MovieChat Forums > The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2007) Discussion > Mouthing off to police and soldiers...

Mouthing off to police and soldiers...


If you are stupid enough to do that, then you deserve whatever happens to you.

-
Milo Ventimiglia is the worst actor in the history of television. Obama sucks too.

reply

[deleted]

Even more so. He was high on drugs and attacked the police after he had nearly killed numerous people by driving so recklessly.

The videotape only captured a small part of what happened. I'm assuming that you didn't know that, even if you say you did. Most people don't care to look into anything.

Rodney King is a perfect example of the type of idiot that deserves to be beaten by police.

-
Milo Ventimiglia is the worst actor in the history of television. Obama sucks too.

reply

[deleted]

Even if you believe that, it has nothing to do with my point.

People that are stupid enough to mouth off to armed men really deserve, legally or not, whatever happens to them. That's why I think you should get an automatic 10 years in prison for resisting arrest, because people that dumb should be removed from society.

-
Milo Ventimiglia is the worst actor in the history of television. Obama sucks too.

reply

[deleted]

Do you disagree that only really stupid people resist arrest?

-
Milo Ventimiglia is the worst actor in the history of television. Obama sucks too.

reply

resisting arrest and resisting oppression are 2 very different things, being mouthed off to is no reason to murder

reply

Yes, but having a right to do something and being smart are very different things. I have always found it hard to have sympathy for idiots.


-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go git yo'self some hot cornbread!

reply

[deleted]

Excuse me? You sound just like a damn fascist. Why the hell should someone get 10 years in jail just for SAYING something to the police that THEY don't like? What if said policeman (or woman) is deliberately harrassing you,even if you're obeying them? You'd be pissed off enough to say something. I'm sorry, but the average law-abiding citizen has the right to mouth off (provided that they don't make a total fool of themselves). Keep in mind, police are public servants and they should be held accountable for their actions toward the public, becaue we pay their salaries,too,dammit---just because someone has a gun and a badge does NOT give them the damn right to do whatever the *beep* they want to you. Yes,the police ARE the law, but that sure as hell dosen't make them ABOVE it,either. *beep* that s***! And yeah, Rodney King deserved to have his a** locked up for driving drunk like a damn fool, but did that really warrant his head getting bashed in damn near 50 times by a bunch of racist-ass cops who ended up getting away with it? Especially when he had already been shot by some type of taser gun and could barely get up or move after that? Hell NO! SO in your view, every drunk driver should just be gunned down on the street? That is so *beep* insane, it's unbelievable!


For example, about a month ago, there was a protest by an activist group I'm involved with here in Detroit. The occasion was a huge protest in the downtown area targeting the Bank of America, aligned with a mortgage company called Countrywide, which was going to put a 72-year-old disabled woman (along with her disabled daughter) out of the home she had owned for 45 years, despite the fact that she had taken out a reverse mortgage to keep up her house payments. It's a little more to the story than that,but anyway, I wasn't able to make this particular protest,but my colleagues that were there said that at one point---this was a peaceful protest BTW---the police, who were watching them, attempted to or did shove one of the protesters into the street. The group was told to move forward despite the fact that the police were blocking them from moving forward in the first place, and then someone in the group started chanting and all 50 people surged forward at once,defying the police. (BTW, the group had already checked beforehand and gotten permission to protest there, so their being there wasn't an issue). Anyway, here's our group's site---www.moratorium-mi.org. (BTW,the bad publicity we gave Countrywide forced them to reconsider the lady's reverse mortgage, and she was able to to get her house back, so THAT was the best thing about having had the protest to begin with.)
My point being, the group was being in NO way violent or really disturbing the peace, so the police really had no business trying to start some s*** with the group over nothing----that's my point---particularly since we had every legal right to be there.

reply

Are you actually referring to the opening scene?!?!?!! The man´s only crime was to say his name in Gaelic instead of English. So you are actually believing it ok and "deserved" that he was beaten to death for it????? For crying out loud, that´s the worst thing I have heard all day. You probably would have let Great Britain sent you to Ireland and harrass innocent people.

reply

And you are an *beep*

So your Granddaddy and his friends deserved to be shot in the World War did they?? - not like they had a choice or anything.

