so, the english are raping again

[arbondigo]

I see no relevance as to how describing Mumbai fits in with this thread, and if you would like me to describe Mumbai to you then let me know and i'll do so in pm

[Perle]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

We had an Empire that stretched all over the globe, i suspect that is the reason for your jealousy. Had it been the Germans or Iranians who had achieved this i don't think this thread would be on here about them would it.
.

if my ancestors were invloved in such brutal wars and acts of aggression i would be ashamed.

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Yes because we started every war with France.
.

no you certainly didnt start most all of it.
lets see , where was the hundred years war fought at???
who i nvaded whos country agin??
did the french een set foot on the english soil??

Originally Posted by arbondigo

How stupid am i Now out of those list of "wars" you listed,
.

you are actually right to say "WARs" because moast of them werent really wars. thy were just massslaughter

Originally Posted by arbondigo

i can't remember any with China, the aboriginees, maories.
.

this is very good.

this is exactly what i mean about the english not knowing their own bloody history. Let me help you remember(i doubt you ever knew about them, making the word remember really pointless)

ok lets start with the aboriginees:

In 1770, Captain James Cook took possesion of the east coast of Australia and named it New South Wales in the name of Great Britain. The Aboriginal population was decimated by British colonisation which began in 1788, when news of the land's fertility spread to Europeans causing them to begin settling in the Aborigines' land. A combination of disease, loss of land (and thus food resources) and outright murder reduced the Aboriginal population by an estimated 90% during the 19th century and early 20th century. A wave of massacres and resistance followed the frontier. The last massacre was at Coniston in the Northern Territory in 1928. Poisoning of food and water has been recorded on several different occasions.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigine

hey whats a little mass poisening and killing for the glory of the british empire ,right???
doesnt really count as a war does it???

lets go to china shall we??:

Boxer Rebellion:
The insurgents finally fell to an international force, the Eight-Nation Alliance, eventually numbering 45,000 Japanese, United States, Austro-Hungarian, British, French, German, Italian, Russian and anti-Boxer Chinese troops, which captured Tianjin on July 14 and Beijing on August 14. In the United States military, the supression of the Boxer Rebellion was known as the China Relief Expedition.
German troops came in for criticism for their enthusiasm in carrying out Kaiser Wilhelm II's July 2 order to "make the name German remembered in China for a thousand years so that no Chinaman will ever again dare to even squint at a German". This speech, in which Wilhelm invoked the memory of the 5th-century Huns, gave rise to the later derogatory English usage of the latter term for their German enemy during World War I.

On September 7, 1901, the Qing court was compelled to sign the "Boxer Protocol", also known as Peace Agreement between the Great Powers and China, undertaking to execute ten officials linked to the outbreak and to pay war reparations of $333 million. So great was the sum that much of the money was later earmarked by the Britain and the U.S. for overseas education of Chinese students, forming the basis of Tsinghua University. The British signatory of the Protocol was Sir Ernest Satow.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

so the chinese independent movement is crushed by foreig powers(the brits were ofcourse part of it.) the chinese had to pay a huge amount of money to the US and british empire because they dared to fight for their freedom against foreign invaders.
didnt know that did you??

and yes before someone says it, the germans had their bloody hands in it too. doesnt make the brits any less guilty of slaughtering the chiese if others did it too.


lets go to the maoris ok??

The Maori Wars, now more commonly being referred to as The Land Wars and also as the New Zealand Wars, refers to a series of conflicts that happened in New Zealand between 1845 and 1872. Ostensibly they involved the original natives of New Zealand, the Māori, and the new European settlers, known as the Pakeha, who were assisted by hundreds, later thousands, of experienced British or imperial troops(....).However this was clearly just a preliminary. The Pakeha were not prepared to countenance the Māori controlling and ruling most of the territory of the North Island. War broke out again in 1863 with the Invasion of the Waikato. The Waikato War, including the Tauranga Campaign, was the biggest of all the New Zealand Land Wars. The outcome of this war was the major confiscation of Māori land which quickly provoked the Second Taranaki War. By the mid-1860s the conflict had forced the closing of all the Native Schools.(....)The legacy of the New Zealand—Māori—Wars continues, but these days the battles are mostly fought in the courtrooms and around the negotiation table. A number of major historical treaty claims have been settled since the 1980s, generally with a formal apology by the government, the exchange of money and return of Crown-owned land

well well, gi ng to new zaland, con fiscating land from the inhabitants, closing their native schools, y eah no war or aggression happned there right??
nothing important to even mention right???

