"harry" wrote in message
...

You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.

Funny though how "concentration camps" were a British invention during the
Boer War
It should also be noted that Indians have been free to leave "The Rez" for a
long, long, time and have been doing so with great regularity


Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro rata
than Stalin.

Did he ??
Do tell - give us the DETAILS to support your bull**** claim

He also intended the deportation of all black people back to Africa.

Another stupid and unsupported lie from the UK idiot


I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.


At least, you've made the claim
But you have never been able to support it with DATA

What is an unlawful combatant?

Use a dictionary, dummy.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 4:01 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.
Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro rata
than Stalin.
He also intended the deportation of all black people back to Africa.
I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.

Need I remind you, the mantra in politics is "What have you done for me
lately?"



What is an unlawful combatant?

A "lawful enemy combatant" is one who follows the laws of armed conflict.
Specifically:
* Is garbed in a recognizable uniform or emblem,
* Carries arms openly,
* Is responsible to a lawful chain of command, and
* Comports himself according to the rules of war.

Any person not following all four of the above characteristics is an
"unlawful" enemy combatant (UEC). Examples include: Spies, saboteurs,
guerrillas, fifth columnists, and Democrats.

Our first UEC was Major John Andre. After a brief hearing, he was ordered
hanged by George Washington. Forthwith.

Ah.you are refering to freedom fighters. If you invade someone's
country, anyone is allowed to take up arms against you.
It is a term invented by Americans as an excuse for their own illegal
actions.

Keep dancing, dummy



Americans participating in the revolution must have been unlawful
combatants.


Keep speculating
Too bad for you they were fighting the British.
Not to mention that they actually meet the conditions of "lawful combatants"
(had you spent a tich of time actually thinking about it.)


OBLwas in a lawful chain of command, he got messages from God.
His uniform was a turban.

Sure bub


Whose rules and is raping, torture, killing children and ****ing on
dead bodies in the rules of war?

The islamofascists

On 1/11/2012 6:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:


Apparently you're so stupid, you'll believe anything you see on Internet.

I love The Onion, it's an electronic supermarket tabloid and always good
for a belly laugh. ^_^

TDD


I love how it caught the clueless doom and gloom harry who spends his
entire existence hating the US that he can't even separate fiction from
reality.

On 1/12/2012 12:20 PM, harry wrote:



I expect you work for the CIA?

I would say he is just a normal person who doesn't have a perpetual
black cloud over him...

On Jan 15, 11:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
What is an unlawful combatant?

A "lawful enemy combatant" is one who follows the laws of armed
conflict. Specifically:
* Is garbed in a recognizable uniform or emblem,
* Carries arms openly,
* Is responsible to a lawful chain of command, and
* Comports himself according to the rules of war.

Any person not following all four of the above characteristics is an
"unlawful" enemy combatant (UEC). Examples include: Spies, saboteurs,
guerrillas, fifth columnists, and Democrats.

Our first UEC was Major John Andre. After a brief hearing, he was
ordered hanged by George Washington. Forthwith.

Ah.you are refering to freedom fighters. If you invade someone's
country, anyone is allowed to take up arms against you.

Not according the Hauge and Geneva conventions.

It is a term invented by Americans as an excuse for their own illegal
actions.

Americans participating in the revolution must have been unlawful
combatants.

No, your ignorance is showing. Hastily organized militias to counter an
invasion, medical workers, transportation workers, civilians conscripted to
construct defenses, and others, are exempted. Before you pontificate, it
would do you a world of good to read the four treaties on the subject.



OBLwas in a lawful chain of command, he got messages from God.
His uniform was a turban.
Whose rules and is raping, torture, killing children and ****ing on
dead bodies in the rules of war?

Irrelevant. Afghanistan is not a signatory to the above named conventions..
They reap what they sow.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you reaped what you sowed. They have won. And helped to bring
America to it's knees.
I see you are negotiating your surrender right now. They are the
victors. They are holding the ground.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...899616534.html

On Jan 15, 2:32*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...



You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.

Funny though how "concentration camps" were a British invention during the
Boer War
It should also be noted that Indians have been free to leave "The Rez" for a
long, long, time and have been doing so with great regularity

Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro rata
than Stalin.

