Britain let the Americans win their indepdence war

Only because Russia will not put up with mooslim crap.

 

Hey Keeper, if you hated America any more than you already do then you should come here and join the democrat party, you'd fit right in.

 

We are both using erroneous terms in that case. There was a constant rejection of Roman rule.

I noticed you left out the link proving that the French had a fort in America before the Mayflower. It was to be for the refugees from extended crusades.

http://m.ibtimes.com/fort-caroline-...-north-america-may-be-located-georgia-1557254

How did they know that fortifications were needed?

They knew because there were other refugees from crusade in Europe established in the Gulf. Those are referred to as "Caribbean pirates", research showed they were first called the "Brotherhood of the Coast". In essence they were Cathari seafaring merchants and traders that left at the Albegensian crusade.

Written history is controlled by the church, you are too.

Before the written word, only oral histories existed and they were kept in the unconscious mind.

Note: The "C" in an old history book stands for "circa" which refers to "circadian" or the circadian rhythm which was used within ancient sunworship to create some chronological accuracy in oral histories.

If you are going to attempt to say that is not true, in order to be reasonable, you will need to explain why the entire globe has ancient solar alignment instruments that are basically governmental or religious edifices?

Where do you think Piri Reis got his information for his map?

What happened to the Templars after they were banned from France in 1305?

I will tell you. They mapped the worlds coastlines from the decks of their small fleet and returned to settle in Scotland. Since they were originally agents of the Church of Rome, they shared information with the Ottoman Empire.

http://www.crystalinks.com/pirireis.html
The map was signed by Piri Reis, an Ottoman-Turkish admiral, geographer and cartographer, and dated to the month of Muharram in the Islamic year 919 AH, equivalent to 1513 AD. It was presented to Ottoman Sultan Selim I in 1517. In the map's legend, Piri inscribed that the map was based on about twenty charts and mapper mundi - a general term used to describe medieval European maps of the world..

Naturally the mystical aspects of the ancient Hindi were fascinating for the Templars, so they left a number of people there to facilitate their return which happened before 1600.

This follows an ongoing interest from far in the past regarding the spice and silk trails.

Prehistoric writings and stone age carvings of neolithic age obtained indicates that India's South West Coast path, especially Kerala had established itself as a major spice trade centre from as early as 3000 B.C, which marks the beginning of Spice Trade (History of Kerala).

Are you going to try and state that such difficult commerce was not important enough to leave agents in the region to facilitate a more prosperous return?

Logic is part of reason.

I am corrected. The point is the British brought in allies to fight for their American colonies.

What is that?

 

I don't know about our collective penis, but we sure came in handy when Britain went broke in 1915 and it needed someone to finance its part in the Great War.

I seem to recall that we helped out a bit after the Summer of 1940 too.

 

More ingnorance.The Brits lost nearly 23k at york town and Saratoga combined and still had nearly 20,000 in New York at the time those to lost. The initial invasion of Long Island nearly 45 warships and 32 k troops. Because ships needed the wind to sail and the prevailing winds were quite constant and limited to certain latitudes even without radar ships didn't need to patrol nearly as large an expanse of the open ocean as one might think.

 

No thanks. There is no logic without accountability, and you have none of that.

The post of the below link has a link to another post which you also failed to be accountable.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=393195&p=1064676000#post1064676000

In both instances important American interests are PARTIALLY represented. Which is VERY much in the interests of those responsible for the American problems you are posting about.

All indications point to the distinct possibility that you are arguing on behalf of UK intelligence which is covertly trying to influence the political thinking and capacity of Americans.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

Sincere Americans that stand unconditionally for the 1787 constitution, BEWARE!

This subterfuge is coming from all commonwealth countries. I've been dealing with it for nearly a decade, and it's escalated into every vital area of discourse.

It is also coming from our own infiltrated government.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

A good example of the unaccountable BS is in spooks failure to be reasonable regarding the purpose of free speech.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391740&page=2&p=1064645338#post1064645338

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391740&page=4&p=1064654681#post1064654681

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391946&page=2&p=1064655295#post1064655295

The design of this covert manipulation has at least two goals. One, confusion, two distraction. Basically there are enough of them to create their own false internet society on a forum.
The confusion aspect is maintained with useless information pertaining to politics as usual. It's easy to engage unwitting Americans in this, because that is all that media shares, so is mostly what the average American knows about and can discuss.

By doing that, the false social groups push relevant, useful information for constitutional defense off the first page into oblivion while also creating a group focus on useless information opposing the infiltration of government.

This thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...free-speech-choosing-limits-over-purpose.html

Is actually counter strategy opposing covert manipulation which focuses upon a key element of constitutional defense.
The method by which Americans can create unity sufficient to restore constitutional government by altering or abolishing the government becoming destructive to unalienable rights.

Which BTW was infiltrated before the civil war by the BRITISH interests of financiers of the union army which then implemented the act of 1871 after using violence to divide the country.

How is the purpose of free speech counter strategy opposing covert, cognitive infiltration?

The covert agents CANNOT agree with and accept that which serves to unify America without empowering that which they oppose.

Accordingly, all sincere Americans have to do to escape this BS is agree and accept that purpose, and only seriously discuss politics with posters that have also made that agreement accepting that prime constitutional intent.

Get it?

 

No there wasn't a constant rejection. Both rebellion and revolution are two different concepts.

That wasn't what I was contesting. I was contesting your claim that the French settlements were for refugees from the first crusade. Which is wholly untrue and centuries out of date.

Piracy and war as well as possible native aggression.

No. Piracy in the New World originated from privateering.

No I'm not and no; history is not controlled by the church well unless you think Dan Brown wasn't writing fiction.

The written word has been around for a long time

Irrelevant.
Where do you think Piri Reis got his information for his map?
Chinese ships were in Venice in 1421

These specific Templars?

You do know that they were based in other places as well?

What?

I said that it was incorrect because it was around 1719 that the French east India company had trading posts in India.
Britain didn't exist until 1707. England however didn't have a presence in India until 1612 and again in the form of the East India Company.

Knowledge would be a bigger help

Ok

A videogame makes use of alternate history featuring the Knights Templars. Forget it, doesn't matter.

 

Britain is no longer Great, Great Britain is a has been great. So now we have them twisting history to try
to gain some Greatness. Your all Loser Britain NOW.


Get use to it.


....

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

Fort Caroline was for the refugees 56 years before the mayflower.

http://m.ibtimes.com/fort-caroline-...-north-america-may-be-located-georgia-1557254

For more than 150 years researchers have been searching for Fort Caroline – the first French colony in the United States that was intended to provide refuge for the Protestant Huguenots.

The Cathari merchants and traders fled Europe and crossed the Atlantic sometime not too much after 1180. This is missing history.

The Cathari had settled in the Caribbean islands and moved northwards to the gulf coast and Easter florida. Naturally they would take any English ship they might see. Those recording the history wanted English settlement to be first so simply labeled the people living in the south as pirates because they only saw them at sea.
There was some communication to France, whereupon the conditions and need for fortifications, fort Caroline, was created. The Spanish wiped them out. A cooperation sanitizing English history.

Right, you are controlled by academia which is controlled by the church which allows no other history other than the one they ordain as true.

Who was burning books?

Who did Gutenberg first print for?

Dan Brown wrote fiction, subterfuge covering truths that are emerging. Masonry was so appreciative they invited him into Masonry.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...im-the-door-to-the-lodge-is-open-8625968.html

NOTE: The main character in Angels and demons is almost exactly the same name as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Archbishop was counsel for the church in creating the Magna Carta assuring the church, through the king, was not party to affirming heresy.

I call that evasion and erroneous. We are discussing history and I just brought up the method of keeping history prior to the written word.

Did the church tell you to only use history of the written word? That's illogical because the written history comes from oral histories . The history you present explains nothing because it has so many gaps.

You are proposing the Chinese had crossed the pacific and gone the the eastern coast of South America then brought maps of that to Venice?

Talk about far fetched! Making stuff up. It makes no sense!

Piri Reis was a Templar. Hughes De Paynes notes Constantinople as a center of activity.

There was a group of them which escaped arrest the night before the king of France banned them.

The last they were seen was leaving with a fleet of 12 ships into the Atlantic from the channel.

Yes, and there are inland retreats of India that predate the crusades which are along the spice trail. Some of the information of the Piri Reis map is compiled from much earlier sources than the Templar mapping. India is so old and their oral histories so dense that a good deal of what Reis had access to, which was secret in Constantinople, would likely be from these sources.
BTW, venetians and Turks were enemies competing for sea routes in the spice trades.

Again, the written versions of the past explain very little. The history which was the reason the east India trading company was founded is a lead into unrecorded history which can be explanatory.

 

You REALLY are crippled by your ignorance of historical fact At the height Of German involvement,there was over 6.7 million Germans fighting in WW2 on the eastern front in fact winter defeated over 280,000 of them in Stalingrad when the cold and starving troops finally surrendered

 

No. What you said was that Fort Caroline was for refugees from the first crusade which is wholly untrue.