Originally Posted by arbondigo

With India, the Moghuls ruled there before we went there and it became part of our Empire.

whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you knowledge of history is unbeievable. the mongols ruled india and then you went their and it just happened to becme yor empire??????
whaaaat??

just like that??? the indians said : hello great white men, come and rule our country and steal our ressources. we want to be part of your great empire?????

Originally Posted by arbondigo

To this day if an Brit goes to India he is treated very well and looked after. Why is this? It's because we gave them so much, yes we took too before you repeat yourself for the umpteenth time in this thread. You've also managed to avoid the French presence in India because it doesn't back up your "argument". You also forget the French and Spanish being present in America as well.

was there a french presence in india??
waaa?? since when??

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Turkey was formed from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. Now before you say that that's our fault too, they sided with Germany in the First World War, they lost and their colonies were taken over by the Allies. (read Allies not just the British). Britain didn't even start this war either for your information.

Then you are an idiot.

Anyone who's been to school are aware of the Empire, slave trade and America. So most of the population.

If people can't live together then it's not our fault. Most of Iraq is Muslim yet they fight each other, whether or not we're there. Just look at what it was like under Saddam, he gassed the Kurds, yet they were Muslim. Here we have Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc all living together, yet you don't see mass murders. And what are we doing in Iraq? Looking for WMDs which don't exist officially, if they'd just said that there were going to get rid of Saddam then i think it would've been more acceptable than the reason they're using.

this part of ypur post, i dont have the time to answer right now, ill do it in a couple of hours

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Perle

whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you knowledge of history is unbeievable. the mongols ruled india...

the Moghuls you damned ignorant cretin.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

I see no relevance as to how describing Mumbai fits in with this thread, and if you would like me to describe Mumbai to you then let me know and i'll do so in pm

It fits in with a concerning belief that you know very little about India so either

i) You've never been to India. Anyone can state that they have been somewhere with little ability to disprove it. I've been to Kazakhstan*

ii) You've been to these places but know very little about them. Maybe as a tourist, in a hotel away from the locals.

iii) You have been to India, you do know about it, we have just met people with different opinions.

So yes, please PM me.

* For the record, i have not been to Kazakhstan

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Perle

you knowledge of history is unbeievable. the mongols ruled india and then you went their and it just happened to becme yor empire??????

He said the Moghuls (sp.), you idiot. The Mughals. A dynasty of Muslim rulers, descended from Tamerlane, who ruled large areas of northern India before the Raj came along. Responsible for the Taj Mahal, among other things.

Of course, you knew this, and 'Mongols' was merely a typo.

Originally Posted by Perle

was there a french presence in india??
waaa?? since when??

Pondicherry, the Coromandel coast, and a few other places, mainly in the South-East. I suggest your search for "French colonies in India", "French India", etc.

Also, while you're there, you can swot up on the Portuguese and Dutch colonies in that part of the world.

I suggest you actually read up on global history before lecturing others on it.

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Perle

ahhh look at this, the godfather has crawlen up from the hole he was hiding in after being totally beaten in his iraq-creation-denying-fiasco, for a glorious comeback.

welcome back.

would you care to post me one country/people, which have even half of the list of wars the english people have????

like i said. i will be back somewhere i can 'reply properly' tomorrow afternoon. then ill spend a few minutse taking each of your posts and systematically destroying any arguement youve made. (altho tbh most people have already done this)

and also.....we may have gone to war a large amount but so have most other countries. we have a fairly long history.......


how things like civil wars/peacekeeping/coldwar conflicts have anything whatsoever to do with your original 'the english rape and pillage' arguement im not sure but ill just metaphorically pat you on the head and say 'yes pearle...im sure they do'...

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Perle

if my ancestors were invloved in such brutal wars and acts of aggression i would be ashamed.