I hope you remind yourself of that comment, the next time you need your country defended.

I am not defending anything that the film has shown though.

reply

Somebody else's country? Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom with representation in the British Parliament and many Irish people supported the Union (including the Royal Irish Constabulary, who were actually Irish). Don't believe all the propaganda!

reply

[deleted]

that's a horrible example because rodney king DID deserve everything he got. but yea, the original poster is incorrect.

reply

[deleted]

"Mouthing off to police and soldiers...

If you are stupid enough to do that, then you deserve whatever happens to you".

Mere verbal abuse should not be responded-to by armed action. Otherwise the 1770 Boston Massacre can be justified.

One should retaliate only in proportion to the original provocation.

reply

That's exactly the kind of situation I mean.

They were not just mouthing off, they were threatening the British soldiers and throwing things.

Just like another incident at Kent State. Things like this happen when you provoke people.

-
Milo Ventimiglia is the worst actor in the history of television. Obama sucks too.

reply

[deleted]

Or you simply can't accept that people who start threatening or throwing things at armed men are asking for whatever happens.

-
Milo Ventimiglia is the worst actor in the history of television. Obama sucks too.

reply

[deleted]

Otherwise the 1770 Boston Massacre can be justified


Actually, it was. Well, maybe not justified - I wouldn't really use that term in the case - but it was clearly a case of self-defense from a very threatening mob. The soldiers were in fact acquitted, and their defense lawyer was none other than John Adams. While it is often presented as equivalent to the Tea Party and other incidents in contributing to the eventual revolution, I think the Boston Massacre was somewhat less significant.

But that is that particular case. Rodney King, the Kent students, the 1968 protestors in Chicago (Mike Royko put it best - the police rioted in 1968 Chicago), the protestors at Bloody Sunday 1972...none of them were anything like the "clear and present danger" that the mob attacking (and they were not just verbally assaulting the soldiers) the Redcoats in 1770 was.

The notion that the police or other armed authorities are always justified in the force they use against civilians is idiotic. Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not.

The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006

reply

Re. The Boston Massacre, it was mostly propaganda by the Rebels:
"Even those events that did unquestionably take place have often been distorted by history to show the colonials in a more favourable light. The classic example is the Boston Massacre, or the 'Bloody Massacre Perpetrated in King Street, Boston', as it was provocatively called in Paul Revere's famous engraving. Revere's rendition shows the British Redcoats taking careful aim in broad daylight at a small, startled gathering of colonials, as if blithly executing shoppers. It wasn't quite like that. Five colonials did lost their lives in the incident, but it happened at night, amid great confusion, and after considerable provocation in which 20 British soldiers were repeatably taunted, jostled, pelted with stones and other missiles and generally menaced by a drunken, ugly and very much larger mob. By the standards of the day, the British troops were eminently justified in replying with fire. John Adams, at any rate, had no hesitation in defending the soldiers in court and securing the acquittal of all but two, the convicted pair had their thumbs branded, a light punishment indeed in a murder trial. It was his more hotheaded cousin Sam Adams, who with the help of Paul Revere's artwork turned the incident into effective propaganda and popularised the expression Boston Massacre."
From "Made In America." by Bill Bryson.(An American BTW)

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

'Or you simply can't accept that people who start threatening or throwing things at armed men are asking for whatever happens. '

For some reason, you sound Republican. The Obama comment, for instance.

But you are completely ignorant. Why do we have laws? To protect society. Why do we have police? Same reason. Why do we have freedom of speech? Well, we sort of like freedom.

You don't. You say - clearly - that what you're yearning for is total state control. 'Shut up and accept we're doing this for your benefit'. Going down that way you end up in facism. Long stretch? Not really. You see (you probably won't, but you should), if you deny people the right to react, to feel; if you want people to always follow the order of the guy with the gun, you remove people's check on power. There will no longer be restraints on the powerful, which very easily leads to dictatorships. And then, suddenly, the law you defend (seemingly) disappears out the window.