Did he ??
* * Do tell - give us the DETAILS to support your bull**** claim

He also intended the deportation of all black people back to Africa.

Another stupid and unsupported lie from the UK idiot

I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.

At least, you've made the claim
But you have never been able to support it with DATA

What is an unlawful combatant?

Use a dictionary, dummy.

All here halfwit. You don't even know your own history do you?
Tough **** when an Englishman has to tell you your own history.
You really need to get yourself an eduction.
Kindly note that Indian rservations were invented before the Boer
war..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ln_and_the_ACS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Appropriations_Act

On Jan 15, 3:58*pm, George wrote:
On 1/11/2012 6:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:



Apparently you're so stupid, you'll believe anything you see on Internet.

I love The Onion, it's an electronic supermarket tabloid and always good
for a belly laugh. ^_^

TDD

I love how it caught the clueless doom and gloom harry who spends his
entire existence hating the US that he can't even separate fiction from
reality.

The humour of it is that it is actually true.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:40:29 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Jan 15, 3:58*pm, George wrote:
On 1/11/2012 6:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:



Apparently you're so stupid, you'll believe anything you see on Internet.

I love The Onion, it's an electronic supermarket tabloid and always good
for a belly laugh. ^_^

TDD

I love how it caught the clueless doom and gloom harry who spends his
entire existence hating the US that he can't even separate fiction from
reality.

The humour of it is that it is actually true.

Too funny!

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:19:46 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:45 pm, Frank wrote:
On 1/11/2012 1:29 PM, harry wrote:

How the US government is preparing for a revolution.
(As people realise how they have been screwed.)
http://americaswarwithin.org/article...police-stockpi...

One of my government friends was telling me of all the government
boondoggles in our state buying stuff like this.

Your url just substantiates it.

Terrorists are not going to attack places like Selbyville, Delaware.
I live here and don't even know where it is, but they are preped for
terrorists

How would all this junk have prevented 11-9?

The stuff is for use against the American people. Terrorists is just
the excuse. They have concentration camps ready to put you in and the
laws to allow it without charge.


Putting terrorists in concentration camps is a Good Thing(tm). In the UK,
they just run loose. In France, they burn cars.

....and collect welfare checks (in both countries).

On Jan 16, 1:17*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:19:46 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:45 pm, Frank wrote:
On 1/11/2012 1:29 PM, harry wrote:

How the US government is preparing for a revolution.
(As people realise how they have been screwed.)
http://americaswarwithin.org/article...police-stockpi....

One of my government friends was telling me of all the government
boondoggles in our state buying stuff like this.

Your url just substantiates it.

Terrorists are not going to attack places like Selbyville, Delaware.
I live here and don't even know where it is, but they are preped for
terrorists

How would all this junk have prevented 11-9?

The stuff is for use against the American people. Terrorists is just
the excuse. *They have concentration camps ready to put you in and the
laws to allow it without charge.

Putting terrorists in concentration camps is a Good Thing(tm). In the UK,
they just run loose. In France, they burn cars.

...and collect welfare checks (in both countries).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In Detroit they are running the city.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:27:43 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 1:17*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:19:46 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:45 pm, Frank wrote:
On 1/11/2012 1:29 PM, harry wrote:

How the US government is preparing for a revolution.
(As people realise how they have been screwed.)
http://americaswarwithin.org/article...police-stockpi...

One of my government friends was telling me of all the government
boondoggles in our state buying stuff like this.

Your url just substantiates it.

Terrorists are not going to attack places like Selbyville, Delaware.
I live here and don't even know where it is, but they are preped for
terrorists

How would all this junk have prevented 11-9?

The stuff is for use against the American people. Terrorists is just
the excuse. *They have concentration camps ready to put you in and the
laws to allow it without charge.

Putting terrorists in concentration camps is a Good Thing(tm). In the UK,
they just run loose. In France, they burn cars.

...and collect welfare checks (in both countries).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In Detroit they are running the city.

No, that's oxymoronic, moron.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 2:32 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...



You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.

Funny though how "concentration camps" were a British invention during
the
Boer War
It should also be noted that Indians have been free to leave "The Rez"
for a
long, long, time and have been doing so with great regularity

Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro rata
than Stalin.

Did he ??
Do tell - give us the DETAILS to support your bull**** claim

He also intended the deportation of all black people back to Africa.