Well i'm not, end of discussion about whether or not i'm ashamed of it or not.

Originally Posted by Perle

this is very good.

this is exactly what i mean about the english not knowing their own bloody history. Let me help you remember(i doubt you ever knew about them, making the word remember really pointless)

Well done, i said out of the wars that YOU LISTED . Way to go chopping and changing what i said to suit you Ok, you listed the Opium War, which i didn't know about.

Originally Posted by Perle

whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you knowledge of history is unbeievable. the mongols ruled india and then you went their and it just happened to becme yor empire??????
whaaaat??

Yes the French were there, and so were the Dutch. Please learn your history before you criticise others about their "lack" of it.. And Mughals, and Mongols. Notice the difference now? Please go get your facts straight.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Phang

[/i]the Moghuls you damned ignorant cretin.

i know about the mughuls you fool, i was talking about the your casual: oh we came by and it became our empire nonsense

[Ste]

Ok,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt thinking you'd simply decided to hate the British because of the current Iraq situation which had influenced your understanding of History.
Now I realise you have NO understanding of History.
Your list of battles was pure crap, so few of them involved invading, most involved defending ourselves, our allies and our interests. Did you read my breakdown at all?
They harm your argument they don't help it.

Originally Posted by Perle

no you certainly didnt start most all of it.
lets see , where was the hundred years war fought at???
who i nvaded whos country agin??
did the french een set foot on the english soil??

The hundred years war?
"war was primarily fought on French soil, and in some ways can be viewed as a civil war in France as much as a war between nations"
Do you actually know anything about this specific war? Or did you think "This one lasted the longest so it must be the worst!"?

you are actually right to say "WARs" because moast of them werent really wars. thy were just massslaughter

Mass-slaughters? HEH! More people died in WW1 & 2 than in all the rest put together.

whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you knowledge of history is unbeievable. the mongols ruled india and then you went their and it just happened to becme yor empire??????
whaaaat??

just like that??? the indians said : hello great white men, come and rule our country and steal our ressources. we want to be part of your great empire?????

was there a french presence in india??
waaa?? since when??

And here we have the problem. You know nothing about the history of the world. You've read about British Colonialism and thought we were the only ones doing it.
Have a look at other empires. They were much worse than the British. The Spanish for example. The French, the Germans/Prussians, the Mongols, the Romans, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Dutch, the Ottomans, the Austrians ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.
All have had wars, all have had empires. Just because the British was most successful and biggest doesn't make it the worst.
We know the British weren't perfect, we know our history.
You're acting very childish and over-emotive now.
Stop spouting hyperbole and nonsense and maybe people would take you seriously.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by arbondigo



Yes the French were there, and so were the Dutch. Please learn your history before you criticise others about their "lack" of it.. And [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughals

Mughals[/url], and Mongols. Notice the difference now? Please go get your facts straight.

it was a typo, if you notice , i make alot of typos. i never disputed that the mughuls or moghuls or watever their name is were in india.I look up things in wickipedia before posting. i made fun of your : we went thir and it became part of our empire part.

on a side note: tamburlane who claimed to be of monghol descent did conquer india centuries earlier


if yu read more carefully, i never dispute the mughuls part of your post, i make fun of the casula india par t.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Perle

it was a typo, if you notice , i make alot of typos. i never disputed that the mughuls or moghuls or watever their name is were in india.I look up things in wickipedia before posting. i made fun of your : we went thir and it became part of our empire part.

on a side note: tamburlane who claimed to be of monghol descent did conquer india centuries earlier

No, if your posts in this thread made any sense then i'd say it was a typo. It wasn't a typo and you know it, Mongols, Mughals, 2 completely different words. If i'd said that the Mongols ruled India you would've agreed. You might want to look at other sources instead of wiki all the time.

Now, about "tamburlane", do you mean Mongol or Mughal?

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

He said the Moghuls (sp.), you idiot. The Mughals. A dynasty of Muslim rulers, descended from Tamerlane, who ruled large areas of northern India before the Raj came along. Responsible for the Taj Mahal, among other things.
:

no, ofcourse i did not know that the moghuls were ruling india before the english came along.
my knowledg of history isnt that good.