We do have laws against resisting arrest and such. But not being allowed to react like a normal human being - because the other guy has a gun... Boy, that's insane.

reply

It's not about being allowed or it being the right thing to do. It is simply common sense to understand that when you start mouthing off to armed men in such a situation, you are asking for trouble. Any fool who does that certainly does not deserve sympathy.

-
Condoms feel terrible.

reply

[deleted]

"Like invading Ireland?"

Nobody had invaded Ireland since the Middle Ages.

"And the Black and Tans were a gang of English convicts,mainly.Hardly the King's finest."

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Most were First World War veterans. And many came from Scotland and Wales as well as England.

reply

[deleted]

England was invaded by the French in the Middle Ages too. Are we supposed to hate the French because of that? But my point was that the Black and Tans were not invaders since the British had been in Ireland for centuries.

As to the Black and Tans, I suggest you do some actual research and not rely on anti-English hearsay.

reply

[deleted]

"England was invaded by the French in the Middle Ages too. Are we supposed to hate the French because of that? But my point was that the Black and Tans were not invaders since the British had been in Ireland for centuries.
As to the Black and Tans, I suggest you do some actual research and not rely on anti-English hearsay"
A lot of british do hate the french!?!?!You shouldn't tell people to research something you don't know a lot about yourself.In ireland when you say black and tans this also includes the auxies as well.If you do your own research you will know that both bodies under the nick name "black and tans" were despised in Ireland, repeatedly retaliating against the IRA by killing innocent civilians.
to quote the BBC,no less,
"Later that day, Auxiliaries who were despatched to a football match at Croke Park to search for wanted men, fired indiscriminately into the crowd, causing 12 deaths and wounding 65"

reply

No, the British don't hate the French. It's just a long-standing rivalry between Europe's two former great powers. There's a big difference. And the cause has nothing to do with an invasion in 1066.

I'm well aware that the Black and Tans and Auxies are often incorrectly regarded as one body (and many, if not most, of the atrocities attributed to the Black and Tans were actually committed by the Auxies). However, the Auxies are even less accurately referred to as ex-convicts, since all were former British Army officers and were certainly not swept out of the prisons. That was the statement I was replying to - I wasn't aware I'd said that the Irish didn't dislike the Black and Tans or the Auxies! Probably because I didn't!

May I suggest you read posts properly before you reply to them.

reply

I only replied to your post as it seemed to suggest the black and tans(not the auxies) were well trained professionals,when there are very few historians,even british ones,who would believe that today.
The auxies would have been considered the more professional, from better stock,even though both groups carried out similar attrocities,all well documented by the way,not hearsay.

reply

They were mostly former soldiers who had served in the First World War, but they certainly weren't well-trained for police duties. My answer was to a former poster who said they were mostly convicts, which they weren't, and made the usual assumption that they were all "English", which they weren't. Not everything bad that comes from Britain is English!

I didn't say that the atrocities were hearsay. My comment about hearsay referred to the above.

The Black and Tans, incidentally, didn't usually operate as separate units (as they are depicted doing at the beginning of the film - its most inaccurate section). They were assigned to RIC barracks in very small groups and usually operated alongside the RIC, soon becoming pretty much indistinguishable apart from their accents. Most atrocities attributed to them were actually carried out by the Auxies - even the Auxies' own officers often despaired of controlling them and those Auxiliary companies commanded by really good officers who were able to maintain discipline usually didn't participate in the atrocities.

Many Auxies, although former officers, had been commissioned from the ranks, and were therefore of a similar class to the Black and Tans. "Temporary gentlemen", as they were often called. That's often why they joined - going back to their former working class jobs would have been too much of a culture shock (and would have meant a large cut in income). After 1922, many joined the Palestine Police or similar colonial police forces.

reply

I'm from Ireland and am greatly angered by these fascist comments by james-337. Ireland was never part of England we were always fighting against the English since the plantations in the 1600s and england had no right to be in Ireland.

