Churchill was a prick

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Churchill was a prick

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 23 May 13 4.10pm
Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.06pm Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.43pm Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 3.17pm Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.01pm Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Excuse my language but what a load of utopian revolutionary liberal horse shyte. If I didn't think you meant every word, I would laugh my head off. Churchill a mass murderer was he ? do me a favour, by the same logic so was Queen Victoria, Lord Nelson, Lord Wellington, and you may as well through Queen Elizabeth 1st and Bodicea into your cock eyed “ mass murderer” hat. PS have you started an internship at the Grauniad. Since when has daring to criticise a prominent member of the former establishment been 'revolutionary'? If not revolutionary then certainly anti establishment. If we're using that rationale, surely anyone who dares to criticise Attlee, Blair etc etc is equally utopian and revolutionary, no? Maybe unrealistic idealist would have been a better term This attack has no liberal agenda not much . And to be honest, feel free to call me a utopian if I object to a man who freely permitted the unnecessary killing of millions of innocent lives. Absurd claim. The real reason for the famine was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, Churchill was merely indifferent to there plight as we needed the shipping for the landings in Italy. Certainly he felt they could help themselves more, Churchill was concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe taking place there, and he pushed for whatever famine relief efforts India itself could provide; they simply weren't adequate. Something like three million people died in Bengal and other parts of southern India as a result. We might even say that Churchill indirectly broke the Bengal famine by appointing as Viceroy Field Marshal Wavell, who mobilized the military to transport food and aid to the stricken regions (something that hadn't occurred to anyone, apparently).” I accept your argument that if I claim him to be a mass-murderer (which is perhaps a little exaggerated) I have to throw loads of leaders in to the mix, but f'ck it, we have no qualms calling Mao or Hitler a mass-murderer, and it wasn't as if they did their own dirty work. So now Churchill is on a par with Mao and Hitler, what ever you are smoking....STOP I'll state it one last time. I believe ALL examples of killing innocent people indefensible. If that is a particularly revolutionary, utopian and liberal viewpoint to hold, then I'll be damned if I'm not a namby panby vegan Grauniad reading PC Marxist. In war time sh1t happens, sometimes it's very bad sh1t, but to look on those acts through peac time eyes from the comfort of 21st Century is .... well.. daft really. I will remember namby panby vegan though for your next rant. I like it. Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 3.19pm) Thank God, I thought I was the only one who couldn't do Jamie's fancy-dan quoting thing haha. I dunno if I can be arsed with this argument any more although I think it's raised some interesting questions. I may as well quite while I've only got one person threatening to beat me up. One last point though. While I agree with Jamie that it can be dangerous to argue through our modern day moral lenses, when certain morals were more widely held back in the day (I made this point in my opening post, for those who weren't frothing at the mouth, screaming for their wives to bring in their array of weaponry and fervently tracking my IP adress so as to know where to send their e-sht), but that doesn't mean we should completely refrain from doing so. By such a claim, we should view women's liberationalists and anti-slavery campaigners (two groups who I accept are still viewed as potential evils by some on here) as immoral for challenging their contemporary morality, while people like Hitler and Stalin, who actually carried out a lot of their policies with public backing, should be advocated. There has to be a balance, where too greater condemnation is tempered with historical understanding, but too greater acceptance is tempered by some level of moral ojectivity. Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 23 May 13 4.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.06pm

Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.43pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 3.17pm

Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.01pm

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s).

The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Excuse my language but what a load of utopian revolutionary liberal horse shyte. If I didn't think you meant every word, I would laugh my head off.

Churchill a mass murderer was he ? do me a favour, by the same logic so was Queen Victoria, Lord Nelson, Lord Wellington, and you may as well through Queen Elizabeth 1st and Bodicea into your cock eyed “ mass murderer” hat.

PS have you started an internship at the Grauniad.

Since when has daring to criticise a prominent member of the former establishment been 'revolutionary'?

If not revolutionary then certainly anti establishment.

If we're using that rationale, surely anyone who dares to criticise Attlee, Blair etc etc is equally utopian and revolutionary, no?