Thats why i looked it up in wicki. I wasnt making fun of the mughul part ,i made fun of the part of the easy- india -becoming -part-of -the-empire .

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Perle

my knowledg of history isnt that good.

Quoted for truth.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Perle

no, ofcourse i did not know that the moghuls were ruling india before the english came along.
my knowledg of history isnt that good.

The most truthful thing you've said on here

[Perle]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

No, if your posts in this thread made any sense then i'd say it was a typo. It wasn't a typo and you know it, Mongols, Mughals, 2 completely different words. If i'd said that the Mongols ruled India you would've agreed. You might want to look at other sources instead of wiki all the time.

Now, about "tamburlane", do you mean Mongol or Mughal?

as i recall tamburlane was claiming that he was a decendent of chinghiz khan.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Perle

my knowledg of history isnt that good.

Then does it not strike you as a tad foolish, not to say self-confidently optimistic, to issue forth statements like English people are the most war-like in history, and Britain has been the most aggressive state ever to grace the face of the earth, if your are possesed of limited historical knowledge?

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Perle

as i recall tamburlane was claiming that he was a decendent of chinghiz khan.

Genghis Khan. Please tell me how Tamerlane had any relevance to why you thought the Mongols ruled in India at the same time as Britain went there. You only ever mentioned it after MM mentioned him. Someone who knows so much history should know that the Mongols, and Britain in India were two completely different events at two completely different eras in history. Of course you already knew this though.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Perle

my knowledg of history isnt that good.

DOH!

You just dismissed yourself from your own thread.

GG you.

[JonnyBGood]

This has been a class A trolling.

[SYMM]

With India, the Moghuls ruled there before we went there and it became part of our Empire.

you knowledge of history is unbeievable. the mongols ruled india and then you went their and it just happened to becme yor empire??????

It was clear to me the point he was trying pick up on, and that the Mongols/Moghuls was a typo :|

[Nusselt]

All threads on GD are irrational, every post is analysed by counter posts to such an extent that it is impossible to denote the value of a thread by its title alone. Every topic, every conversation and every thought in history is contained within every GD thread. The GD processor system (Unitary Sentient Evangelical Rather Stupids) ability to calculate the value of a particular GD thread is improving with time, however the actual practical value of measuring a GD thread past its fourth page is often negligible. It is however amusing to watch it calculate away and observe what thoughts are contained within it.

[Richie987]

Originally Posted by Perle

my knowledg of history isnt that good.

It really shows throughout this thread, why did it make 7pages though? didn't deserve that much credit.
A teenage kid trying to blame others for something s/he has no control over. I'm guessing you don't live in Iraq and listen to the propaganda and tabloids? You have no real actual idea what does go on apart from what your told?
Troll back if you wish, i won't reply - your too boring, same argument all over and over

[Perle]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

No, if your posts in this thread made any sense then i'd say it was a typo. It wasn't a typo and you know it, Mongols, Mughals, 2 completely different words. If i'd said that the Mongols ruled India you would've agreed. You might want to look at other sources instead of wiki all the time.

Now, about "tamburlane", do you mean Mongol or Mughal?

actually look at this :

The Mughal Empire was Islamic, although many of the subjects of the Empire, up to and including very high-ranking members of the court, were Hindu. When Babur first founded the Empire, he did not emphasize his religion, but rather his Turkic and Persian heritage. (The name "Mughal" seems to have been attached somewhere in the 16th century. It is derived from Mongol, another piece of Babur's ancestry.)

in persian(my mother language) we call the mongols moghols, which makes my mistake even more understandable. I picked on the part where you said that the india just happened to become part of the empire. I know you d like to distract from that part of your foolish post

[Perle]

Originally Posted by SYMM

It was clear to me the point he was trying pick up on, and that the Mongols/Moghuls was a typo :|

thank you very much.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

DOH!

You just dismissed yourself from your own thread.

GG you.

ahhhhh look at this, how nice of you to make a surprise comeback . I was thinking that after the how-little-you-know-about-iran-history-and-the-english-robbing-it-fiasco, you had crawlen into the same hole that the godfather was hiding in.
Did you think that the little mughul/mongol misunderstanding would cover up your posts full of historical inaccuracy??

