Teribus. "Hungary and Czechoslovakia were Soviet invasions of foreign countries"

Does that mean they weren't acts of state terrorism? What's the invasion of one country's sovereign territory by another, if it isn't state terrorism.

"South Africa - perhaps you should read up on its history and find out what inspired the Boers First Great Trek".

Ok, so the British were guilty of state terrorism, to say nothing of inventing concentration camps. In any event, it's you who needs to read up on your history. Apartheid was introduced by the ruling National Party shortly after it came to power in 1948. What's more the South Africans weren't "kicked out of the Commonwealth". SA left in 1961, following a referendum. That in itself, although the official reason was that SA wanted to become a republic and not have to recognise the queen as head of state, was prompted by international condemnation over the state terrorist Sharpeville massacre. Sounds to me like you're the one who needs to read up on history.

"British in Northern Ireland".

Perhaps you wouldn't call Bloody Sunday an act of state terrorism, but I certainly would. Yes, I agree that the IRA was a bunch of murdering hypocrites. The point of my argument however is that there is fundamentally no difference between terrorism when it is perpetrated by a bunch of armed bandits and terrorism when it's perpetrated by the state.

"Britain in the rest of Ireland until 1921?? Do you mean from 1707 or back to the days of Henry II?"

Sorry, you've lost me. I cannot recall 1707 as having any significant dates as far as Ireland was concerned. Perhaps you are thinking of the Act of Union of that year, which applied to the Scots, but not the Irish.

"Doesn't matter either way those who ruled in those days treated everybody in the British Isles just as badly".

And......?

"Saddam murdering on average somewhere between 154 and 282 of his people daily over a period of 24 years".

Well, ain't that hunky dory. Did I say that Saddam wasn't a state terrorist? I merely asserted that the 2003 war was both unnecessary and an act of state terrorism. And contrary to what you say, shock and awe tactics were most definitely used by the Allies in Iraq in 2003.

"Colonial wars? Again brush up on your history and stop trying to fit the ethics and morals prevalent today on situations and events that happened long in the past."

Absolute rubbish. How else can we describe the spread of British Empire, and the subjugation of Indigenous native peoples, other than as state terrorism? In any event, imperialists have always had plenty of buzz words to justify the shortfall between imperial exploitation and their own moral and ethical standards; buzz words like civilisation and Christianity, when the real motivations were booty and profit.

"only TWO Stuart (Jacobite) Rebellions?? Both news to me".

Come off it. I didn't say there were only two Stuart rebellions. I was merely differentiating between the 1715 and the 1745.

"No campaign of genocide............more Scots and more Scottish Highlanders fought in Cumberland's Army than fought against it."

Cumberland's campaign of genocide is a proven fact. (See any number of Scots histories for confirmation.) IAE., whether or not Cumberland deployed Scots soldiers in his campaign is entirely irrelevant. It was still an act of genocide and it was still state terrorism.

"you need to check up on your history." Sorry T, you're the one who needs to check up on your history.