If that really is your claim then you did not make that clear the first time around.

No. there weren't any ships at the time that could actually cross the Atlantic.

No. The Cathars did not cross the Atlantic.

No the Spaniards were the first to colonise the Caribbean and the pirates did have ports in the Caribbean.

That's extremely unlikely.

Lot's of people have burnt books

For anyone who wished to purchase.

He's more like Ranulph Fiennes

And?

The Magna Carta has nothing to do with the church.

How is it relevant to the discussion?

No

No it doesn't.

Specify

No. What I said was that idea that there was another continent came from Chinese explorers who could make long distance voyages because their ships were leagues ahead and no they did not cross the pacific during that voyage and you'll know that the Chinese did make regular journeys to India.. Whether they actually set foot in America isn't known. There are a variety of possibilities as to how they came to believe in the existence of another continent.

No I'm not.

No he was not. Piri Reis was a Muslim and in the Ottoman Navy neither were compatible with the Knights Templar

How big a group? Because that would have to be pretty sizeable in order to man such a large fleet.

No there aren't any and what does that have to do with the crusades?

Lots of countries are pretty old but what is you point with this?

At times; yes.

What?

 

No one claimed we supplied Russia with everything,kid

Just enough totide them over till their industry caught up...


Are you going to announce your ignorance of history in such a condescending manner from now on?

 

Why are you so eager to show your ignorance?...there were more than 40,000 men in the Afrika korps,besides,they had quite a few italian divisions fighting with them.

 

Did you post the battle of Trenton,where the Americans broke with accepted tradition of not fighting during the winter months?

The one where they snuck across the delaware to engage the Hessians garrisoned there?

 

And I posted the link that quote came from the first time around.

If you are not reading links, and misreading posts, and failing to recognize the origins of ALL history, and not being accountable to the book burning or the origins of printing books and who printed them; then you are not accountable enough to explain why despots like the king and barons gave rights of law in the Magna Carta to commoners to keep their wood of their land instead of just taking it as they always had.

Go ahead and believe the history the church foists upon us, maybe you will continue to fail to realize how secret orders cross fences with secret memberships. Maybe you will be lucky enough to have an extra large pointed hat cover that will cover your ears and eyes so you won't see or hear people laughing at you when the truth comes out.

Which it must, or we will be extinct.

 

Then all I can say is that your using the wrong terms and have failed to understand what the first crusade actually is.

Again it was your use of the term "first crusade"

I haven't misread your posts. You've failed to articulate your ideas.

There are many different sources available for historical analysis.

You asked me a vague question about book burning. You have to specify.

Again also pretty vague.

You mean knowledgeable? Accountability is defined as taking responsibility for ones actions

No they did not. If you actually look through the text it applies to freemen. In fact the terms of 'commoners' didn't exist until around the 14th cent which is well away from the signing of the Magna Carta which for some reason everyone except Britons seems to care about it.

I don't have to.

I like dealing in facts. They tend to pay off better in the end

So...........what the local parish priest will suddenly transform into 40ft tall robot which shoots lasers out of it's eyes with a real disliking of humanity?

 

Lol, this post basically boils down to an 8th grader arguing over his favorite video game.

"Nuh uh!!! Mine is way better!"

 

I mean really? Wasn't their over 30k hessians alone not to mention two armies of British regulars? I read they estimate British land power was over 100,000 troops alone. Where did you come up with 10,000 from?

 

A 100,000? Nah not even the company had that number.

 

​

Read more:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...170942591&uid=2&uid=3739256&uid=3739832&uid=4

It suffices to say that Britain and King George had more problems than an American colony uprising and was playing whack a mole, while France concentrated on assisting America.

 

I'm assuming the op is a Brit. Jealousy and sour grapes are the main export from across the pond. Why did you wear those bright red coats? My English ancestors picked you off like turkeys. My Indian ancestors quickly realized you spoke with a forked tongue. Yes, I am part Native American as well as English with a some Jewish mixed in. I got into the melting pot. You didn't. Poor soul.

 

So what was the number then? Because the troops in Canada were also used in the revolution.

 

So I read there was 56,000 British regulars, 30,000 hessians, 20,000 loyalist colonials and native Americans. Can anyone correct me on that.

 

This is only partially true.

The British used a lot more than 10000 men, and that was because george iii was kind of nuts and wanted to keep all his colonies. It eventually stopprd because while the full force of the british army could have restored control, parliament ultimately didnt want to act like such bullies toward and kill so many of their own citizens to do so.