[JonnyBGood]

I think everyone dismissed your opinions on history when you revealed you didn't know the French ever had Indian colonies. If your level of historical knowledge of the colonial period is really that poor most of the facts you post can be seen as extremely selectivist and your argument becomes less of one desiring to know the truth and more of one desiring to prove a point which you stated without a deep enough understanding of the subject you were commenting on. Do you see what I mean?

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Perle

in persian(my mother language) we call the mongols moghols, which makes my mistake even more understandable. I picked on the part where you said that the india just happened to become part of the empire. I know you d like to distract from that part of your foolish post

Stop making excuses. Mongols and Mughals are 2 completely different words, 2 completely different Empires. Go and learn about colonial histories of various Empires then come back here.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Stop making excuses. Mongols and Mughals are 2 completely different words, 2 completely different Empires. Go and learn about colonial histories of various Empires then come back here.

Shut up.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Perle

Did you think that the little mughul/mongol misunderstanding would cover up your posts full of historical inaccuracy??

You admit you know little (to nothing) about history except what you selectivly choose from a single source (Wikipedia), so I hardly think you are in any position to judge the historical accuracy of others.

Furthermore, starting a thread based around history whilst knowing little about it (by your own admission) is foolish and continuing to insist that you are right in the face of a multitude of frankly more intelligent and better educated people telling you that you are wrong and patiently explaining *why* you are wrong only goes to prove that you are either a troll or a grade A village idiot, possibly both.

Either way you have now iredeemably damaged your ability to ever argue any serious point within this community again.

I hope you learn from your mistakes here, but I doubt you ever will.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ste

Ok,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt thinking you'd simply decided to hate the British because of the current Iraq situation which had influenced your understanding of History.
Now I realise you have NO understanding of History.
Your list of battles was pure crap, so few of them involved invading, most involved defending ourselves, our allies and our interests. Did you read my breakdown at all?
They harm your argument they don't help it.

ahhh this is so frustrating. defending our interest. using euphimism to cover up massslaughter, armed robery and tyranny over other people. Actually you are right, my list of battles are really pure CRAP. i should have instead listed a much better list of the invading and killing lwhich were not even on that list. the list is crap, ill make a new one. It will take some time, but it wont be so easily dissmissable

Originally Posted by Ste

Mass-slaughters? HEH! More people died in WW1 & 2 than in all the rest put together.

so??? does that make the sloughters and killings of the aboriginess ,maorees , chinese ,any less grave???

Originally Posted by perle

my knowledg of history isnt that good.

Originally Posted by Ste

And here we have the problem. You know nothing about the history of the world.

I know you intentionally misinterpret the sentence because you do not lkike what i am saying. The stress of that sentence lies on the word THAT. Meaning that i do not claim to know history so well to know every ruler of every country in every country of the world. but of course, its really easy to dismiss someone by being a pedant and not actually facing the facts.

Originally Posted by Ste

You've read about British Colonialism and thought we were the only ones doing it.

please put your money were your mouth is. id like you to quote me once and show me where i made that claim!!!!

Originally Posted by Ste

Have a look at other empires. They were much worse than the British. The Spanish for example. The French, the Germans/Prussians, the Mongols, the Romans, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Dutch, the Ottomans, the Austrians ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.

the other empires in the last 1000 years were not as bad as the english. tell me how many times was there a war between afghanistan and britain now??? 4 ****ing times!!!!!!!
how long were the english robbong iraq??? 40 ****ing years!!!!

how many other european countries have that record with those 2 countries alone??? none!!!!

Originally Posted by Ste

All have had wars, all have had empires. Just because the British was most successful and biggest doesn't make it the worst.
We know the British weren't perfect, we know our history.
You're acting very childish and over-emotive now.
Stop spouting hyperbole and nonsense and maybe people would take you seriously.

tell you, what. let us make a list. forget about the wars between the european powers. lets make a list of the countries/people invaded/assaulted/robbed by those empires and lets see who has done the most shall we???

but hey, i know, you wont do it
why??? you dont like losing!!

put your money where your mouth is, make a list

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I already have: Most continental wars (And by this we mean the most prolonged, bloody and destructive globally speaking.) between the period of 1453 and today, were largely European affairs, started, in the main, by the aggressive actions of continental European states.

