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."

I think it is called an act of war Fred.

What inspired the Boers First Great Trek during the 1830s Fred?

Historians have identified various factors that contributed to the migration of an estimated 12,000 Voortrekkers to the future Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal regions. The primary motivations included discontent with the British rule:

- Anglicisation policies (especially in official circles, at the expense of the taal.)
- Restrictive laws on slavery and its eventual abolition
- Arrangements to compensate former slave owners (which were considerate inadequate and during harvest season.)
- The perceived indifference of British authorities to border conflicts along the Cape Colony's eastern frontier.
- The Boers had been blamed by the Government for provoking an unjust war.
- Land was becoming scarce and expensive owing to the natural increase in the Afrikaans-speaking population and the advent of 5,000 British settlers during 1820.
- Droughts
- The chronic mortifications at the way the Boers' actions were so freely criticised by the missionaries.
- The official recognition of the equality between coloured men and whites. - GET THAT FRED
- The British authorities had stopped ammunition being traded across the Orange, and someone like Jan PRETORIUS, the sub leader of the TREGARDT trek, wanted to buy gunpowder from the Portuguese in Lourenco Marques, and he thought that joining TREGARDT's caravan was the safest way of getting there."

"so the British were guilty of state terrorism, to say nothing of inventing concentration camps."

Nope and it is a complete and utter myth that the British invented concentration camps - that "honour" goes to the Spaniards in Cuba, closely followed by the Americans in the Philippines - all before the British employed the practice against the Boers. Take a look at the deaths in the other camps compared to those in the British camps in South Africa (The difference is staggering 100,000s compared to tens of thousands). Take a look at the number of British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in their camps in South Africa - roughly comparable to those of the Boer prisoners.

Apartheid was introduced by the ruling National Party in stages after it came to power in 1948, the first step being taken in 1950 it was fully implemented by 1956.

What referendum? - South Africa withdrew in 1961 when it became clear that its reapplication for membership on becoming a republic would be rejected. So strictly speaking it left before it was pushed.

"British in Northern Ireland".

No comments on Bloody Friday then Fred?

No I would not call Bloody Sunday an act of State terrorism - a tragedy yes, a terrible miscalculation by those in command on the scene, but there was no deliberate intention for anybody to go out and kill anybody that day - if you have proof that that was otherwise please submit it to the correct authorities.

"Yes, I agree that the IRA was a bunch of murdering hypocrites."

The PIRA certainly, the "Official" IRA most certainly NOT, they took a look at how things were headed in 1972 and stood apart from direct action completely as they saw the only thing they would be doing was pouring fuel on the fire. The IRA saw that the entire population of mainland Britain was on the side of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement and that left to peaceful protest their aims would have all been achieved.

"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."

You did state what BRITAIN had done in the rest of Ireland until 1921 didn't you - That you little historical genius you pegs it to the period 1707 until 1921 as prior to that date BRITAIN did not exist.

AND......?

Ireland was treated no differently than any other part of the British Isles - i.e. that was the norm for those times.

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

"Did I say that Saddam wasn't a state terrorist?" You certainly in mentioning the Iraq War of 2003 didn't state that he was!

"I merely asserted that the 2003 war was both unnecessary and an act of state terrorism."

You can assert all you like, in the wake of the attacks of 11.09.2001 and the re-evaluation of what constituted the greatest threat to the United States of America all 19 of the intelligence and security agencies of the USA and the conclusions of the Joint House Security Committee with all the information and intelligence at their disposal totally disagree with your assertions. And guess what Fred - they were right.

"And contrary to what you say, shock and awe tactics were most definitely used by the Allies in Iraq in 2003."

Not if you compare target assignments, aircraft sorties flown and weapons payloads dropped. Not if you compare the area over which missions were flown. Not if you compare the numbers of missiles fired. As I said there was a very good reason "shock and awe" was not used in 2003 - the Americans would subsequently have to repair all the damage and destruction that they wrought - it was simply not good economic sense to blow everything to bits.

"How else can we describe the spread of British Empire, and the subjugation of Indigenous native peoples, other than as state terrorism?"

Nail Ferguson in his book "Empire" describes exactly how it was done by the British - primarily through trade - NOT conquest. Here's a bit of useless trivia for you to ponder when you are considering the reality of your view of the British Empire, which you say was created by the subjugation of indigenous peoples and by force of arms. The British Army at the height of the British Empire during the reign of Queen Victoria numbered ~120,000 men - take a look at the map on the British Empire at that time and think up some sort of reasonable explanation how only 120,000 men could have conquered and then controlled that huge land mass. Oh and Fred another piece of trivia for you, towards the end of Victoria's reign the Empire was starting to cost the British money - no profit in it - Ferguson deals with that as well.

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

Just in case you have forgotten what you said - "The Duke of Cumberland's campaign of genocide following the 2nd Stuart rebellion."

You did say you were referring to the rebellion of 1745 - which was the FIFTH Stuart Rebellion - TRUE? So you coming the "I didn't say there were only two Stuart rebellions" is a load of complete and utter codswallop - you were just caught out and haven't the guts to own up to the error.

"Cumberland's campaign of genocide is a proven fact."

Sorry Fred it is far from being a proven fact as Allan Conn has more than adequately explained in his post. Purpose of a campaign of "genocide" is to achieve what exactly? If subsequent to this deliberate campaign designed to wipe out and eradicate a specific group results in that group doubling in number and living on the same land in the course of 100 years then the campaign of genocide must have been a particularly fuckin poor one - don't you think?

"you need to check up on your history." Sorry T, you're the one who needs to check up on your history" - Don't think so somehow Fred.