Maybe unrealistic idealist would have been a better term

This attack has no liberal agenda not much . And to be honest, feel free to call me a utopian if I object to a man who freely permitted the unnecessary killing of millions of innocent lives.

Absurd claim. The real reason for the famine was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, Churchill was merely indifferent to there plight as we needed the shipping for the landings in Italy. Certainly he felt they could help themselves more, Churchill was concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe taking place there, and he pushed for whatever famine relief efforts India itself could provide; they simply weren't adequate. Something like three million people died in Bengal and other parts of southern India as a result. We might even say that Churchill indirectly broke the Bengal famine by appointing as Viceroy Field Marshal Wavell, who mobilized the military to transport food and aid to the stricken regions (something that hadn't occurred to anyone, apparently).”

I accept your argument that if I claim him to be a mass-murderer (which is perhaps a little exaggerated) I have to throw loads of leaders in to the mix, but f'ck it, we have no qualms calling Mao or Hitler a mass-murderer, and it wasn't as if they did their own dirty work.

So now Churchill is on a par with Mao and Hitler, what ever you are smoking....STOP

I'll state it one last time. I believe ALL examples of killing innocent people indefensible. If that is a particularly revolutionary, utopian and liberal viewpoint to hold, then I'll be damned if I'm not a namby panby vegan Grauniad reading PC Marxist.

In war time sh1t happens, sometimes it's very bad sh1t, but to look on those acts through peac time eyes from the comfort of 21st Century is .... well.. daft really.

I will remember namby panby vegan though for your next rant. I like it.

Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 3.19pm)

Thank God, I thought I was the only one who couldn't do Jamie's fancy-dan quoting thing haha.

I dunno if I can be arsed with this argument any more although I think it's raised some interesting questions. I may as well quite while I've only got one person threatening to beat me up.

One last point though. While I agree with Jamie that it can be dangerous to argue through our modern day moral lenses, when certain morals were more widely held back in the day (I made this point in my opening post, for those who weren't frothing at the mouth, screaming for their wives to bring in their array of weaponry and fervently tracking my IP adress so as to know where to send their e-sh*t), but that doesn't mean we should completely refrain from doing so.

By such a claim, we should view women's liberationalists and anti-slavery campaigners (two groups who I accept are still viewed as potential evils by some on here) as immoral for challenging their contemporary morality, while people like Hitler and Stalin, who actually carried out a lot of their policies with public backing, should be advocated. There has to be a balance, where too greater condemnation is tempered with historical understanding, but too greater acceptance is tempered by some level of moral ojectivity.

Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 23 May 13 4.11pm
Quote matt_himself at 23 May 2013 3.53pm I really despair of disrespectful and ungrateful morons such as the OP. If it weren't for Winston, we'd be sucking sauerkraut and wearing leather shorts in a country that would make North Korea look like Amsterdam. We'd also be much better at football, be generally better looking and have a much stronger economy. (This is a joke, by the way). I sometimes wonder, mind, had Hitler won, would there be Germans sitting round saying 'thank God Adolf won, or we'd all be eating meat and two veg every meal, binge drinking ourselves in to an early grave, while riding round on horses playing polo'. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 23 May 13 4.11pm

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

Quote matt_himself at 23 May 2013 3.53pm

I really despair of disrespectful and ungrateful morons such as the OP.

If it weren't for Winston, we'd be sucking sauerkraut and wearing leather shorts in a country that would make North Korea look like Amsterdam.

We'd also be much better at football, be generally better looking and have a much stronger economy. (This is a joke, by the way).

I sometimes wonder, mind, had Hitler won, would there be Germans sitting round saying 'thank God Adolf won, or we'd all be eating meat and two veg every meal, binge drinking ourselves in to an early grave, while riding round on horses playing polo'.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 23 May 13 4.14pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate. I think you'll find that Hilter won most of his elections with at least 99% of the vote, actually... Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 4.15pm) If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 23 May 13 4.14pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm

Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate.

I think you'll find that Hilter won most of his elections with at least 99% of the vote, actually...

Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 4.15pm)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 23 May 13 4.14pm
Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.11pm Quote matt_himself at 23 May 2013 3.53pm I really despair of disrespectful and ungrateful morons such as the OP. If it weren't for Winston, we'd be sucking sauerkraut and wearing leather shorts in a country that would make North Korea look like Amsterdam. We'd also be much better at football, be generally better looking and have a much stronger economy. (This is a joke, by the way). I sometimes wonder, mind, had Hitler won, would there be Germans sitting round saying 'thank God Adolf won, or we'd all be eating meat and two veg every meal, binge drinking ourselves in to an early grave, while riding round on horses playing polo'. I really don't think it would be like that. Think more of Cambodia circa 1975. Mass graves, internment camps, arbitrary killings, suppression of law & order in favour of kangaroo courts, and life being a joyless stream of fascist indoctrination. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 23 May 13 4.14pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.11pm

Quote matt_himself at 23 May 2013 3.53pm

I really despair of disrespectful and ungrateful morons such as the OP.

If it weren't for Winston, we'd be sucking sauerkraut and wearing leather shorts in a country that would make North Korea look like Amsterdam.

We'd also be much better at football, be generally better looking and have a much stronger economy. (This is a joke, by the way).

I really don't think it would be like that. Think more of Cambodia circa 1975. Mass graves, internment camps, arbitrary killings, suppression of law & order in favour of kangaroo courts, and life being a joyless stream of fascist indoctrination.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 23 May 13 4.18pm
Quote bright&wright at 23 May 2013 8.56am Wembley. Block 140. Row 31. Seat 182. Come and tell me Churchill was a pr*ck to my face. It's a shame he helped save people like you. Great response. To cite Churchill in terms used on here is not only insulting but in my view it shows those individuals up as complete wastes of space. Who are they? Churchill is considered by the majority to be a great man, what have they done? Citing difficult decisions made in war and statements made from a different era are pathetic. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 May 2013 4.37pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

23 May 13 4.18pm

Quote bright&wright at 23 May 2013 8.56am

Wembley. Block 140. Row 31. Seat 182. Come and tell me Churchill was a pr*ck to my face.

It's a shame he helped save people like you.

Great response.

To cite Churchill in terms used on here is not only insulting but in my view it shows those individuals up as complete wastes of space.

Who are they? Churchill is considered by the majority to be a great man, what have they done?

Citing difficult decisions made in war and statements made from a different era are pathetic.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 May 2013 4.37pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 23 May 13 4.24pm
Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.11pm Quote matt_himself at 23 May 2013 3.53pm I really despair of disrespectful and ungrateful morons such as the OP. If it weren't for Winston, we'd be sucking sauerkraut and wearing leather shorts in a country that would make North Korea look like Amsterdam. We'd also be much better at football, be generally better looking and have a much stronger economy. (This is a joke, by the way). I sometimes wonder, mind, had Hitler won, would there be Germans sitting round saying 'thank God Adolf won, or we'd all be eating meat and two veg every meal, binge drinking ourselves in to an early grave, while riding round on horses playing polo'. A bit off topic, but I do find the much repeated "we'd all be speaking German" bit quite amusing. Clearly nothing terrifies an Englishman quite as much as the thought of having to learn a foreign language. Much aside from the fact that the Nazis didn't try to impose German as a language on occupied nations and one or two things I imagine might be worse, living in a Fascist dictatorship. But no, it's the speaking German bit
Alert a moderator to this post

the_mcanuff_stuff

Caterham 23 May 13 4.24pm

Send a Private Message to the_mcanuff_stuff

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.11pm

Quote matt_himself at 23 May 2013 3.53pm

I really despair of disrespectful and ungrateful morons such as the OP.

If it weren't for Winston, we'd be sucking sauerkraut and wearing leather shorts in a country that would make North Korea look like Amsterdam.

We'd also be much better at football, be generally better looking and have a much stronger economy. (This is a joke, by the way).