The Black and Tans were a group of ex-convicts released from jail to the King's dirty work. They were brutal exactly like you see in this movie and were similar to the Nazis.

The Irish weren't mouthing off to the police because they weren't our police they were the enemy's army and those people who you say deserve to die for mouthing off are Irish heros.

You are a fascist bastard who has his facts wrong and seems to think that if a country is occupieing a country it belongs to them.

reply


nobody says Ireland was part of 'England' - but Ireland has been a part of Britain for many years including at the time of this film.

True Irish people at the time included many who believed they had the right to remain British in the face of such terrorism as has continued to recent times.

The only Fascists I am aware of in Irish politics was the government of DeValera and his tacit support of Nazi Fascism.

reply

"...but Ireland has been a part of Britain for many years...."


You mean it still is? Funny, I don't see too many Union Jacks flying around Dublin.

But of course Rice, it's always hard to tell with you whether you're having a crack at the "Fascist South" or just plain wrong.

reply

Rice-1

I've read a few of your posts on Hunger etc. and I have to say for the most part you are civil and deliver your points and political opinions extremely coherently.

I've stayed out of these debates and intentionally remained a spectator until I came across this particular post. I genuinely think that somebody like you should at least admit that the British occupation of the south during the war of independence was absolutely barbaric. Especially in the deployment of 'The Black and Tans'

It was a era in colonial history which is broadly recognised as absolutely repugnant in terms of the British treatment of the population. Things like retaliation attacks on locals. That's state sponsored terrorism as far as I'm concerned.

I'll reiterate, I take a lot of your points on the Provos and I agree with most of your views, but I really feel I have misjudged you if you can't recognise the atrocities carried out by the British in the South during this time.

reply

I'm from Ireland and am greatly angered by these fascist comments by james-337.


Fascist? It was the British who fought against the fascists remember? Get your facts straight before you throw insults around.

Ireland was never part of England we were always fighting against the English since the plantations in the 1600s and england had no right to be in Ireland.


The Normans and Anglo-Saxons had no "right" to be in England either. It happened. It's called history. Get over it.

The Black and Tans were a group of ex-convicts released from jail to the King's dirty work.


Rubbish. Most were ex-soldiers who'd fought in the First World War. Try reading real history for yourself, not listening to biased hearsay and propaganda.

They were brutal exactly like you see in this movie and were similar to the Nazis.


Brutal, yes. Although much of the brutality was actually down to the Auxies. However, I don't recall any gas chambers or death camps being established in Ireland, nor a programme of genocide.

The Irish weren't mouthing off to the police because they weren't our police they were the enemy's army and those people who you say deserve to die for mouthing off are Irish heros.


Show me where I said they deserved to die for mouthing off. I am certainly not defending the tactics of the Auxies or the Black and Tans. Read the whole thread before you throw incorrect accusations around.

You are a fascist bastard who has his facts wrong and seems to think that if a country is occupieing a country it belongs to them.


Grow up. Ireland isn't the only country to ever be invaded - it was a fact of historical life. The fact is that Ireland had full representation at Westminster and was an integral part of the United Kingdom. Many Irish people, both Catholic and Protestant, were involved in British government, the British armed forces and the administration of the British Empire and saw themselves as loyal subjects of the King. Again, try reading some actual history.

reply

[deleted]

They had irregular uniforms because there was a shortage of RIC uniforms when they joined and the stocks were supplemented by army surplus kit. Hence Black and Tans (black for the police kit - actually very dark green - and tan for the army kit - actually khaki). In actual fact, within a few months most Black and Tans had been issued with full RIC uniform and were indistinguishable from regular RIC officers (except for their accents). Hence the fact that most atrocities attributed to the "Black and Tans" were actually carried out by the Auxies, who continued to wear mixed uniforms throughout their existence and could therefore be easily identified. And before you say it, no, the Auxies weren't ex-convicts either - they were recruited exclusively from former British Army officers. The claim that the Black and Tans were convicts is nothing more than a myth put about by Irish Republican propagandists that has entered popular perception in Ireland. As usual, don't believe everything you read. It's easy to demonise people you don't like by making exaggerated claims about them. Unpleasant they were, convicts they weren't (if they were convicts, there would hardly have been recruiting adverts in the British newspapers, which there most certainly were).

