Soviet Union the following year. With Britain out of the war the eastern front could (probably would) have had a completely different conclusion. Also when the Americans (better late than never) entered the war, where the hell would they have entered it from if Britain had not been available as a springboard? D Day? forget it, it would never had happened. Yes Churchill was far from perfect and he was a pretty hopeless peacetime PM. But thank god we had him when we needed him. So I think it's time to stop the mud slinging and accept him as the great (albeit flawed) wartime leader that he was. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war." A united europe he wanted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Typical of people today trying to find faults with a great leader,it does not matter,we all have faults but not many lead a country in times of real crisis ie the war not poxy Brexit by comparison" He was a great leader when he needed to be and should be appreciated for that. But, he was a deeply flawed man who made many mistakes and questionable decisions. Overall it was WW2 which cemented his reputation but it was the right decision of the public to vote him out of office after the war as it paved the way for the NHS and Indian independence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecasting"Churchill used the term "united states of europe" in a speech delivered on 19 september 1946 at the university of zurich, switzerland. .... we must build a kind of united states of europe, in this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. It was a good speech that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecasting
Provide evidence that Churchill wanted a United europe without us in it. (And don’t use the debunked quote about choosing the open sea)
Why and how was that statement debunked?
Did he say it or not?
"It was (as you’d know if you’d done any research) a mish mash of two separate speeches thrown together to form one single quote in meme form. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecasting
Provide evidence that Churchill wanted a United europe without us in it. (And don’t use the debunked quote about choosing the open sea)
Why and how was that statement debunked?
Did he say it or not?
It was (as you’d know if you’d done any research) a mish mash of two separate speeches thrown together to form one single quote in meme form.
"For posts on a swinger site I tend not to research things too deeply. Besides on lots of subjects (especially the two world wars) I can do most from memory. The quote wasn't even, as you seem to have researched, from two separate speeches. One part was from a speech and the other came from...... I'll let you research that for yourself. However at some point he actually did say every word of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" By the standards of the times he was living in, he wasn't considered racist. He was but so were the vast majority of others back then. It was normal to be racist at that time. It's not uncommon in the present; it's just not acceptable to most people, with any sense of right and wrong, any more. One thing's for sure; Churchill wasn't as much of a racist as Hitler. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecastingChurchill used the term "united states of europe" in a speech delivered on 19 september 1946 at the university of zurich, switzerland. .... we must build a kind of united states of europe, in this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.
It was a good speech that
He said on several occasions that we weren't going to be part of it, it's really simple, by the way do you still think we wont be leaving the EU as you kept claiming or are you still in denial"He still said that tho in his speech and no I dont think leave means leave, do you? They will still have some kind of alignment with the eu there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Churchill like the queen is just a figure head , you wanna know what he was like check out the quote he used to end Welsh miners strike check out what he did to India and ireland and he was against the poor man he was a elitist with vision's of grander And as for a war hero you should really look deeper into things , ask yourself why when Hitler had most and majority of English French army trapped on a beech he never finished them off ....Dunkirk I'm talking about , telephone phone calls and deals were made check it out he was a a cunt all round " Phone calls and deals?....enlighten us please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. " I find the eulogists quite an interesting type - usually are older than me, but too young to have fought (in their 60s or so). The only people I've met who were actually alive during the war and/or fought despised him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecastingChurchill used the term "united states of europe" in a speech delivered on 19 september 1946 at the university of zurich, switzerland. .... we must build a kind of united states of europe, in this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.
It was a good speech that
He said on several occasions that we weren't going to be part of it, it's really simple, by the way do you still think we wont be leaving the EU as you kept claiming or are you still in denialHe still said that tho
in his speech and no I dont think leave means leave, do you? They will still have some kind of alignment with the eu there.
Either you are on something that has softened your brain or are incapable of reading and understanding anything.
We have LEFT the EU, it cant be stopped now, the transition has nothing to do with bring a member and it's in law that it wont be extended"No leave does not mean leave lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Churchill like the queen is just a figure head , you wanna know what he was like check out the quote he used to end Welsh miners strike check out what he did to India and ireland and he was against the poor man he was a elitist with vision's of grander And as for a war hero you should really look deeper into things , ask yourself why when Hitler had most and majority of English French army trapped on a beech he never finished them off ....Dunkirk I'm talking about , telephone phone calls and deals were made check it out he was a a cunt all round " Deals were done for Dunkirk? That one is up there with "The Queen is really a Lizard". Foil hats all round methinks. Firstly Churchill hated Hitler with a vengeance. So I can hardly imagine him getting Hitler on the blower with something like: "Now then Adolf me old pal. How about backing off and letting our troops escape so we can send 'em back to give your lads what for. Really? 
Secondly the French contingent was only a very small percentage of the men on the beach. The French army was still fighting, to be fair and losing, but still causing problems for the Germans. It was not going to be that easy to roll the tanks down to the beach.
Even so the Luftwaffe was bombing and strafing not only the beach but also the vessels picking up the men (google the Lancastria) Deal done? My arse.
Lastly with "a deal done" why on earth would anyone do that kind of deal then less than a couple of months later try to bomb the fuck out of the RAF?
Deal done for Dunkirk? I've never read such nonsense in my life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Churchill like the queen is just a figure head , you wanna know what he was like check out the quote he used to end Welsh miners strike check out what he did to India and ireland and he was against the poor man he was a elitist with vision's of grander And as for a war hero you should really look deeper into things , ask yourself why when Hitler had most and majority of English French army trapped on a beech he never finished them off ....Dunkirk I'm talking about , telephone phone calls and deals were made check it out he was a a cunt all round " Churchill never did any deal or made any telephone calls. Must be the biggest lie ever on forums | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecastingChurchill used the term "united states of europe" in a speech delivered on 19 september 1946 at the university of zurich, switzerland. .... we must build a kind of united states of europe, in this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.
It was a good speech that
He said on several occasions that we weren't going to be part of it, it's really simple, by the way do you still think we wont be leaving the EU as you kept claiming or are you still in denialHe still said that tho
in his speech and no I dont think leave means leave, do you? They will still have some kind of alignment with the eu there.
Either you are on something that has softened your brain or are incapable of reading and understanding anything.
We have LEFT the EU, it cant be stopped now, the transition has nothing to do with bring a member and it's in law that it wont be extended"We can request to extend transition (to December 31st 2022) anytime before 30th June. You’re entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecastingChurchill used the term "united states of europe" in a speech delivered on 19 september 1946 at the university of zurich, switzerland. .... we must build a kind of united states of europe, in this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.
It was a good speech that
He said on several occasions that we weren't going to be part of it, it's really simple, by the way do you still think we wont be leaving the EU as you kept claiming or are you still in denialHe still said that tho
in his speech and no I dont think leave means leave, do you? They will still have some kind of alignment with the eu there.