A bit off topic, but I do find the much repeated "we'd all be speaking German" bit quite amusing. Clearly nothing terrifies an Englishman quite as much as the thought of having to learn a foreign language. Much aside from the fact that the Nazis didn't try to impose German as a language on occupied nations and one or two things I imagine might be worse, living in a Fascist dictatorship. But no, it's the speaking German bit

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 23 May 13 4.25pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 23 May 2013 4.18pm Quote bright&wright at 23 May 2013 8.56am Wembley. Block 140. Row 31. Seat 182. Come and tell me Churchill was a pr*ck to my face. It's a shame he helped save people like you. Great response. To cite Churchill in terms used on here is not only insulting but in my view it shows those individuals up as complete wastes of space. You are they? Churchill is considered by the majority to be a great man, what have they done? Citing difficult decisions made in war and statements made from a different era are pathetic. Yeah, that's what Churchill defended. Unanimous agreement, and physical violence to those who don't... If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 23 May 13 4.25pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 May 2013 4.18pm

Quote bright&wright at 23 May 2013 8.56am

Wembley. Block 140. Row 31. Seat 182. Come and tell me Churchill was a pr*ck to my face.

It's a shame he helped save people like you.

Great response.

To cite Churchill in terms used on here is not only insulting but in my view it shows those individuals up as complete wastes of space.

You are they? Churchill is considered by the majority to be a great man, what have they done?

Citing difficult decisions made in war and statements made from a different era are pathetic.

Yeah, that's what Churchill defended. Unanimous agreement, and physical violence to those who don't...

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 23 May 13 4.26pm
Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.14pm Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate. I think you'll find that Hilter won most of his elections with at least 99% of the vote, actually... Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 4.15pm) Didn't he ban democracy after he came to power? I thought he only ever stood twice and only came second in the thirties. He came to power in a coalition and took power due to the weakness of the opposition. The Nazis were very popular but they never had a free vote that gave them a majority. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 May 2013 4.27pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

23 May 13 4.26pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.14pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm

Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate.

I think you'll find that Hilter won most of his elections with at least 99% of the vote, actually...

Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 4.15pm)

Didn't he ban democracy after he came to power?

I thought he only ever stood twice and only came second in the thirties.

He came to power in a coalition and took power due to the weakness of the opposition.

The Nazis were very popular but they never had a free vote that gave them a majority.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 May 2013 4.27pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

TheEagleOfSteel Minnesota, USA 23 May 13 4.28pm
Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.06pm Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.43pm Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 3.17pm Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.01pm Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Excuse my language but what a load of utopian revolutionary liberal horse shyte. If I didn't think you meant every word, I would laugh my head off. Churchill a mass murderer was he ? do me a favour, by the same logic so was Queen Victoria, Lord Nelson, Lord Wellington, and you may as well through Queen Elizabeth 1st and Bodicea into your cock eyed “ mass murderer” hat. PS have you started an internship at the Grauniad. Since when has daring to criticise a prominent member of the former establishment been 'revolutionary'? If not revolutionary then certainly anti establishment. If we're using that rationale, surely anyone who dares to criticise Attlee, Blair etc etc is equally utopian and revolutionary, no? Maybe unrealistic idealist would have been a better term This attack has no liberal agenda not much . And to be honest, feel free to call me a utopian if I object to a man who freely permitted the unnecessary killing of millions of innocent lives. Absurd claim. The real reason for the famine was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, Churchill was merely indifferent to there plight as we needed the shipping for the landings in Italy. Certainly he felt they could help themselves more, Churchill was concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe taking place there, and he pushed for whatever famine relief efforts India itself could provide; they simply weren't adequate. Something like three million people died in Bengal and other parts of southern India as a result. We might even say that Churchill indirectly broke the Bengal famine by appointing as Viceroy Field Marshal Wavell, who mobilized the military to transport food and aid to the stricken regions (something that hadn't occurred to anyone, apparently).” I accept your argument that if I claim him to be a mass-murderer (which is perhaps a little exaggerated) I have to throw loads of leaders in to the mix, but f'ck it, we have no qualms calling Mao or Hitler a mass-murderer, and it wasn't as if they did their own dirty work. So now Churchill is on a par with Mao and Hitler, what ever you are smoking....STOP I'll state it one last time. I believe ALL examples of killing innocent people indefensible. If that is a particularly revolutionary, utopian and liberal viewpoint to hold, then I'll be damned if I'm not a namby panby vegan Grauniad reading PC Marxist. In war time sh1t happens, sometimes it's very bad sh1t, but to look on those acts through peac time eyes from the comfort of 21st Century is .... well.. daft really. I will remember namby panby vegan though for your next rant. I like it. Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 3.19pm) Thank God, I thought I was the only one who couldn't do Jamie's fancy-dan quoting thing haha. I dunno if I can be arsed with this argument any more although I think it's raised some interesting questions. I may as well quite while I've only got one person threatening to beat me up. One last point though. While I agree with Jamie that it can be dangerous to argue through our modern day moral lenses, when certain morals were more widely held back in the day (I made this point in my opening post, for those who weren't frothing at the mouth, screaming for their wives to bring in their array of weaponry and fervently tracking my IP adress so as to know where to send their e-sht), but that doesn't mean we should completely refrain from doing so. By such a claim, we should view women's liberationalists and anti-slavery campaigners (two groups who I accept are still viewed as potential evils by some on here) as immoral for challenging their contemporary morality, while people like Hitler and Stalin, who actually carried out a lot of their policies with public backing, should be advocated. There has to be a balance, where too greater condemnation is tempered with historical understanding, but too greater acceptance is tempered by some level of moral ojectivity. Why wouldn't the public back state engineered famines to starve the peasantry into submission? Or the forced labour camps in Siberia? Then again after murdering an estimated 20,000,000 of his own people in 'the great purge' it's hardly surprising the people claimed to back him. Same goes for Hitler. You'd hardly speak against the man if even your own neighbour could report you to the secret police.. I really can't tell if you're trying to spark an intelligent debate or simply antagonize or 'troll' people. But seeing as you started a thread called 'Churchill was a prick' I'm going with the latter. You clearly know f** all about history, so maybe you should just stick to football eh? SO HERE'S TO YOU FAMOUS RED AND BLUE!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Englishman in Minneapolis, drop me a message if you're nearby!
Alert a moderator to this post