See here:
http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Black_and_ Tans

reply

[deleted]

Don't accuse me of something I'm blatantly not doing. I am not an apologist for the way the auxiliary police acted in Ireland. Nor have I said I am. I am an historian and my point is that history says they were not convicts. You can believe what you like, but the fact is that they were not. "It's something I was told once" does not equate with "it is true", even if you were told it by teachers.

reply

[deleted]

Once again you are attempting to misquote me. What I said, as you will see if you look back up this thread, was that the belief that the Black and Tans were convicts was a myth that has entered Irish folklore. Your teachers were merely relating (if they actually were and you have not misremembered) what many Irish people believe. That doesn't make it true. The National Archives actually holds the service records of the Black and Tans. That makes their experts more qualified to judge who they actually were, wouldn't you say?

As to "demonisation", at no time was I commenting on the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans, despite what you and the other poster would like to believe. I was merely commenting on a point of historical fact.

Yes, they committed criminal acts. So did the IRA. There were brutal scum on both sides. There were good, decent men on both sides. That's what happens in all wars. It was a long time ago. It's over. It's history.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

To James 337

"Fascist? It was the British who fought against the fascists remember? Get your facts straight before you throw insults around."

Explain to me how fighting for freedom is fascist.

"The Normans and Anglo-Saxons had no "right" to be in England either. It happened. It's called history. Get over it."

Just because it happened doesn't make it right and we tried to get independence peacefully until we realized that we were getting no where.

"Rubbish. Most were ex-soldiers who'd fought in the First World War. Try reading real history for yourself, not listening to biased hearsay and propaganda."

What I learnt in school was that the black and tans were convicts and in every history book I have read it concurs with that information. It wouldn't surprise me if the information that they were first world war veterans was fabricated by the British to get other countries off there back about the brutality of the black and tans.

"Brutal, yes. Although much of the brutality was actually down to the Auxies. However, I don't recall any gas chambers or death camps being established in Ireland, nor a programme of genocide."

They may not have been as extreme as the nazis but they way they acted towards the people was similar.

"Show me where I said they deserved to die for mouthing off. I am certainly not defending the tactics of the Auxies or the Black and Tans. Read the whole thread before you throw incorrect accusations around."

Sorry that I was not clear enough, that part of the comment was not directed towards you that was directed towards the thread starter.

"Grow up. Ireland isn't the only country to ever be invaded - it was a fact of historical life. The fact is that Ireland had full representation at Westminster and was an integral part of the United Kingdom. Many Irish people, both Catholic and Protestant, were involved in British government, the British armed forces and the administration of the British Empire and saw themselves as loyal subjects of the King. Again, try reading some actual history."

Ireland was allowed to have a small amount of MPs in westminster who had no power and were only there to make the Irish feel better. The fact that some Irish people, mostly protestant, saw themselves as loyal subjects to the king doesn't mean that the Irish people were happy to be part of Britain. The majority of Irish people were against being part of Britain and there were constant rebellions against this but were unsuccessful due to lack of weapons and ammunition and not having a trained Army.

reply

"Fascist? It was the British who fought against the fascists remember? Get your facts straight before you throw insults around."

Explain to me how fighting for freedom is fascist.


I was referring to the Second World War. It is exceptionally offensive to refer to the British, who were instrumental in freeing the world from fascism, as fascists.

"The Normans and Anglo-Saxons had no "right" to be in England either. It happened. It's called history. Get over it."

Just because it happened doesn't make it right and we tried to get independence peacefully until we realized that we were getting no where.