Another stupid and unsupported lie from the UK idiot

I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.

At least, you've made the claim
But you have never been able to support it with DATA

What is an unlawful combatant?

Use a dictionary, dummy.

All here halfwit. You don't even know your own history do you?
Tough **** when an Englishman has to tell you your own history.
You really need to get yourself an eduction.
Kindly note that Indian rservations were invented before the Boer
war..


Too bad that the Englishman in question has demonstrated himself to be a
total and abject moron



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Results


Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ln_and_the_ACS


Nothing here about Lincoln wanting to "ship" blacks back to Africa.
As a matter of fact, it states the opposite of your claim
"Since the 1840s Lincoln, an admirer of Clay, had been
an advocate of the ACS program of colonizing blacks in Liberia.
In an 1854 speech in Illinois, he points out the immense
difficulties
of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way
to quickly end slavery.[13]
Early in his presidency, Abraham Lincoln tried repeatedly
to arrange resettlement of the kind the ACS supported,
but each arrangement failed (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery).
By 1863, following the use of black troops, most scholars believe
that Lincoln abandoned the idea. Biographer Stephen B. Oates
has observed that Lincoln thought it immoral to ask black soldiers
to fight for the US and then to remove them to Africa
after their military service."

Apparently you're too stupid to even read your own cites for comprehension


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Appropriations_Act

More ignorance from the dumb pommy
Do you even READ what you cite to support your claims
The two most important acts were passed in 1851 and 1871
Lincoln was NOT even in Federal politics in 1851
And he was long dead in 1871


You really are a ****ING MORON, harry.
Your fellow Englishmen should quietly dispose of you to avoid further
embarrassment to their good name

On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On Jan 15, 2:32 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....

You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.

Funny though how "concentration camps" were a British invention during
the
Boer War
It should also be noted that Indians have been free to leave "The Rez"
for a
long, long, time and have been doing so with great regularity

Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro rata
than Stalin.

Did he ??
* * Do tell - give us the DETAILS to support your bull**** claim

He also intended the deportation of all black people back to Africa.

Another stupid and unsupported lie from the UK idiot

I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.

At least, you've made the claim
But you have never been able to support it with DATA

What is an unlawful combatant?

Use a dictionary, dummy.

All here halfwit. *You don't even know your own history do you?
Tough **** when an Englishman *has to tell you your own history.
You really need to get yourself an eduction.
Kindly note that Indian rservations were invented before the Boer
war..

Too bad that the Englishman in question has demonstrated himself to be a
total and abject moron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Results

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
* * Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ety#Lincoln_an...

Nothing here about Lincoln wanting to "ship" blacks back to Africa.
* * As a matter of fact, it states the opposite of your claim
* * * "Since the 1840s Lincoln, an admirer of Clay, had been
* * * * an advocate of the ACS program of colonizing blacks in Liberia.
* * * * In an 1854 speech in Illinois, he points out the immense
difficulties
* * * * of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way
* * * * to quickly end slavery.[13]
* * *Early in his presidency, Abraham Lincoln tried repeatedly
* * * * to arrange resettlement of the kind the ACS supported,
* * * * but each arrangement failed (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery).
* * * * By 1863, following the use of black troops, most scholars believe
* * * * that Lincoln abandoned the idea. Biographer Stephen B. Oates
* * * * has observed that Lincoln thought it immoral to ask black soldiers
* * * * to fight for the US and then to remove them to Africa
* * * * after their military service."

Apparently you're too stupid to even read your own cites for comprehension

Well it says excatly what I said. Are you stupid/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Appropriations_Act

More ignorance from the dumb pommy
Do you even READ what you cite to support your claims
The two most important acts were passed in 1851 and 1871
* * Lincoln was NOT even in Federal politics in 1851
* * And he was long dead in 1871

He became president in1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1860
He was assassinated in 1865
Which puts him right in the middle ofthe various acts.

You really are a ****ING MORON, harry.
* * Your fellow Englishmen should quietly dispose of you to avoid further
embarrassment to their good name- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

harry wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.



Which won't even come close to all the deaths resulting from at least eleven
civil wars in England.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 17, 2:13 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On Jan 15, 2:32 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.