Practically all of the European wars you posted earlier involved all of the great powers of Europe, and in practically all of them, Britain was far from being the chief aggressor. In fact, in many of them, Britain was actively combating the aggresive tendencies of others. (France under Naploeon and Louis XIV, Nazi Germany, etc.)

Many of these same states during this period were much, much more backwards in their policies towards their own subjects (not to mention other people's subjects.) than Britain.

Your argument that Britain is somehow more historically aggressive and brutal than all of the other states of Europe combined, is therefore absolute twaddle.

As for colonial wars, atrocities and exploitation: Well, here's news for you - Practically all European states had these, because, surprise, surprise, practically all European states had colonial empires. (Ever heard of Cortez's conquest of the Aztecs? Ever heard of the Algerian war of independence? Ever heard of Dien Bien Phu, etc?)
.

dude what is all this bla blah, make a list counting the people/countries which were invaded by european powers. and lets not forget to include how often they were invaded / robbed. we all know how the english always keep invading back after they are kicked out.

and then lets see who is right ok??

I mean this isnt fair. why do i have to do all the work against 6 or 7 people.
back it up by a list./

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Perle

I mean this isnt fair. why do i have to do all the work against 6 or 7 people.

because you're completely wrong. not many of us are that big on the empire, but we're objective about it. It did what it did; it had good sides and bad sides, it killed people but saved people too, and it was less bloodthirsty, less aggressive and less violent than most of the other empire-builders through history. Your stance is frankly baffling.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

You admit you know little (to nothing) about history except what you selectivly choose from a single source (Wikipedia), so I hardly think you are in any position to judge the historical accuracy of others.

Furthermore, starting a thread based around history whilst knowing little about it (by your own admission) is foolish and continuing to insist that you are right in the face of a multitude of frankly more intelligent and better educated people telling you that you are wrong and patiently explaining *why* you are wrong only goes to prove that you are either a troll or a grade A village idiot, possibly both.

Either way you have now iredeemably damaged your ability to ever argue any serious point within this community again.

I hope you learn from your mistakes here, but I doubt you ever will.

look at this, another post from ninja-spammer. this is so cute. i never claimed to know little or nothing about history.

if you are referring to this :

Originally Posted by Perler

my knowledg of history isnt that good.
.

The stress of that sentence lies on the word THAT. Meaning that i do not claim to know history so well to know every ruler of every country in every country of the world. but of course, its really easy to dismiss someone by being a pedant and not actually facing the facts.

now little ninja, how about answering for the false iranian-revoltuion-claims from 2 or 3 pages ago, where you decided to rout the field, instead of embarrasing yourself any further.
you thought i would forget about that??

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Phang

because you're completely wrong. not many of us are that big on the empire, but we're objective about it. It did what it did; it had good sides and bad sides, it killed people but saved people too, and it was less bloodthirsty, less aggressive and less violent than most of the other empire-builders through history. Your stance is frankly baffling.

ok, then name me one empire which was more aggressive on such a global scale for such a long time in the last 800 years.

[JonnyBGood]

Perle, why do you think it is that the British empire has been more aggressive than any other over the past 800 years? Is it a racial characteristic? Is there a sociological explanation? Is it due to a small number of specific individuals and their actions? Is it a combination of these and other reasons? If so, what are these other reasons and which are more important than others?

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Perle

now little ninja, how about answering for the false iranian-revoltuion-claims from 2 or 3 pages ago, where you decided to rout the field, instead of embarrasing yourself any further.
you thought i would forget about that??

You failed to disprove my claims.

ok, then name me one empire which was more aggressive on such a global scale for such a long time in the last 800 years.

The Third Reich.

Soviet Russia.

The French Republic.

The Empire of Nippon (Japan) big plans but got shot down by piss poor strategic planning

The United States of America, though some of them may dispute this.

Imperial Germany.

The Ottoman Empire, not very global though.

The Mongol Empire (Just inside your 800 year range I think), they pretty much invented the scorched earth policy.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Perle

back it up by a list./

Do you agree with what I posted as a piece of historical analysis, or not?