Either you are on something that has softened your brain or are incapable of reading and understanding anything.
We have LEFT the EU, it cant be stopped now, the transition has nothing to do with bring a member and it's in law that it wont be extended
We can request to extend transition (to December 31st 2022) anytime before 30th June. You’re entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts."Quite so, look up the withdrawal act it included a part that forbids an extension, so yes that is a fact despite your opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Check out your history and why the USA joined the war it was a land grab etc etc and as for calls if you don't know you don't know remember the queen and her sister doing nazi slutlues in the garden prince Philips sister married a high ranking nazi he was at funeral, the Queen and her family are German but what do I know And if you look closely to real reason why her dad left throne ,if you belive it was for love then ..... " Nazi salutes.....look closely at the film and you will see the odd imitation of a Hitler moustache with the other hand. Even when I was a kid, many used to do this as a comic act. There is a difference between parody and support... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Check out your history and why the USA joined the war it was a land grab etc etc and as for calls if you don't know you don't know remember the queen and her sister doing nazi slutlues in the garden prince Philips sister married a high ranking nazi he was at funeral, the Queen and her family are German but what do I know And if you look closely to real reason why her dad left throne ,if you belive it was for love then ..... " Her dad left the throne when he died. 
The last proper German on the throne was probably Edward VII.
From then on the German line has been watered down to be almost non existent.
Edward VII married Alexandra who was Danish.
George V (half Danish) married Mary of Teck who although she had German ancestry she was born in Britain and had a British mother.
George VI (quarter Danish probably around a third German and the rest British) married Elizabeth Bowes Lyon who was Scottish.
Elizabeth II (now around an eighth Danish, half Scottish, a decent chunk of English and a bit of German) married Philip who was from the Greek and Danish royal families.
There really isn't a lot of German left.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Check out your history and why the USA joined the war it was a land grab etc etc and as for calls if you don't know you don't know remember the queen and her sister doing nazi slutlues in the garden prince Philips sister married a high ranking nazi he was at funeral, the Queen and her family are German but what do I know And if you look closely to real reason why her dad left throne ,if you belive it was for love then ..... " We are talking about Churchill. Remember ???? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Check out your history and why the USA joined the war it was a land grab etc etc and as for calls if you don't know you don't know remember the queen and her sister doing nazi slutlues in the garden prince Philips sister married a high ranking nazi he was at funeral, the Queen and her family are German but what do I know And if you look closely to real reason why her dad left throne ,if you belive it was for love then ..... We are talking about Churchill. Remember ????"
I wouldn't count on it.
With the thread drift you get on here, before we get to the magic 175 we will get Trump and Thatcher chucked in somewhere.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Check out your history and why the USA joined the war it was a land grab etc etc and as for calls if you don't know you don't know remember the queen and her sister doing nazi slutlues in the garden prince Philips sister married a high ranking nazi he was at funeral, the Queen and her family are German but what do I know And if you look closely to real reason why her dad left throne ,if you belive it was for love then ..... We are talking about Churchill. Remember ????
I wouldn't count on it.
With the thread drift you get on here, before we get to the magic 175 we will get Trump and Thatcher chucked in somewhere. "And Muslims and Brexit no doubt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would say no, you can say he kind of is "a founding father of the european union" wishing for peace after the war.A united europe he wanted
BUT with us not in it, how many times do you keep posting such rubbish before you learn to grasp facts instead of you're version, by the way do you still think we wont leave the EU as you kept forecastingChurchill used the term "united states of europe" in a speech delivered on 19 september 1946 at the university of zurich, switzerland. .... we must build a kind of united states of europe, in this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.
It was a good speech that
He said on several occasions that we weren't going to be part of it, it's really simple, by the way do you still think we wont be leaving the EU as you kept claiming or are you still in denialHe still said that tho
in his speech and no I dont think leave means leave, do you? They will still have some kind of alignment with the eu there.
Either you are on something that has softened your brain or are incapable of reading and understanding anything.
We have LEFT the EU, it cant be stopped now, the transition has nothing to do with bring a member and it's in law that it wont be extended
We can request to extend transition (to December 31st 2022) anytime before 30th June. You’re entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
Quite so, look up the withdrawal act it included a part that forbids an extension, so yes that is a fact despite your opinion."So you’re claiming that legally we can’t extend transition? You’re quite certain of that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Typical of people today trying to find faults with a great leader,it does not matter,we all have faults but not many lead a country in times of real crisis ie the war not poxy Brexit by comparison He was a great leader when he needed to be and should be appreciated for that. But, he was a deeply flawed man who made many mistakes and questionable decisions. Overall it was WW2 which cemented his reputation but it was the right decision of the public to vote him out of office after the war as it paved the way for the NHS and Indian independence." I agree the British people can be very wise | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Typical of people today trying to find faults with a great leader,it does not matter,we all have faults but not many lead a country in times of real crisis ie the war not poxy Brexit by comparison He was a great leader when he needed to be and should be appreciated for that. But, he was a deeply flawed man who made many mistakes and questionable decisions. Overall it was WW2 which cemented his reputation but it was the right decision of the public to vote him out of office after the war as it paved the way for the NHS and Indian independence.I agree the British people can be very wise" Lolz | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" You know the good thing about racists? They can stop being racists if they want to. Churchill was a racist, but he also supported the process of developing universal human rights that led us to where we are today via the European Convention which has been incorporated into English law. Now, you can give Churchill the benefit of the doubt, or you can wonder if maybe, like certain of his successors, he seemed to believe that human rights are only for white people since everyone else is not really human, but it's a much more nuanced question that your framing of it allows. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?You know the good thing about racists? They can stop being racists if they want to. Churchill was a racist, but he also supported the process of developing universal human rights that led us to where we are today via the European Convention which has been incorporated into English law. Now, you can give Churchill the benefit of the doubt, or you can wonder if maybe, like certain of his successors, he seemed to believe that human rights are only for white people since everyone else is not really human, but it's a much more nuanced question that your framing of it allows." The framing was intentional as I wondered how many would excuse his genocide and his thoughts towards those he deemed less than him and his skin colour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont think there are too many people who really know the really history about Winston Churchill, especially his upbringing and the people that had huge influence on him (Rothschilds etc) Once thing is for sure, he hated germans (the people) as the Dresden terror bombings will confess to as well as many of his writings. " Let's put Dresden to bed once and for all. Firstly the term "Terror Raid" It was nothing of the sort when put into the context of the military position at the time. Of course there were issues about German morale but they were secondary to the disruption of troop movements. By February 1945 the German resistance in the west was collapsing and good intelligence was reporting German troops being sent from there to shore up the eastern front. Dresden was a major rail crossroad and was vital in these troop movements. Also Dresden was a legitimate industrial target that had so far been relatively untouched by allied bombing. Among other things Dresden's factories were producing aircraft parts, poison gas, anti aircraft guns, and had a large munitions depot. It should also be noted that the Americans played a significant part in the raids and (although not specifically Dresden) the Soviets had requested help from the allied air forces at the Yalta conference only a week or so previously. Although the Germans were in retreat in the east they were still putting up stiff residence and some reports were forecasting that the war could go on until November. Even after the disruption caused by the Dresden raids the Germans fought ferociously, particularly in the Seelow heights and then the battle for Berlin. While 75 years on we can look at area bombing as reprehensible, in 1939/45 it was they way wars were fought. And remember the Germans started it. Guernica, Rotterdam, London, Coventry Etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not sure how you can describe someone as ‘ a bit of a racist’ or a racist by 21st century’ morals. A person either is or is not. There is no doubt he was racist, either by modern day or 19/20th century standards. Most people just hold views. He was affluent enough to be in a position of power, both in South Africa and the world wars. He actively promoted racist tactics eg concentration camps. That he was a factor in WW2’s UK success was doubtless as a result of this but also his sense of English imperialism, resulting in needless destruction of cities and huge loss of life after the war in Europe had been won." No. The war in Europe may have been theoretically "won" in February 1945 but it was far from over. The allied strategy at that point was to finish the war as quickly as possible with minimum loss of allied lives. The Soviets were still taking horrendous losses at that point and did so for nearly another 3 months. Just in the 3 day battle for the Seelow heights as late as April (a prelude to the battle for Berlin) the Soviets took over 30,000 casualties (they are still finding bodies in the area to this day) Dresden had just over 20,000 dead in the raids. How many more Russian soldiers would have died had the war carried on until November? As some analysts at the time were predicting. Dresden was a terrible thing and I'm sure a very difficult decision. However (as any military commander will tell you) sometimes you have to sacrifice a company to save a division. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!!" Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He may have been but the alternative was HITLER " Absolutely staggering news. If true. I haven't seen any documentation suggesting that Hitler was the Labour leader back then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He may have been but the alternative was HITLER Absolutely staggering news. If true. I haven't seen any documentation suggesting that Hitler was the Labour leader back then." Yeah, Hitler was JC grand father | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!! Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second?" Don't like Maggie but history will have her second in my honest opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!! Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second? Don't like Maggie but history will have her second in my honest opinion" Why? Based on what? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Churchill 1st Maggie 2nd Cant remotely think of anyone else to put in a top 3. What does that say about the quality and stature of British politicians who get to become PM. But I can think of MPs who would have done well but never made it to the top " This thread was asking if Churchill was a racist. So I guess you're saying he was the top racist, followed by Thatcher. Given your political leanings, I'm v surprised to hear you say that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!! Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second? Don't like Maggie but history will have her second in my honest opinion Why? Based on what? " Based on my subjective opinion!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" Undoubtedly Was that normal for cis white men of his class at the time? Yes. A far more interesting question is why so many men are desperate for a perfect hero that they refuse to accept Churchill was human. Homoeroticism or daddy issues - I lean towards the latter Ms Icebreaker | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!! Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second? Don't like Maggie but history will have her second in my honest opinion Why? Based on what? Based on my subjective opinion!!" Hardly conclusive then ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!! Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second? Don't like Maggie but history will have her second in my honest opinion Why? Based on what? Based on my subjective opinion!! Hardly conclusive then ? "Be fair. He used 2 exclamation marks!! That proves it!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Churchill 1st Maggie 2nd Cant remotely think of anyone else to put in a top 3. What does that say about the quality and stature of British politicians who get to become PM. But I can think of MPs who would have done well but never made it to the top " I suppose Maggie was a hero to the UDA | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!! Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second? Don't like Maggie but history will have her second in my honest opinion Why? Based on what? Based on my subjective opinion!! Hardly conclusive then ?
Be fair. He used 2 exclamation marks!! That proves it!!"Ah yes, those exclamation marks have certainly made his claims more credible | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UDA?" Yeah, The Ulster Defence Association, I thought you might have heard of it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" why not sit and try solve todays problems | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or Loathe him, He will go down in history as the greatest PM of the 20th Century and Maggie T will be the second greatest... standing back having taken out the pin..!! Churchill wasn’t a racist, he wasn’t a very good PM either , he was a brilliant war time leader though . What makes Maggie second? Don't like Maggie but history will have her second in my honest opinion Why? Based on what? Based on my subjective opinion!! Hardly conclusive then ?
Be fair. He used 2 exclamation marks!! That proves it!!
Ah yes, those exclamation marks have certainly made his claims more credible "Never said my opinion was credible or conclusive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. " Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature " It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all." Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes" That rant was almost a sentence. Interesting to see you're another great history expert who can't even use punctuation. We seem to have a lot of them on fab. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes" Only morons actually dislike someone from a different area of the same country, or someone from a different country. Religion is used as an tool by those who wish to cause conflict. Religion itself, is not the root cause. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes That rant was almost a sentence. Interesting to see you're another great history expert who can't even use punctuation. We seem to have a lot of them on fab." Glad to see you dont disagree with my points | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes That rant was almost a sentence. Interesting to see you're another great history expert who can't even use punctuation. We seem to have a lot of them on fab. Glad to see you dont disagree with my points" As educated and eloquent as your post was, how could I possibly disagree? Well... except to say that that religions cause some conflicts. Other things cause other conflicts. Your beloved history books mention many reasons for conflicts. Your rambling, incoherent response doesn't change that fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes Only morons actually dislike someone from a different area of the same country, or someone from a different country. Religion is used as an tool by those who wish to cause conflict. Religion itself, is not the root cause. " No it's not the "root" but some followers of some of them have a tendency to dislike followers of others. And you dislike people from one area of a country who dislike those from another as shown by you calling them "morons". Do you consider football fans of say Man United disliking city fans morons too? We all have prejudices, some men like thin women some like fat, its human nature, as long as it stays within reason I dont see a problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way." That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases" No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself "Are you saying that racism is in the eye of the beholder because I am a bit lost with what you are attempting to say. It sounds like you are saying that people of colour are the only ones who understand and experience racism and white people should therefore not get involved and keep out of the debate, which seems fundamentally flawed unless you believe in segregation of the races be it intellectually or physically. I for one would miss my non white friends were that to be your aim. Not trying to pick a fight with you just genuinely struggling to understand your position | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself "Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself
Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist "Perhaps you can name me an historically white nation that has never profited in any way from slavery? Until you can answer that question truthfully, as a white person, you will never, ever understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself
Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist
Perhaps you can name me an historically white nation that has never profited in any way from slavery? Until you can answer that question truthfully, as a white person, you will never, ever understand." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself
Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist
Perhaps you can name me an historically white nation that has never profited in any way from slavery? Until you can answer that question truthfully, as a white person, you will never, ever understand." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist Perhaps you can name me an historically white nation that has never profited in any way from slavery? Until you can answer that question truthfully, as a white person, you will never, ever understand." Oh grow up, what has what happened many generations ago got to do with today. Was slavery wrong of course Slavery still exists in some African countries today and if you do your research you will discover that many tribal leaders captured members of other tribes and sold them as slaves, but dont let facts get in the way of your hatred and racism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. Abhorrent views by 21st century standards yes. It has to be remembered however that he was brought up in the period when the British Empire was at its height. And, like most others at the time, he looked at the world from a British Empire viewpoint. He was stubborn and often quite rash with some of his decisions. (Lusitania?) and was often at odds with other politicians even in his own party (which he changed twice) Then along came 1940. After the Norwegian debacle at Narvik there were many voices in the establishment who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. An already weak Chamberlain was further weakened by the result of the debate about Narvik and Churchill was chosen (supported by Attlee I would add) as PM. The very next day Hitlers tanks rolled through Holland and Belgium and soon after had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. It is from this point where everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, should be eternally grateful to Churchill. Lesser mortals would have chucked in the towel there and then. But a combination of his world viewpoint and his stubbornness (OK tinted with a bit of what today we would call racism) was pretty much the only thing that stopped Britain capitulating. Had Britain packed it in (as many wanted) in the summer of 1940 Hitler would have been able to free up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment for his attack on the Soviet Union the following year. With Britain out of the war the eastern front could (probably would) have had a completely different conclusion. Also when the Americans (better late than never) entered the war, where the hell would they have entered it from if Britain had not been available as a springboard? D Day? forget it, it would never had happened. Yes Churchill was far from perfect and he was a pretty hopeless peacetime PM. But thank god we had him when we needed him. So I think it's time to stop the mud slinging and accept him as the great (albeit flawed) wartime leader that he was. "
Well said! I couldn't agree more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"D*unk psychopath, eugenicist " Hero | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes Only morons actually dislike someone from a different area of the same country, or someone from a different country. Religion is used as an tool by those who wish to cause conflict. Religion itself, is not the root cause. No it's not the "root" but some followers of some of them have a tendency to dislike followers of others. And you dislike people from one area of a country who dislike those from another as shown by you calling them "morons". Do you consider football fans of say Man United disliking city fans morons too? We all have prejudices, some men like thin women some like fat, its human nature, as long as it stays within reason I dont see a problem" Any one who dislikes someone else just because of the team they support or the area of the country they come from must be a moron. Simples! Unless they come from Manchester or support Man United; in which case it's perfectly OK to think they're morons because everyone else already knows that anyone who supports Man United or comes from Manchester is a total moron. And it you're one of the few people who both comes from Manchester and supports Man United then there really is absolutely no hope for you at all. As for Churchill being racist: I say humbug (which incidentally are both black and white). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself
Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist
Perhaps you can name me an historically white nation that has never profited in any way from slavery? Until you can answer that question truthfully, as a white person, you will never, ever understand."I would agree that all white people are racist but only because I actually believe that all people are racist and prejudiced by nature. It's only when we accept this and recognise it in ourselves that we can begin to tackle the whole problem of racism and prejudice. You show this flaw yourself by your proposition "name me a historically white nation that has never profited in some way from slavery". I would put forward that it's impossible to name any nation, race or other grouping; black, white or yellow, that has not both profited and/or suffered from slavery at some point in their history. Racism, prejudice and the fear and hatred that come with them are not an exclusively white problem and if you genuinely believe they are then you are as much a part of the problem as those you choose to condemn. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? All white people are racist. Many don't realise it, and with others, the racism is so deeply ingrained they don't recognise it for what it is. In many posts I've read on these forums, white people overly "champion" the cause of people of colour without realising that those people of colour don't give a shit about the subject in question. But white people feel that they have to champion that cause, because it seems "racist" to them. On these forums, these white people always seem to know what's best for other races. It has always been that way. That post is racist in itself, such a generalisation, it's a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists totally untrue in both cases No, it really isn't. This is why you are racist, you have no commonality with black people but feel you can shout racist at everything and anybody just because the idea is unpalatable to you. Stop deflecting from your own racist nature and educate yourself
Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist
Perhaps you can name me an historically white nation that has never profited in any way from slavery? Until you can answer that question truthfully, as a white person, you will never, ever understand.
I would agree that all white people are racist but only because I actually believe that all people are racist and prejudiced by nature. It's only when we accept this and recognise it in ourselves that we can begin to tackle the whole problem of racism and prejudice.
You show this flaw yourself by your proposition "name me a historically white nation that has never profited in some way from slavery". I would put forward that it's impossible to name any nation, race or other grouping; black, white or yellow, that has not both profited and/or suffered from slavery at some point in their history.
Racism, prejudice and the fear and hatred that come with them are not an exclusively white problem and if you genuinely believe they are then you are as much a part of the problem as those you choose to condemn.