Funny though how "concentration camps" were a British invention during
the
Boer War
It should also be noted that Indians have been free to leave "The Rez"
for a
long, long, time and have been doing so with great regularity

Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro rata
than Stalin.

Did he ??
Do tell - give us the DETAILS to support your bull**** claim

He also intended the deportation of all black people back to Africa.

Another stupid and unsupported lie from the UK idiot

I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.

At least, you've made the claim
But you have never been able to support it with DATA

What is an unlawful combatant?

Use a dictionary, dummy.

All here halfwit. You don't even know your own history do you?
Tough **** when an Englishman has to tell you your own history.
You really need to get yourself an eduction.
Kindly note that Indian rservations were invented before the Boer
war..

Too bad that the Englishman in question has demonstrated himself to be a
total and abject moron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Results

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ety#Lincoln_an...

Nothing here about Lincoln wanting to "ship" blacks back to Africa.
As a matter of fact, it states the opposite of your claim
"Since the 1840s Lincoln, an admirer of Clay, had been
an advocate of the ACS program of colonizing blacks in Liberia.
In an 1854 speech in Illinois, he points out the immense
difficulties
of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way
to quickly end slavery.[13]
Early in his presidency, Abraham Lincoln tried repeatedly
to arrange resettlement of the kind the ACS supported,
but each arrangement failed (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery).
By 1863, following the use of black troops, most scholars believe
that Lincoln abandoned the idea. Biographer Stephen B. Oates
has observed that Lincoln thought it immoral to ask black
soldiers
to fight for the US and then to remove them to Africa
after their military service."

Apparently you're too stupid to even read your own cites for
comprehension

Well it says excatly what I said. Are you stupid/


1) NO it does NOT
2) Clearly, I am not
3) But you are most definitely stupid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Appropriations_Act

More ignorance from the dumb pommy
Do you even READ what you cite to support your claims
The two most important acts were passed in 1851 and 1871
Lincoln was NOT even in Federal politics in 1851
And he was long dead in 1871

He became president in1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1860
He was assassinated in 1865
Which puts him right in the middle ofthe various acts.



LOL
That's about as intelligent as claiming that ANYONE born between 1914 and
1945 is responsible for all the deaths of WWI and WWII..

I'm leaving the next paragraph because you just proved it to be true, you
****ing moron.


You really are a ****ING MORON, harry.
Your fellow Englishmen should quietly dispose of you to avoid further
embarrassment to their good name-

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

....(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

...or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths-two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.


Not to mention the spin that his "facts" are suffering.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:54:48 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths-two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.


Not to mention the spin that his "facts" are suffering.


He gets other data from The Onion to back his contentions.

Susan should be ashamed of herself for saying "yes", when she might
have meant "no".

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:54:48 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths-two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.


Not to mention the spin that his "facts" are suffering.


He gets other data from The Onion to back his contentions.

Susan should be ashamed of herself for saying "yes", when she might
have meant "no".

??
Who is Susan ?

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:48:52 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:54:48 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths-two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.


Not to mention the spin that his "facts" are suffering.


He gets other data from The Onion to back his contentions.

Susan should be ashamed of herself for saying "yes", when she might
have meant "no".

??
Who is Susan ?


The keeper of the household parrots, and of course harry... Think!

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:48:52 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:54:48 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths-two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.


Not to mention the spin that his "facts" are suffering.


He gets other data from The Onion to back his contentions.

Susan should be ashamed of herself for saying "yes", when she might
have meant "no".

??
Who is Susan ?


The keeper of the household parrots, and of course harry... Think!


I must be missing a reference..

On Jan 17, 7:32*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.

Which won't even come close to all the deaths resulting from at least eleven
civil wars in England.

Eleven eh? You better name them.

But then on your side we should add such as Little Big Horn and the
rest of the Indian ethnic cleansing.

On Jan 17, 8:43*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On Jan 17, 2:13 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....

On Jan 15, 2:32 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.

Funny though how "concentration camps" were a British invention during
the
Boer War
It should also be noted that Indians have been free to leave "The Rez"
for a
long, long, time and have been doing so with great regularity

Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro rata
than Stalin.

Did he ??
* * Do tell - give us the DETAILS to support your bull**** claim

He also intended the deportation of all black people back to Africa.

Another stupid and unsupported lie from the UK idiot

I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.

At least, you've made the claim
But you have never been able to support it with DATA

What is an unlawful combatant?

Use a dictionary, dummy.

All here halfwit. *You don't even know your own history do you?
Tough **** when an Englishman *has to tell you your own history.
You really need to get yourself an eduction.
Kindly note that Indian rservations were invented before the Boer
war..

Too bad that the Englishman in question has demonstrated himself to be a
total and abject moron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Results

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
* * Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ety#Lincoln_an....

Nothing here about Lincoln wanting to "ship" blacks back to Africa.
* * As a matter of fact, it states the opposite of your claim
* * * "Since the 1840s Lincoln, an admirer of Clay, had been
* * * * an advocate of the ACS program of colonizing blacks in Liberia.
* * * * In an 1854 speech in Illinois, he points out the immense
difficulties
* * * * of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way
* * * * to quickly end slavery.[13]
* * *Early in his presidency, Abraham Lincoln tried repeatedly
* * * * to arrange resettlement of the kind the ACS supported,
* * * * but each arrangement failed (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery).
* * * * By 1863, following the use of black troops, most scholars believe
* * * * that Lincoln abandoned the idea. Biographer Stephen B. Oates
* * * * has observed that Lincoln thought it immoral to ask black
soldiers
* * * * to fight for the US and then to remove them to Africa
* * * * after their military service."

Apparently you're too stupid to even read your own cites for
comprehension

Well it says excatly what I said. Are you stupid/

1) * *NO it does NOT
2) * *Clearly, I am not
3) * *But you are most definitely stupid.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Appropriations_Act

More ignorance from the dumb pommy
Do you even READ what you cite to support your claims
The two most important acts were passed in 1851 and 1871
* * Lincoln was NOT even in Federal politics in 1851
* * And he was long dead in 1871

He became president in1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1860
He was assassinated in 1865
Which puts him right in the middle ofthe various acts.

LOL
That's about as intelligent as claiming that ANYONE born between 1914 and
1945 is responsible for all the deaths of WWI and WWII..

I'm leaving the next paragraph because you just proved it to be true, you
****ing moron.

Never mentioned when Lincoln was born.
You always move the goal posts when wrong.
Now THAT is a sign of low intelligence.

On Jan 18, 12:07*am, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"

wrote:
Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
* *Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.

Aha. You mean Jackson's unlawful combatants?

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:40:01 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Jan 18, 12:07*am, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"

wrote:
Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
* *Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.

Aha. You mean Jackson's unlawful combatants?

No. Recruits and volunteers.

His fighters were comprised of patriots from Tennessee that marched so
they could fight along-side him.

Other fighters were Indians (likely most Cherokee), Cajuns (abused by
the French), Caribbean pirates (hated the British), poets, crooks,
thieves, heathens and some political figures -- semi-important
participants. Toss in a drunk or two.

As a child Jackson was sworded by a British commander. He carried a
scar about his eye.

Then he spent the rest of his life killing you *******s in
"red-coats".

Get yourself an education, harry.

How is Susan and the parrots doing?

harry wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:32 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.

Which won't even come close to all the deaths resulting from at
least eleven civil wars in England.

Eleven eh? You better name them.

I can't. Wikipedia is down.


But then on your side we should add such as Little Big Horn and the
rest of the Indian ethnic cleansing.

Uh, the Indians won at the battle of the Little Big Horn.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 17, 8:43 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On Jan 17, 2:13 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

On Jan 15, 2:32 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

You ethnic cleansed two million indians and put the remainder in
concentration camps.

Funny though how "concentration camps" were a British invention
during
the
Boer War
It should also be noted that Indians have been free to leave "The
Rez"
for a
long, long, time and have been doing so with great regularity

Your hero Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own citizens, more pro
rata
than Stalin.

Did he ??
Do tell - give us the DETAILS to support your bull**** claim

He also intended the deportation of all black people back to
Africa.

Another stupid and unsupported lie from the UK idiot

I have pointed this out before, you seem to have a short memory.

At least, you've made the claim
But you have never been able to support it with DATA

What is an unlawful combatant?

Use a dictionary, dummy.

All here halfwit. You don't even know your own history do you?
Tough **** when an Englishman has to tell you your own history.
You really need to get yourself an eduction.
Kindly note that Indian rservations were invented before the Boer
war..

Too bad that the Englishman in question has demonstrated himself to be
a
total and abject moron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Results

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ety#Lincoln_an...

Nothing here about Lincoln wanting to "ship" blacks back to Africa.
As a matter of fact, it states the opposite of your claim
"Since the 1840s Lincoln, an admirer of Clay, had been
an advocate of the ACS program of colonizing blacks in
Liberia.
In an 1854 speech in Illinois, he points out the immense
difficulties
of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way
to quickly end slavery.[13]
Early in his presidency, Abraham Lincoln tried repeatedly
to arrange resettlement of the kind the ACS supported,
but each arrangement failed (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery).
By 1863, following the use of black troops, most scholars
believe
that Lincoln abandoned the idea. Biographer Stephen B. Oates
has observed that Lincoln thought it immoral to ask black
soldiers
to fight for the US and then to remove them to Africa
after their military service."

Apparently you're too stupid to even read your own cites for
comprehension

Well it says excatly what I said. Are you stupid/

1) NO it does NOT
2) Clearly, I am not
3) But you are most definitely stupid.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Appropriations_Act

More ignorance from the dumb pommy
Do you even READ what you cite to support your claims
The two most important acts were passed in 1851 and 1871
Lincoln was NOT even in Federal politics in 1851
And he was long dead in 1871

He became president in1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1860
He was assassinated in 1865
Which puts him right in the middle ofthe various acts.

LOL
That's about as intelligent as claiming that ANYONE born between 1914 and
1945 is responsible for all the deaths of WWI and WWII..

I'm leaving the next paragraph because you just proved it to be true, you
****ing moron.

Never mentioned when Lincoln was born.
You always move the goal posts when wrong.
Now THAT is a sign of low intelligence.

By gum, you really are a dolt.
OK.
I'll rephrase it for you..
Your argument is as stupid as claiming that
George V was responsible for all the deaths in WWI and WWII since he
ruled between the two
Or that
Churchill killed millions because he was Prime Minister during WWII
or that
Asquith, Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Baldwin, Ramsey MacDonald, Baldwin or
Chamberlain, where individually and/or collectively responsible for all the
deaths in WWI & WWII since they were Prime Ministers between those two wars

I have no problem defining my proof that you are a moron
It's actually quite easy.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
harry wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:32 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.

Which won't even come close to all the deaths resulting from at
least eleven civil wars in England.

Eleven eh? You better name them.

I can't. Wikipedia is down.


But then on your side we should add such as Little Big Horn and the
rest of the Indian ethnic cleansing.

Uh, the Indians won at the battle of the Little Big Horn.

snicker
Just goes to show how Hollywood-esque, harry's knowledge of US history
actually is.
No wonder he projects his ignorance on others to cover his own.

On Jan 18, 7:40*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





harry wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:32 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.

Which won't even come close to all the deaths resulting from at
least eleven civil wars in England.

Eleven eh? *You better name them.

I can't. Wikipedia is down.

But then on your side we should add such as Little *Big Horn and the
rest of the Indian ethnic cleansing.

Uh, the Indians won at the battle of the Little Big Horn.

snicker
Just goes to show how Hollywood-esque, harry's knowledge of US history
actually is.
* * No wonder he projects his ignorance on others to cover his own.- Hide

You have to count deaths on both sides. I was just being even handed.
Lincoln started the civil war. None of the people you mention started
a war.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 7:40 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





harry wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:32 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

620,000 soldier deaths. Plus civilians.

Which won't even come close to all the deaths resulting from at
least eleven civil wars in England.

Eleven eh? You better name them.

I can't. Wikipedia is down.

But then on your side we should add such as Little Big Horn and the
rest of the Indian ethnic cleansing.

Uh, the Indians won at the battle of the Little Big Horn.

snicker
Just goes to show how Hollywood-esque, harry's knowledge of US history
actually is.
No wonder he projects his ignorance on others to cover his own.- Hide

You have to count deaths on both sides. I was just being even handed.
Lincoln started the civil war. None of the people you mention started
a war.

And here I thought it was the Confederacy that started it by firing of Fort
Sumter.
So tell us which Hollywood movie was your source for the claim that Lincoln
started the war ?

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim..
Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry..

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:45:03 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim..
Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry..


He might be thinking of Gettysburg, the movie. Mid-way in the movie a
white van is seen traveling on Confederate Highway (back ground).

Lincoln was going to tell Lee to get off his lawn.

The next April (?) Grant stole Lee's sword in Appomattox Court House
in Virginia. The war was officially over.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:45:03 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim..
Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry..


He might be thinking of Gettysburg, the movie. Mid-way in the movie a
white van is seen traveling on Confederate Highway (back ground).


Was that a 2 or 4 horse SUV ????



Lincoln was going to tell Lee to get off his lawn.


Man.
That Lincoln was a mean mother...

The next April (?) Grant stole Lee's sword in Appomattox Court House
in Virginia. The war was officially over.

I heard that later Grant sold that Sword on Abay.com
(Abay.com was WAYYYYY before it's time, until some latecomer imitator
came up with Ebay...
The US Post office made a lot of money with all the bids and
responses being mailed back and forth)

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:30:33 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:48:52 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:54:48 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:13:06 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nothing here about Lincoln killing 60,000 Americans
Apparently you don't even read your own cites

harry gets mixed up with facts...

...(his link) "620,000 soldier deaths-two-thirds by disease"...

harry never states how many "blue-bellies" were killed by President
Jefferson Davis...

..or it only took Andrew Jackson 20 minutes to kill 2,000 "red-coats"
in a single battle.

I think he gets his information from AOL.


Not to mention the spin that his "facts" are suffering.


He gets other data from The Onion to back his contentions.

Susan should be ashamed of herself for saying "yes", when she might
have meant "no".

??
Who is Susan ?


The keeper of the household parrots, and of course harry... Think!


I must be missing a reference..

Before your time, I think. Harry's SWMBO.

On Jan 18, 9:45*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim..
* * Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry..

The war started when seven states seceded from the Union due to
several political issues.
Fort Sumpner was just the first battle.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:07:21 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Jan 18, 9:45*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim..
* * Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry..

The war started when seven states seceded from the Union due to
several political issues.
Fort Sumpner was just the first battle.

You really are dense in the head. Political "strife" (perhaps starting
as early as 1833) was NOT _Civil War_. The war started when Fort
Sumpter was fired upon.

On Jan 19, 4:43*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:07:21 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:





On Jan 18, 9:45*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim...
* * Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry..

The war started when seven states seceded from the Union due to
several political issues.
Fort Sumpner was just the first battle.

You really are dense in the head. Political "strife" (perhaps starting
as early as 1833) was NOT _Civil War_. The war started when Fort
Sumpter was fired upon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Was war declared or was it a "policing action"?
Lot of that goes on with America.
If not, there are lots of times it could be said to have started.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:14:19 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Jan 19, 4:43*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:07:21 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:





On Jan 18, 9:45*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim..
* * Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry..

The war started when seven states seceded from the Union due to
several political issues.
Fort Sumpner was just the first battle.

You really are dense in the head. Political "strife" (perhaps starting
as early as 1833) was NOT _Civil War_. The war started when Fort
Sumpter was fired upon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Was war declared or was it a "policing action"?
Lot of that goes on with America.
If not, there are lots of times it could be said to have started.

You tell me harry. Write your synopsis in this amount of space [ ]
If you can't break it all down, take as much space you need.

Some of us know more than you about this war.

On Jan 21, 4:42*am, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:14:19 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:





On Jan 19, 4:43*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:07:21 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Jan 18, 9:45*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Lincoln started the civil war.

No he didn't.

"Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil
war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this
Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours
later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back. "

Wiki is black today, you will have to suffer from a real URL.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

Maybe he can cite the Hollywood movie that was the source of is claim..
* * Far more reliable than an history book, according to harry...

The war started when seven states seceded from the Union due to
several political issues.
Fort Sumpner was just the first battle.

You really are dense in the head. Political "strife" (perhaps starting
as early as 1833) was NOT _Civil War_. The war started when Fort
Sumpter was fired upon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Was war declared or was it a "policing action"?
Lot of that goes on with America.
If *not, there are lots of times it could be said to have started.

You tell me harry. *Write your synopsis in this amount of space [ * ]
If you can't break it all down, take as much space you need.

Some of us know more than you about this war.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I expect you were there.