TheEagleOfSteel

Minnesota, USA 23 May 13 4.28pm

Send a Private Message to TheEagleOfSteel

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.06pm

Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.43pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 3.17pm

Quote dannyh at 23 May 2013 3.01pm

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Excuse my language but what a load of utopian revolutionary liberal horse shyte. If I didn't think you meant every word, I would laugh my head off.

PS have you started an internship at the Grauniad.

Since when has daring to criticise a prominent member of the former establishment been 'revolutionary'?

If not revolutionary then certainly anti establishment.

If we're using that rationale, surely anyone who dares to criticise Attlee, Blair etc etc is equally utopian and revolutionary, no?

Maybe unrealistic idealist would have been a better term

This attack has no liberal agenda not much . And to be honest, feel free to call me a utopian if I object to a man who freely permitted the unnecessary killing of millions of innocent lives.

So now Churchill is on a par with Mao and Hitler, what ever you are smoking....STOP

In war time sh1t happens, sometimes it's very bad sh1t, but to look on those acts through peac time eyes from the comfort of 21st Century is .... well.. daft really.

I will remember namby panby vegan though for your next rant. I like it.

Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 3.19pm)

Thank God, I thought I was the only one who couldn't do Jamie's fancy-dan quoting thing haha.

I dunno if I can be arsed with this argument any more although I think it's raised some interesting questions. I may as well quite while I've only got one person threatening to beat me up.

By such a claim, we should view women's liberationalists and anti-slavery campaigners (two groups who I accept are still viewed as potential evils by some on here) as immoral for challenging their contemporary morality, while people like Hitler and Stalin, who actually carried out a lot of their policies with public backing, should be advocated. There has to be a balance, where too greater condemnation is tempered with historical understanding, but too greater acceptance is tempered by some level of moral ojectivity.

Why wouldn't the public back state engineered famines to starve the peasantry into submission? Or the forced labour camps in Siberia?

Then again after murdering an estimated 20,000,000 of his own people in 'the great purge' it's hardly surprising the people claimed to back him. Same goes for Hitler. You'd hardly speak against the man if even your own neighbour could report you to the secret police..