"Totally agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes" All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?You know the good thing about racists? They can stop being racists if they want to. Churchill was a racist, but he also supported the process of developing universal human rights that led us to where we are today via the European Convention which has been incorporated into English law. Now, you can give Churchill the benefit of the doubt, or you can wonder if maybe, like certain of his successors, he seemed to believe that human rights are only for white people since everyone else is not really human, but it's a much more nuanced question that your framing of it allows." You think that only giving white people human rights because other races are subhuman is a "nuanced" point of view? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Says the person shouting racist at every white person. Look in the mirror if you want to see a racist Perhaps you can name me an historically white nation that has never profited in any way from slavery? Until you can answer that question truthfully, as a white person, you will never, ever understand. Oh grow up, what has what happened many generations ago got to do with today. Was slavery wrong of course Slavery still exists in some African countries today and if you do your research you will discover that many tribal leaders captured members of other tribes and sold them as slaves, but dont let facts get in the way of your hatred and racism " Ah, so because we exported white supremacy across the globe, we should be fine with that because other cultures also do slavery? Gotcha. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. " You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work " I understand how instincts work. They are based upon survival. I also understand that it’s not human nature to specifically fear humans from other countries or those of other religions etc That’s a learned trait, not an instinct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work I understand how instincts work. They are based upon survival. I also understand that it’s not human nature to specifically fear humans from other countries or those of other religions etc That’s a learned trait, not an instinct." Of course it is, humans are tribal and have a natural fear,dislike,mistrust of other tribes. You are in a hole best stop digging now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work I understand how instincts work. They are based upon survival. I also understand that it’s not human nature to specifically fear humans from other countries or those of other religions etc That’s a learned trait, not an instinct. Of course it is, humans are tribal and have a natural fear,dislike,mistrust of other tribes. You are in a hole best stop digging now" I’m in a hole? You’re the one basically claiming bigotry is natural. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work I understand how instincts work. They are based upon survival. I also understand that it’s not human nature to specifically fear humans from other countries or those of other religions etc That’s a learned trait, not an instinct. Of course it is, humans are tribal and have a natural fear,dislike,mistrust of other tribes. You are in a hole best stop digging now I’m in a hole? You’re the one basically claiming bigotry is natural. " Call it what you want, bigotry is not a word I would use for it. But of course mistrust is natural, it's called survival instinct, just as protecting your own child is natural, when you get to know people then that mistrust goes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work I understand how instincts work. They are based upon survival. I also understand that it’s not human nature to specifically fear humans from other countries or those of other religions etc That’s a learned trait, not an instinct. Of course it is, humans are tribal and have a natural fear,dislike,mistrust of other tribes. You are in a hole best stop digging now I’m in a hole? You’re the one basically claiming bigotry is natural. Call it what you want, bigotry is not a word I would use for it. But of course mistrust is natural, it's called survival instinct, just as protecting your own child is natural, when you get to know people then that mistrust goes. " I said “ It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else” But you argued that. And to argue that is to accept bigotry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work I understand how instincts work. They are based upon survival. I also understand that it’s not human nature to specifically fear humans from other countries or those of other religions etc That’s a learned trait, not an instinct. Of course it is, humans are tribal and have a natural fear,dislike,mistrust of other tribes. You are in a hole best stop digging now I’m in a hole? You’re the one basically claiming bigotry is natural. Call it what you want, bigotry is not a word I would use for it. But of course mistrust is natural, it's called survival instinct, just as protecting your own child is natural, when you get to know people then that mistrust goes. I said “ It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else” But you argued that. And to argue that is to accept bigotry." Look up bigotry, mistrusting people is not bigotry. Try looking into birth and nurture while you're at it, you might learn something, but as you know it all I doubt it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as Gandhi was. Sorry have you not heard it's only middle aged English men that can be racist. Everyone dislikes certain other people its human nature It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else. It’s human nature to dislike someone because of their attitude or behaviour. That’s all. Absolute rubbish, look at your history books, religion has been the cause of most conflicts, humans are tribal by nature just as many other animals are that live in packs, if you come from a different area let alone a country or support a different team in sport someone will dislike you for it, of course then we have politics just look at the heated arguments in this little forum and the dislike that causes All of the hate/dislike you describe is by choice - it’s not human nature. If it was human nature then all people from one country would hate all people from another country. All fans of one team would hate all fans of another. All proponents of one religion would hate the followers of all others. The fact that the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent or even welcoming disproves you’re argument. You are the one who used the words of hate and all, I said some and dislike, perhaps distrust would have been better because yes it is a human trait and every other animals trait to dislike and mistrust others, it's a basic survival instinct that is used by humans and all animals to keep themselves safe, of course when we get to know others that dislike and mistrust fades as we find they aren't a threat. Ir appears you dont understand how basic instincts work I understand how instincts work. They are based upon survival. I also understand that it’s not human nature to specifically fear humans from other countries or those of other religions etc That’s a learned trait, not an instinct. Of course it is, humans are tribal and have a natural fear,dislike,mistrust of other tribes. You are in a hole best stop digging now I’m in a hole? You’re the one basically claiming bigotry is natural. Call it what you want, bigotry is not a word I would use for it. But of course mistrust is natural, it's called survival instinct, just as protecting your own child is natural, when you get to know people then that mistrust goes. I said “ It’s not human nature to dislike other people because of a physical attribute, because of their place of birth, religion or anything else” But you argued that. And to argue that is to accept bigotry. Look up bigotry, mistrusting people is not bigotry. Try looking into birth and nurture while you're at it, you might learn something, but as you know it all I doubt it" Do you mistrust people specifically because of a physical attribute? Skin colour? Country of birth? Social class? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Look up bigotry, mistrusting people is not bigotry. Try looking into birth and nurture while you're at it, you might learn something, but as you know it all I doubt it Do you mistrust people specifically because of a physical attribute? Skin colour? Country of birth? Social class? " We mistrust people we dont know, it's pretty simple to understand. Let me put it this way to help you. If your best mate who you have known for years falls out with his mrs and has to leave his home and comes to you and says can I stay with you for a couple of weeks as I have nowhere else to live, even if you were just off on hols for that time you would say sure no problem . But if you were outside your house packing the car to go away and a perfect stranger walked up and said I've just had to leave my home due to a breakup can I stay in your place for two weeks while I get sorted you would say no, that is basic instinct making you wary of a stranger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Look up bigotry, mistrusting people is not bigotry. Try looking into birth and nurture while you're at it, you might learn something, but as you know it all I doubt it Do you mistrust people specifically because of a physical attribute? Skin colour? Country of birth? Social class? We mistrust people we dont know, it's pretty simple to understand. Let me put it this way to help you. If your best mate who you have known for years falls out with his mrs and has to leave his home and comes to you and says can I stay with you for a couple of weeks as I have nowhere else to live, even if you were just off on hols for that time you would say sure no problem . But if you were outside your house packing the car to go away and a perfect stranger walked up and said I've just had to leave my home due to a breakup can I stay in your place for two weeks while I get sorted you would say no, that is basic instinct making you wary of a stranger." But we’re not talking about individual relations - we’re discussing the dislike of entire groups of people, countries, races etc Is it human nature to not like the French, or not like Arabs? Is it human nature to not like Muslims or to not like Sikhs? - I’d argue that no, it’s not human nature, that’s an active decision not to like a great swathe of people based upon nothing other than one own prejudice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Look up bigotry, mistrusting people is not bigotry. Try looking into birth and nurture while you're at it, you might learn something, but as you know it all I doubt it Do you mistrust people specifically because of a physical attribute? Skin colour? Country of birth? Social class? We mistrust people we dont know, it's pretty simple to understand. Let me put it this way to help you. If your best mate who you have known for years falls out with his mrs and has to leave his home and comes to you and says can I stay with you for a couple of weeks as I have nowhere else to live, even if you were just off on hols for that time you would say sure no problem . But if you were outside your house packing the car to go away and a perfect stranger walked up and said I've just had to leave my home due to a breakup can I stay in your place for two weeks while I get sorted you would say no, that is basic instinct making you wary of a stranger. But we’re not talking about individual relations - we’re discussing the dislike of entire groups of people, countries, races etc Is it human nature to not like the French, or not like Arabs? Is it human nature to not like Muslims or to not like Sikhs? - I’d argue that no, it’s not human nature, that’s an active decision not to like a great swathe of people based upon nothing other than one own prejudice. " So you accept that you wouldn't let the stranger into your home because you dont know him but then argue that it's not natural to be wary of people you have never met, you will be saying next that being gay is a choice not instinct in that person, you dont choose basic instinct, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Look up bigotry, mistrusting people is not bigotry. Try looking into birth and nurture while you're at it, you might learn something, but as you know it all I doubt it Do you mistrust people specifically because of a physical attribute? Skin colour? Country of birth? Social class? We mistrust people we dont know, it's pretty simple to understand. Let me put it this way to help you. If your best mate who you have known for years falls out with his mrs and has to leave his home and comes to you and says can I stay with you for a couple of weeks as I have nowhere else to live, even if you were just off on hols for that time you would say sure no problem . But if you were outside your house packing the car to go away and a perfect stranger walked up and said I've just had to leave my home due to a breakup can I stay in your place for two weeks while I get sorted you would say no, that is basic instinct making you wary of a stranger. But we’re not talking about individual relations - we’re discussing the dislike of entire groups of people, countries, races etc Is it human nature to not like the French, or not like Arabs? Is it human nature to not like Muslims or to not like Sikhs? - I’d argue that no, it’s not human nature, that’s an active decision not to like a great swathe of people based upon nothing other than one own prejudice. So you accept that you wouldn't let the stranger into your home because you dont know him but then argue that it's not natural to be wary of people you have never met, you will be saying next that being gay is a choice not instinct in that person, you dont choose basic instinct, " Not letting an unvetted stranger into your home for an extended period is a different scenario to saying “I don’t like all people from x” If you can’t grasp that very easy concept I’m not sure where we can go from here. Your final statement shall be treated with the contempt that it deserves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Look up bigotry, mistrusting people is not bigotry. Try looking into birth and nurture while you're at it, you might learn something, but as you know it all I doubt it Do you mistrust people specifically because of a physical attribute? Skin colour? Country of birth? Social class? We mistrust people we dont know, it's pretty simple to understand. Let me put it this way to help you. If your best mate who you have known for years falls out with his mrs and has to leave his home and comes to you and says can I stay with you for a couple of weeks as I have nowhere else to live, even if you were just off on hols for that time you would say sure no problem . But if you were outside your house packing the car to go away and a perfect stranger walked up and said I've just had to leave my home due to a breakup can I stay in your place for two weeks while I get sorted you would say no, that is basic instinct making you wary of a stranger. But we’re not talking about individual relations - we’re discussing the dislike of entire groups of people, countries, races etc Is it human nature to not like the French, or not like Arabs? Is it human nature to not like Muslims or to not like Sikhs? - I’d argue that no, it’s not human nature, that’s an active decision not to like a great swathe of people based upon nothing other than one own prejudice. So you accept that you wouldn't let the stranger into your home because you dont know him but then argue that it's not natural to be wary of people you have never met, you will be saying next that being gay is a choice not instinct in that person, you dont choose basic instinct, Not letting an unvetted stranger into your home for an extended period is a different scenario to saying “I don’t like all people from x” If you can’t grasp that very easy concept I’m not sure where we can go from here. Your final statement shall be treated with the contempt that it deserves." It's you that are unable to grasp a very simple fact. Non so blind as them that wont see , will let you reply as you always want the last word in every debate, well feel free if it helps | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please no more... I can’t read the nonsense.... it hurts my brain" You said you weren’t reading any more...ever. Tattie bye now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anybody think robert mugabe was a racist ,lol im gone " Whole new can of worms there  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anybody think robert mugabe was a racist ,lol im gone " That’s impossible . Everyone knows only white people have that trait | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" Who cares? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" Does it matter? Really? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick." Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past "Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then. Ridiculous claim.haha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha"Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there. "Worry no but history is for reflection mate. Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha"Wow. The level of self righteousness around here. After a century, the people of that time will speak about how horrible you and me were. Remember humans began as violent tribes killing each other in the most brutal manner. We have made a huge progress from there to here. You are a product of the society you grew up in. Uf you were born three centuries back, your social views would be completely different. Churchill considered some races to be superior to others. Was he racist? Be definition, yes. But it's completely wrong to judge him based on that. Everyone around the world was racist at some level around that time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there.
Worry no but history is for reflection mate.
Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism? "Political advantage i would say, and greed. Why is it major powers suck upto the Saudi royals and sell weapons used to kill civilians in yemen, and have draconian beheadings for being gay etc, yet Russia , iran etc are evil? Double standards to fit the narrative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there.
Worry no but history is for reflection mate.
Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism?
Political advantage i would say, and greed.
Why is it major powers suck upto the Saudi royals and sell weapons used to kill civilians in yemen, and have draconian beheadings for being gay etc, yet Russia , iran etc are evil? Double standards to fit the narrative.
"Sounds like white privilege or colonialist mentality to me in that case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there.
Worry no but history is for reflection mate.
Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism?
Political advantage i would say, and greed.
Why is it major powers suck upto the Saudi royals and sell weapons used to kill civilians in yemen, and have draconian beheadings for being gay etc, yet Russia , iran etc are evil? Double standards to fit the narrative.
Sounds like white privilege or colonialist mentality to me in that case."Does western greed not enter in any way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there.
Worry no but history is for reflection mate.
Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism?
Political advantage i would say, and greed.
Why is it major powers suck upto the Saudi royals and sell weapons used to kill civilians in yemen, and have draconian beheadings for being gay etc, yet Russia , iran etc are evil? Double standards to fit the narrative.
Sounds like white privilege or colonialist mentality to me in that case.
Does western greed not enter in any way? "Colonialist mentality encompasses western greed in all its forms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there.
Worry no but history is for reflection mate.
Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism?
Political advantage i would say, and greed.
Why is it major powers suck upto the Saudi royals and sell weapons used to kill civilians in yemen, and have draconian beheadings for being gay etc, yet Russia , iran etc are evil? Double standards to fit the narrative.
Sounds like white privilege or colonialist mentality to me in that case.
Does western greed not enter in any way?
Colonialist mentality encompasses western greed in all its forms."Do you need some ketchup with that chip on your shoulder? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there.
Worry no but history is for reflection mate.
Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism?
Political advantage i would say, and greed.
Why is it major powers suck upto the Saudi royals and sell weapons used to kill civilians in yemen, and have draconian beheadings for being gay etc, yet Russia , iran etc are evil? Double standards to fit the narrative.
Sounds like white privilege or colonialist mentality to me in that case.
Does western greed not enter in any way?
Colonialist mentality encompasses western greed in all its forms."As though all the other rulers were just sticking to their own kingdoms
Even before the Europeans colonized Asia, countries were occupied by some greedy fucks from other places. Europeans ended up colonizing most of it because they were stronger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who cares? He's been dead for over 50 years. I think it's interesting. People like to eulogise about him. Or demonise him. When the reality is he did plenty for this country, but also has some abhorrent views. Abhorrent views by 21st century standards yes. It has to be remembered however that he was brought up in the period when the British Empire was at its height. And, like most others at the time, he looked at the world from a British Empire viewpoint. He was stubborn and often quite rash with some of his decisions. (Lusitania?) and was often at odds with other politicians even in his own party (which he changed twice) Then along came 1940. After the Norwegian debacle at Narvik there were many voices in the establishment who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. An already weak Chamberlain was further weakened by the result of the debate about Narvik and Churchill was chosen (supported by Attlee I would add) as PM. The very next day Hitlers tanks rolled through Holland and Belgium and soon after had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. It is from this point where everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, should be eternally grateful to Churchill. Lesser mortals would have chucked in the towel there and then. But a combination of his world viewpoint and his stubbornness (OK tinted with a bit of what today we would call racism) was pretty much the only thing that stopped Britain capitulating. Had Britain packed it in (as many wanted) in the summer of 1940 Hitler would have been able to free up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment for his attack on the Soviet Union the following year. With Britain out of the war the eastern front could (probably would) have had a completely different conclusion. Also when the Americans (better late than never) entered the war, where the hell would they have entered it from if Britain had not been available as a springboard? D Day? forget it, it would never had happened. Yes Churchill was far from perfect and he was a pretty hopeless peacetime PM. But thank god we had him when we needed him. So I think it's time to stop the mud slinging and accept him as the great (albeit flawed) wartime leader that he was. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist?" Why does it matter? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? Why does it matter? " White/male = evil | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? Why does it matter? " Cuz the cunt is on a bank note when he said he hates Indians, my ancestors | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? Why does it matter? Cuz the cunt is on a bank note when he said he hates Indians, my ancestors" And you can thank him that you could write that in English, not German. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"The tories are racist " What makes you say that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The tories are racist What makes you say that?" Because when you are factually ignorant, it's very easy to say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The tories are racist What makes you say that? Because when you are factually ignorant, it's very easy to say. " Factorally ignorant? Is that racist? Are all Tories racist? That is factorally ignorant! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? Why does it matter? Cuz the cunt is on a bank note when he said he hates Indians, my ancestors" So what? And just saying ‘Tories are racists’ with no evidence is utter cowardice. And it’s that mind set, that attitude, that will keep them in power for potentially a decade. Learn how the power of debate and persuasion works and you might start swinging people to your way of thinking. But you won’t, because that’s too much hard work. So you’ll carry on calling everyone you don’t like racist, put trendy filters on your Facebook profile picture when it’s needed, share articles with punchy headlines that support your narrative that you’ll never actually read.....and high five yourself before bed because you showed us all what a superior moral being you are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? Why does it matter? Cuz the cunt is on a bank note when he said he hates Indians, my ancestors" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what? And just saying ‘Tories are racists’ with no evidence is utter cowardice. And it’s that mind set, that attitude, that will keep them in power for potentially a decade. Learn how the power of debate and persuasion works and you might start swinging people to your way of thinking. But you won’t, because that’s too much hard work. So you’ll carry on calling everyone you don’t like racist, put trendy filters on your Facebook profile picture when it’s needed, share articles with punchy headlines that support your narrative that you’ll never actually read.....and high five yourself before bed because you showed us all what a superior moral being you are. " ******************** Absolutely spot-on, I couldn't have put it any better if I tried...! Thank you. Eva. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? Why does it matter? Cuz the cunt is on a bank note when he said he hates Indians, my ancestors Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it." I’m hoping he drives a VW too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. I’m hoping he drives a VW too "My point; not to idolise histories cunts. But you bringing up 'vw' and 'clement atlee'? Makes sense to you i suppose | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. I’m hoping he drives a VW too
My point; not to idolise histories cunts. But you bringing up 'vw' and 'clement atlee'? Makes sense to you i suppose "******************* "histories(sic) cun*s"........ What a master of intellect you are. Eva | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. I’m hoping he drives a VW too
My point; not to idolise histories cunts. But you bringing up 'vw' and 'clement atlee'? Makes sense to you i suppose
*******************
"histories(sic) cun*s"........
What a master of intellect you are.
Eva"Apologies for my language and spelling but my point stands. Winston committed atrocities in the indian sub-continent and in ireland too. In my opinion, he should not be celebrated or idolised. Hopefully I've now proven my intellect by making a concise and valid point. Or shall we forward the debate on dear winston by attacking peoples grammer? Entirely your choice my love. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem?" How long was he there for? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The tories are racist " Have you even seen who's in the Tory cabinet at the moment?! How many Jews on the labour front bench btw? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem? How long was he there for?" I'm not Google, do your own research | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. I’m hoping he drives a VW too
My point; not to idolise histories cunts. But you bringing up 'vw' and 'clement atlee'? Makes sense to you i suppose
*******************
"histories(sic) cun*s"........
What a master of intellect you are.
Eva
Apologies for my language and spelling but my point stands. Winston committed atrocities in the indian sub-continent and in ireland too. In my opinion, he should not be celebrated or idolised. Hopefully I've now proven my intellect by making a concise and valid point. Or shall we forward the debate on dear winston by attacking peoples grammer? Entirely your choice my love."******************** Now that's much better, thank you. I have my own views on Mr. Churchill and his war tactics especially, which I choose to keep to myself. We must also remember that 100 years ago what was 'normal society' in Great Britain was the accepted norm by too many folks. No-one today knows how it REALLY felt to be alive in that day & age, let us be thankful it has now passed into history and keep remembering how fortunate we ALL are, regardless of race, creed, colour....etc..... in this country today. My opinion, for what it's worth to anyone but, still MY opinion. Thanks folks. Eva. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem? How long was he there for? I'm not Google, do your own research "It's ok to say "I actually had no point". You'd gain more respect through honesty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. I’m hoping he drives a VW too
My point; not to idolise histories cunts. But you bringing up 'vw' and 'clement atlee'? Makes sense to you i suppose
*******************
"histories(sic) cun*s"........
What a master of intellect you are.
Eva
Apologies for my language and spelling but my point stands. Winston committed atrocities in the indian sub-continent and in ireland too. In my opinion, he should not be celebrated or idolised. Hopefully I've now proven my intellect by making a concise and valid point. Or shall we forward the debate on dear winston by attacking peoples grammer? Entirely your choice my love.
********************
Now that's much better, thank you.
I have my own views on Mr. Churchill and his war tactics especially, which I choose to keep to myself.
We must also remember that 100 years ago what was 'normal society' in Great Britain was the accepted norm by too many folks.
No-one today knows how it REALLY felt to be alive in that day & age, let us be thankful it has now passed into history and keep remembering how fortunate we ALL are, regardless of race, creed, colour....etc..... in this country today.
My opinion, for what it's worth to anyone but, still MY opinion.
Thanks folks.
Eva." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem? How long was he there for? I'm not Google, do your own research
It's ok to say "I actually had no point". You'd gain more respect through honesty. "Sorry Clem, I've reread this several times but I don't know what point you are trying to make. Could you clarify if you have a moment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem? How long was he there for? I'm not Google, do your own research
It's ok to say "I actually had no point". You'd gain more respect through honesty.
Sorry Clem, I've reread this several times but I don't know what point you are trying to make. Could you clarify if you have a moment?"I could have answered your "Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem?" question with "I'm not Google, do your own research". But then I'd have looked just as ignorant as you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem? How long was he there for? I'm not Google, do your own research
It's ok to say "I actually had no point". You'd gain more respect through honesty.
Sorry Clem, I've reread this several times but I don't know what point you are trying to make. Could you clarify if you have a moment?
I could have answered your "Did Hitler eradicate French when he took over France Clem?" question
with "I'm not Google, do your own research". But then I'd have looked just as ignorant as you. "Ah!! I get it now. The answer is no Clem, Hitler did not eradicate French when he took over France. And I'm sorry, i don't know how long Adolf was in France, hope you find your answer soon. Calling me ignorant?! Clem!! My feelings are hurt  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? Why does it matter? Cuz the cunt is on a bank note when he said he hates Indians, my ancestors So what? And just saying ‘Tories are racists’ with no evidence is utter cowardice. And it’s that mind set, that attitude, that will keep them in power for potentially a decade. Learn how the power of debate and persuasion works and you might start swinging people to your way of thinking. But you won’t, because that’s too much hard work. So you’ll carry on calling everyone you don’t like racist, put trendy filters on your Facebook profile picture when it’s needed, share articles with punchy headlines that support your narrative that you’ll never actually read.....and high five yourself before bed because you showed us all what a superior moral being you are. " Excellent reply | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. I’m hoping he drives a VW too
My point; not to idolise histories cunts. But you bringing up 'vw' and 'clement atlee'? Makes sense to you i suppose
*******************
"histories(sic) cun*s"........
What a master of intellect you are.
Eva
Apologies for my language and spelling but my point stands. Winston committed atrocities in the indian sub-continent and in ireland too. In my opinion, he should not be celebrated or idolised. Hopefully I've now proven my intellect by making a concise and valid point. Or shall we forward the debate on dear winston by attacking peoples grammer? Entirely your choice my love."By today's standards, everyone around that time was a cunt in some level. Churchill had too much power and committed atrocities around the world. Indian Hindus had the caste system which was used to commit atrocities on minorities. The Muslim league of India was responsible for direct action day which led to one of the most horrible and widespread riots in the history that led to the brutalities of huge proportions. Who exactly was a good person at that time? The best thing we could do, is to forget all the shit and move on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Clement Atlee was racist too. I hooe you don't use the NHS because of it. I’m hoping he drives a VW too
My point; not to idolise histories cunts. But you bringing up 'vw' and 'clement atlee'? Makes sense to you i suppose "Was he a cunt to you specifically? How far back are we going in this grief olympics? Should my partner tear down Constantine’s statue in York for what the empire did to the welsh? Should we burn Enid Blytons books because she was a bit racist towards black people? Or drop the ‘Einstein’ from the theory of relativity because it went to the development of nuclear weapons? Where are you drawing the line? And the Atlee post is entirely relevant. He’s held up as the great virtuous hero of the Labour Party. But he also fucking loved the British Empire and was a major supporter of the Boer War (incidentally where the British invented and established concentration camps). If we’re attacking Churchill, then attack all the other historical figures who were not so secret shit weasels and did despicable things or held awful views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was genghis khan a racist OP? " Probably I dont know much about him in all truth and he isnt glorified as a hero and awesome leader of the uk. What I do know is Winston Churchill was apparently linked to Adolf if some conspiracies are to be believed though cant remember where I came across this but also factually was a racist sure but also the one behind the murder and genocide of many in india. It's the genocide I have a chip on my shoulder about so as previous commentator suggest I'd have ketchup and mayo ta. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was Winston Churchill a racist? No, he was a product of his time so can't be judged by todays standards. Anyone who does, and this is not necessarily my opinion, but some people may say is a bit of a prick. Yes, a product of his time, like Henry the 8th was. He was a bit nasty chopping heads off and terrible table manners but thats all in the past
Lol by product of his time then same could be said of every racist genocidal supremacist of the past such as Hitler then.
Ridiculous claim.haha
Yes Hitler was a bit nasty too. All three examples are all dead so noneed to worry there.
Worry no but history is for reflection mate.
Reflect on why someone is glorified here yet similar despots are ridiculed and defamed elsewhere. Could it be due to racism?
Political advantage i would say, and greed.
Why is it major powers suck upto the Saudi royals and sell weapons used to kill civilians in yemen, and have draconian beheadings for being gay etc, yet Russia , iran etc are evil? Double standards to fit the narrative.
Sounds like white privilege or colonialist mentality to me in that case.
Does western greed not enter in any way?
Colonialist mentality encompasses western greed in all its forms.
Do you need some ketchup with that chip on your shoulder?"So yes as I replied to before this I'll add here ketchup and mayo thanks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ghengis Khan is celebrated as a national hero in Mongolia and appears on their money. As does Vlad the Impaler in Romania. Difference? The UK is crippled by handwringing apologists and this fucking odd odd movement of ‘wokeness’. Baffles me " Maybe they're discussing him on fab magnolia lol maybe their leaders are corrupt who glorify him for some unknown reason. Either reason I'm discussing someone relevant to us here in the uk and besides its a topic I thought if and were getting responses | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was genghis khan a racist OP? Probably I dont know much about him in all truth and he isnt glorified as a hero and awesome leader of the uk. What I do know is Winston Churchill was apparently linked to Adolf if some conspiracies are to be believed though cant remember where I came across this but also factually was a racist sure but also the one behind the murder and genocide of many in india. It's the genocide I have a chip on my shoulder about so as previous commentator suggest I'd have ketchup and mayo ta." Churchill had links with Adolf?
Where do you read history from?
One of the reasons why Churchill was chosen to lead was he was the only one speaking against Adolf for years before the war started. Churchill always maintained that Adolf was a threat and the UK should have been fighting him instead of trying to appease him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ghengis Khan is celebrated as a national hero in Mongolia and appears on their money. As does Vlad the Impaler in Romania. Difference? The UK is crippled by handwringing apologists and this fucking odd odd movement of ‘wokeness’. Baffles me " King Leopold ll was celebrated and now isn't and quite rightly too. We are doing the same in this lovely forum thread, questioning who we consider heroes. We shouldn't elevate anyone to hero status that can't be demoted upon full reassessment of there actions. Would you agree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