It's a simple enough question, and does not require the employment of a list to decide it either way.

If you're too ignorant of European history (Which is an eminent possiblity.) to decide the question either way, then go away and study the subject and come back to me.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Perle, why do you think it is that the British empire has been more aggressive than any other over the past 800 years? Is it a racial characteristic? Is there a sociological explanation? Is it due to a small number of specific individuals and their actions? Is it a combination of these and other reasons? If so, what are these other reasons and which are more important than others?

I dont know. these are real good questions you are asking. and it is also one of the reasons what really make me angry. I really dont know why. I cant really understand the brutality and the state of mind one must have to go off and oppress countries that are thousends of kilometres away. someone said earlier that the english were not more aggresive than others, they were just more succesfull. I dont know, maybe he was right. But i think they were not only more succesfull, they were much more persistent than others. you really had to kick them 3 or 4 times before finally getting rid of them.
Maybe being really persistent is an english characterisitc. I dont really know.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

The Third Reich.

Soviet Russia.

The French Republic.

The Empire of Nippon (Japan) big plans but got shot down by piss poor strategic planning

The United States of America, though some of them may dispute this.

Imperial Germany.

The Ottoman Empire, not very global though.

The Mongol Empire (Just inside your 800 year range I think), they pretty much invented the scorched earth policy.

mongolia's a little over 800 years, but still a good point to state, everything else is pretty accurate

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Do you agree with what I posted as a piece of historical analysis, or not?

It's a simple enough question, and does not require the employment of a list to decide it either way.

If you're too ignorant of European history (Which is an eminent possiblity.) to decide the question either way, then go away and study the subject and come back to me.

Ill get back on that tomorrow. i

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

You failed to disprove my claims.


the Mongol Empire (Just inside your 800 year range I think), they pretty much invented the scorched earth policy.

ill answer your post tomorrow too.

but could you elaborate on the invention of the scorched earth policy by the mongols??? I always thought it was inventd during the napolean-invasion of russia by the russian zar. Im not making fun of you or something. Im just interested in this peticular historical event..

[JonnyBGood]

Perhaps it was due to the economic and social systems they employed? Personally I think a lot of it is due to the way in which capitalism manifested itself in Britain. The British empire can be looked at as enlightened self-interest without respect for the property rights of others. What people are saying is true, and can be backed up by a minimum of historical research the record of the British empire is less brutal than that of the majority of the others. This was due both to fear and respect. The goal of the British empire was commercial above all else. Efficiency was the point.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Perle

but could you elaborate on the invention of the scorched earth policy by the mongols??? I always thought it was inventd during the napolean-invasion of russia by the russian zar. Im not making fun of you or something. Im just interested in this peticular historical event..

i think the point implied was the mongols pioneered the scorched earth policy during the endless conflicts with china, but popularized by the more modern war contemporaries (i.e. france, etc)

[SilverSmoke]

Originally Posted by Perle

Im not making fun of you or something

heh

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

i think the point implied was the mongols pioneered the scorched earth policy during the endless conflicts with china, but popularized by the more modern war contemporaries (i.e. france, etc)

Basically, yes.

Scorched earth is more effective once you can actually blow everything and everyone to shit with musket and cannon

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Basically, yes.

Scorched earth is more effective once you can actually blow everything and everyone to shit with musket and cannon

wicki is saying something about vercingetorix having used it against cesar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

[Ninja_spammer]

No mention of the mongols doing it all, odd.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Perle

wicki is saying something about vercingetorix having used it against cesar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

ah! the romans pioneered it then.. 1st recorded anyway.. but although not recorded on your reference, i remember seeing on some text somewhere that one of the barbaric techniques of the mongols against china was the scorched earth policy - i'm sure the english/scots used this tactic too, and the later dynasties of china and japan during conflicts with rebellion groups and such

but then again, popularized by modern war histories because of the more technological capabilities of the modern world

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Perle

wicki is saying something about vercingetorix having used it against cesar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199481/...b24_;fc=1;ft=1

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199481/...b24_;fc=1;ft=1

Wow, the 50th worst film EVER!