I really can't tell if you're trying to spark an intelligent debate or simply antagonize or 'troll' people. But seeing as you started a thread called 'Churchill was a prick' I'm going with the latter.

You clearly know f*** all about history, so maybe you should just stick to football eh?

SO HERE'S TO YOU FAMOUS RED AND BLUE!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Englishman in Minneapolis, drop me a message if you're nearby!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 23 May 13 4.35pm
Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.25pm Quote Stirlingsays at 23 May 2013 4.18pm Quote bright&wright at 23 May 2013 8.56am Wembley. Block 140. Row 31. Seat 182. Come and tell me Churchill was a pr*ck to my face. It's a shame he helped save people like you. Great response. To cite Churchill in terms used on here is not only insulting but in my view it shows those individuals up as complete wastes of space. You are they? Churchill is considered by the majority to be a great man, what have they done? Citing difficult decisions made in war and statements made from a different era are pathetic. Yeah, that's what Churchill defended. Unanimous agreement, and physical violence to those who don't... I'm not expecting 'unanimous agreement' but if you make extreme statements such as yours you shouldn't complain when you get extreme responses. Sure there are those who hate Churchill, the world is full of people who think Bush directed planes into the Twin Towers and people who think the Queen is a lizard. The world has never been short of idiots. What it is short of is common sense. Those who call Churchill a cnt are in my view damned by their own statement. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

23 May 13 4.35pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.25pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 May 2013 4.18pm

Quote bright&wright at 23 May 2013 8.56am

Wembley. Block 140. Row 31. Seat 182. Come and tell me Churchill was a pr*ck to my face.

It's a shame he helped save people like you.

Great response.

To cite Churchill in terms used on here is not only insulting but in my view it shows those individuals up as complete wastes of space.

You are they? Churchill is considered by the majority to be a great man, what have they done?

Citing difficult decisions made in war and statements made from a different era are pathetic.

Yeah, that's what Churchill defended. Unanimous agreement, and physical violence to those who don't...

I'm not expecting 'unanimous agreement' but if you make extreme statements such as yours you shouldn't complain when you get extreme responses.

Sure there are those who hate Churchill, the world is full of people who think Bush directed planes into the Twin Towers and people who think the Queen is a lizard.

The world has never been short of idiots. What it is short of is common sense.

Those who call Churchill a cnt are in my view damned by their own statement.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 23 May 13 4.43pm
Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.14pm Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate. I think you'll find that Hilter won most of his elections with at least 99% of the vote, actually... Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 4.15pm) I think you'll find that he didn't, actually. There were certainly plebiscites after he became Chancellor (one to vote on merging the roles of Chancellor and President, another on Anschluss with Austria) which returned laughably loaded results in his favour but the Nazis never got more than 44% of the popular vote in any election they contested. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 23 May 13 4.43pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 May 2013 4.14pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm

Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate.

I think you'll find that Hilter won most of his elections with at least 99% of the vote, actually...

Edited by serial thriller (23 May 2013 4.15pm)

I think you'll find that he didn't, actually. There were certainly plebiscites after he became Chancellor (one to vote on merging the roles of Chancellor and President, another on Anschluss with Austria) which returned laughably loaded results in his favour but the Nazis never got more than 44% of the popular vote in any election they contested.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 23 May 13 4.50pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate. Everyone is happy to support the tyrants when its all good and they're doing well out of it. Tyrants need a pretty sizable support. Plenty of Russians and Germans were very happy to go along with the Nazis until it 'soured' on them. Stalin was unusal in his brutality, as it seems to have been an escaltion of the tyranny of Lenin and Trotsky to an almost pathological level that compromised his own self interest. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 23 May 13 4.50pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 23 May 2013 4.10pm

Not sure about that. Mute acquiescence or looking the other way (worrying that they'd be next) would be more accurate.

Everyone is happy to support the tyrants when its all good and they're doing well out of it. Tyrants need a pretty sizable support. Plenty of Russians and Germans were very happy to go along with the Nazis until it 'soured' on them.

Stalin was unusal in his brutality, as it seems to have been an escaltion of the tyranny of Lenin and Trotsky to an almost pathological level that compromised his own self interest.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Churchill was a prick

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors