A gentleman wrote earlier that Ireland signed a paper partitioning the Nation, and likewise, Scotland and Ireland had signed papers joining their people to the United Kingdom. And that therefore Scots and Irish Separatists are breaking a treaty and how very dare they do so, it’s dishonorable etc.
He was too busy reviling me personally to revile them but that is the gist of his words.
What wasn’t mentioned was that in either treaty the People of Ireland and the People of Scotland weren’t consulted. The “Lords” whose ancestors were in turn appointed and ennobled by the British Crown during prior invasions and occupations, signed the papers, and that at the point of gun and sword. Not by the people nor by their elected officials.
This was in comparison, by the way, to the Conquest and Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s like an armed robbery on a massive scale.
I mean, IF I were ever to want to control people, I’d not last very long at the enterprise mostly because anybody I could get to assist me in doing so would be under coercion. I could, theoretically, walk into a 7-Eleven or a Liquor store with an Uzi, and demand that the proprietor surrender to my will, do as I say, and that he promise to cooperate with my Armed Might, my one-man “Army of One” submachine gun, and provide me with as much of the goods and money in his store as I could carry away.
In an enterprise using an Army of MANY the logistics of the actions are more complex but the concept, the germ, the Basic Foundation of those actions would be Exactly The Same.
To go back to the Store Owner v. Probably Deranged Person w/Submachine Gun parable, if the person with the gun leaves the store, would the Store Owner be breaking some sort of Treaty to immediately call for help? If the gunman were, in the middle of the “treaty” to turn his attention and the Shopkeeper took the opportunity to disarm the gunman and perhaps kill the gunman, would the Shopkeeper be a “terrorist” or an “insurgent” or “unlawful combatant”?
If the gunman has a Gang of similar thugs with him, and the shopkeeper captures and disarms one or more of them, and holds a gun to their heads and demands the other Gunmen cease their robbery and threats of further violence, would that be a Terrorist Insurgent taking hostages, a Despicable act of Cowardice?
But that’s what the British and American Warmongers insist the “shopkeeper” of Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the Irish PEOPLE and Scots PEOPLE do or should have done.
Negotiate only with the Representatives of the people who were appointed to that position by the Conquering Invaders?
What kind of a Farce is that?
The Conquerors of Iraq and Afghanistan have no more right to demand the abject surrender of the people of those nations than the British Crown did with Scotland and Ireland, indeed, the “Nobles” with whom the English Crown negotiated the treaties, would have no more a legitimate enforceable authority to make such a treaty, for generations to come, than the Vichy Government did for the people of France, nor for all the French colonials.
To put it in a way the Right Wing would understand, their NEW conquests of Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, are no more legitimate because the Puppet Governments empowered by the Conquerors signed treaties, at the point of gun, sword, machine gun, the Mother Of All Bombs and the assembled armies of the Coalition. than the “Conquest” of Poland, East Germany, the Czech and Yugoslav and Armenian etc Republics were validated by the signing, under duress, of any treaties by their respective Puppet Dictators appointed by the conquering Armies of Britain, The U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Nor were the Irish under any such obligation to honor the partitioning of ireland, under duress, by the British. They were not in any way obligated to allow the British to keep Ulster.
To say that they were, or that the Iraqi and Afghan people are obligated to Obey The American and British Coalition in every thing that’s commanded… Is not just a Lie, it’s an Arrogant Lie.
And all the “PROOF” I need to say that those invasions were based on greed, and nothing more.
Certainly not any “fears of WMDs” and MOST CERTAINLY not any concern for Freedom for the Iraqi or Afghan people, any more than the British had concern for the Irish peoples freedom.
They show themselves to be the REAL terrorists.