I never said it did. My point was you aren't the only people ever to be invaded. Sometimes the Irish seem to go on as though they're somehow unique. And my point about history still stands. It's in the past. Stop trying to pretend it's a current issue.

What I learnt in school was that the black and tans were convicts and in every history book I have read it concurs with that information. It wouldn't surprise me if the information that they were first world war veterans was fabricated by the British to get other countries off there back about the brutality of the black and tans.


Then you learned wrong. And your accusation about falsification is laughable I'm afraid. Mythology does not equal history. The British public in the First World war were told that the Germans impaled babies - that doesn't make it true.

They may not have been as extreme as the nazis but they way they acted towards the people was similar.


Again, the comparison is offensive.

Ireland was allowed to have a small amount of MPs in westminster who had no power and were only there to make the Irish feel better.


Ireland had full representation at Westminster and the Irish MPs had as much power as any other MP - their votes counted as much as English, Scottish and Welsh MPs.

The fact that some Irish people, mostly protestant, saw themselves as loyal subjects to the king doesn't mean that the Irish people were happy to be part of Britain.


Mostly Protestant? No. The Royal Irish Constabulary was overwhelmingly Catholic, as were the huge number of Irishmen serving in the British Army.

The majority of Irish people were against being part of Britain and there were constant rebellions against this but were unsuccessful due to lack of weapons and ammunition and not having a trained Army.


Actually not true if you read your history books. There were rebellions, but most Irish people did not support them.

reply

"There were rebellions, but most Irish people did not support them".

Tom Barry's book, "Guerilla Days in Ireland", gives an interesting reason for this lack of support. He writes that the first he heard of the 1916 Rising, he was serving in the British army in Mesopotamia against the Turks. He was well-surprised that the rising had occurred, and relates that his history lessons had been very British-orientated, to the degree that he knew little or nothing about Irish history; that basically, he did not know that he was supposed to feel rebellious against Britain. So if that was the general state of mind in Ireland, then lack of support for rebellion is not surprising.

reply

LMFAO THIS GUY IS A CLOWN!!!

so to sum up,your saying that because england had conquered ireland and were oppressing its people, that they were no longer invaders and now owned ireland and could do whatever they wanted with it and its people? which,according to you, most irish people duefully accepted, until those nasty rebel scum started attacking the glorious heroes of world war 1.

oh and you think they joined the british army because they were proud? lol im gonna go out on a limb and say you dont live here, nor have you spoke to many irishmen about this.

offensive to refer to the brits as facist? OH BUT ITS OK TO BAN IRISH SPORTS,RELIGION,THE LANGUAGE, LIMIT HOUSING, TORTURE, INTERNMENT, OPPRESSION, MURDER.....but please im sorry i offended you by calling your great soldiers facist. If you came to a bar over here and said most irish people didnt suppot the rebellion and were happy to be britsih, you would get literally beaten to death out back. no scratch that, youd WISH you were getting beaten to death out back. but being "offended" would be the *beep* least of your worries, you talk about nobody invading ireland since the middle ages, well every single irishman in the north still has first generation family members murdered by the brits less than 30 years ago, so watch how you speak and who you speak it to. *beep* armchair historian.

Ireland is Ireland,France is France, Britain is Britain, do not conuse them as they are ENTIRELY different countries....despite what you precious "history books" might tell you. History is written by whoever is in charge at the time.

reply

Somebody else who knows nothing about history, discounts it, and merely regurgitates views picked up from hearsay, rumour and speculation. How tiresome. Here's an idea - actually do some research instead of listening to propaganda. Although given the quality of your English, I very much doubt you'd have the capacity.

reply

Well I'm a historian so that post better not be directed at me. If it is please tell me which parts are false. complete with proof and sources.

reply

"which,according to you, most irish people duefully accepted, until those nasty rebel scum started attacking the glorious heroes of world war 1".

- Acceptance, whatever about "dutiful", would have been the general Irish attitude before 1916. One reason why these glorious rebellions were always failing was through sheer lack of popular support.

"If you came to a bar over here and said most irish people didnt suppot the rebellion and were happy to be britsih, you would get literally beaten to death out back".

- In that case, he would be getting beaten to death, not for being factually wrong, but because he's telling a bunch of knuckle-draggers what they don't want to hear.

reply

I would say the general feeling towards the instigators of the 1916 rising would have been more akin to indifference rather than hatred, but the savage way with which even some of the minor players were dealt alongside the murder of several unarmed bystanders by british troops ,the soldier responsible for ordering this act was later cleared and even promoted, demonised the british among the irish populace.

reply

Knuckle draggers? oh please...

Every Irish man, woman and child from a Nationalist area in the North would string you up for such an atrocious accusation. Come to think of it, maybe the Jews deserved what happened to them aswell? Mouthing off to the great Nazis.

Politics is still very important in Ireland and I don't need some a$$hole who doesn't have a clue, sitting in his hovel in Timbuktoo telling me what happened in my own country.

reply

"Every Irish man, woman and child from a Nationalist area in the North would string you up for such an atrocious accusation".

Stringing up people for having opinions that the Nationalists don't want to hear. That's the Nationalists in a nutshell.

reply

whereas the republicans just kneecap and torture

reply

The black and tans werent ex-convicts, what history books are you reading cause I wasnt thought that in school, ex army is whats thought in schools unless it was changed in the last 10 years since I finished, which I doubt.

reply

was an integral part of the United Kingdom.

So integral, that during the Great Famine in Ireland the British where not to eager to help, and some where very happy that the Irish are dying in droves.

reply

Was that the same Boston Massacre in which the British soldiers involved were aquitted by none other than John Adams?

reply

The Boston Massacre is a bad example for the point you seem to be making. Nervous soldiers fearing for their lives fired (without orders, mind you) into a hostile crowd that a) greatly outnumbered them, b) provoked them in the first place, and c) was throwing ice, stones and other projectiles at them. They certainly weren't in control of the situation or tormenting helpless victims. I won't ssay the Bostonians deserved it, but under the circumstances I can't blame the British soldiers for what happened, either.

"Earth first! Make Mars our bitch!"

reply

Boston Massacre is highly exaggerated for fifth graders. The mob was on the brink of full-out rioting, a few soldiers panicked, fired into the crowd, and voila, instant war-rallying propaganda.

I don't think the OP is trying to say that whoever mouths off to police automatically DESERVES a beating, but that trying to be smart when you're facing a dozen vicious soldiers inclined towards murder just displays very poor judgement. To echo Damien, it's not being brave and it's not sacrificing for any cause. Keep your head down and when you're at the right time, place, and properly equipped, - BAM - you strike back. One can't help but feel badly for Michaeil, but at the same time, I thought "what an idiot!".

Loudness Isn't Power

reply

Those British soldiers expected retaliation and also provoked it. Not only did they invade another country, but verbally and physically abusing the citizens of that country on a daily basis, and for offenses as small as getting together to play a game. WTF? They didn't expect the Irish people to stand idly by forever.

reply

Which proves you know f!ck all about Britain and Ireland through the centuries.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

So you're denieing the fact that people were punished for getting together to play "Banned Sports"

reply

Coleburg, you're an idiot and you do indeed sound like a fascist. You seriously think "mouthing off" should be met with violence? **** you.

Thought it may not be the smartest choice, you don't "deserve" what happens to you if what happens to you is being beaten to death. You're a complete and utter idiot. Go to hell.

reply

To the OP: I think you would be really happy in Iran or Sudan, why don't you move there.

Be careful saying that someone deserves something, nobody gets what they deserve. People get what they negotiate.

reply

[deleted]

If they have guns, yes, obviously. Only a fool mouths off or tries to provoke armed men in any circumstance.

-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go git yo'self some hot cornbread!

reply

[deleted]

For being a fool.

-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go git yo'self some hot cornbread!

reply