Thatcher'backstabbed' Sikhs by advising India on 1984 Golden Temple raid

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:        


Here are the points again that Irn failed to answer:

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

More waffling, more wriggling.

You (personal attack no debating) supported Thatcher's response for assistance in military action (the subject of the debate) when the response should have been to send a diplomatic mission to try and bring about a peaceful end through peace and reconciliation - the very platform you (personal attack no debating) claim to stand on. These are the undeniable facts and the record is written here so it's time to come clean in that it's all been an act and that you (personal attack no debating) have been faking this image that you (personal attack no debating) have been trying to present for some time now. That's all been rumbled now as has your (personal attack no debating) victim status when you (personal attack no debating) get a response to the personal insults and racially aggravated language that you (personal attack no debating) resort to when you (personal attack no debating) get a response that you (personal attack no debating) don't like. It's all out in the open now Didge so there is no point in you (personal attack no debating) trying to deny it any longer.

You (personal attack no debating) have been faking it but it's all over now.

Keep wriggling

Oh, and good morning to you.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

More waffling, more wriggling.

You (personal attack no debating) supported Thatcher's response for assistance in military action (the subject of the debate) when the response should have been to send a diplomatic mission to try and bring about a peaceful end through peace and reconciliation - the very platform you (personal attack no debating) claim to stand on. These are the undeniable facts and the record is written here so it's time to come clean in that it's all been an act and that you (personal attack no debating) have been faking this image that you have been trying to present for some time now. That's all been rumbled now as has your (personal attack no debating) victim status when you get a response to the personal insults and racially aggravated language that you resort to when you get a response that you (personal attack no debating) don't like. It's all out in the open now Didge so there is no point in you (personal attack no debating) trying to deny it any longer.

You (personal attack no debating) have been faking it but it's all over now.

Keep wriggling

Oh, and good morning to you.

Here are the points again that Irn failed to answer:

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Here are the points again that Irn failed to answer:

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

More waffling more wriggling. You (personal attack no debating)supported military action instead of peace and reconciliation - the very platform you(personal attack no debating) claim to stand on. You're (personal attack no debating) friend Smelly has joined now so the both of you (personal attack no debating) have mutual interests that you (personal attack no debating)can discuss together

You're (personal attack no debating) rumbled...

Bang bang- you're (personal attack no debating) dead. CYA tomorrow old bean.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What I've highlighted above is all I need to know Didge because that's what I suspected all along in that you are defending Thatcher because you approve of the actions taken by the Indian authorities. Why didn't you just say so in the first place instead of all the bluff and bluster about the plan may not have been used?
The Sikh population in the Punjab suffered terrible human rights abuses and denial of their rights by the Indian authorities but when they stand up and fight back you call them extremists.
Instead of sending military officers to India she should have agreed to send a diplomatic mission to try and facilitate a peaceful conclusion to the stand off. Britain had great influence in India and had many experienced diplomats and skilled negotiators to hand and that would have been the sensible thing to do.
I'm sure you don't condone the killing of the thousands that died in what happened and in the aftermath because I know you are not like that but it was wrong and a mistake by Thatcher to assist the Indian authorities in seeking to end the stand off with a military solution because they always end up in a bloodbath and in that case that is exactly what happened.

No it was not wrong for what Thatcher did in helping a country that seek assistance, blaming you make me laugh again how you look back again at an incident in hindsight as that is all you commies do,you are nothing more than cowards trying to seek to blame here for nothing you can actually prove, that is the pathetic resolve of a commie like yourself[ because the reality is you hate her. You seek to use the deaths of people who we have again no idea she was involved in anyway the killing of these people, and you try to make political gain out of that, how pathetic. You even have no understanding of the situation at the time. Now it was Ghandi that brought about a peaceful solution to India, but with Bhindranwale he wanted to advocate violence, now are you telling me you support violence now? Really? I have never supported the violence committed by the ANC in SA, I condemn it but now it seems you think violence is the only option. I stated what made Mandela great was reconciliation, so it is you advocating violence from the Sikhs, no suprise there really.

So lets look at the situation at the time shall we my child? The Indian authorities were facing untold violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi, of which  Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was accused of amassing weapons in the Sikh temple and starting a major armed uprising. Now maybe your idea of a protest is to be sucking on some hippy girls nipple at an american airbase protesting, but it also seems you think the indian authorities were meant to do nothing about the continuing violence. Now I am not denying Sikhs were not denied rights, but no violence is every right either and you stupidly think nothing should be done about the violence, thank goodness you were not in charge in 1939 we would no doubt all be speaking German today.


So lets read what happened that day, because what happened was a culmination of events that led to some innocents dying of which Bhindranwale and his followers have to take some responsibility to:


The government seemed unable to stop the violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Indira Gandhi ordered the army to storm the temple complex in Punjab.Operation Blue Star was a mixed success. A variety of army units along with paramilitary forces surrounded the temple complex on 3 June 1984. The army kept asking the militants to surrender, using the public address system, but according to civilians inside the complex no announcements were made and the Army termed everyone inside the complex as enemies. The militants were asked to send the pilgrims out of the temple premises to safety, before they start fighting the army. However, nothing happened till 7 PM. General Brar then asked the police if they could send emissaries inside to help get the civilians out, but the police said that anyone sent inside would be killed by the militants. They believed that the militants were keeping the pilgrims inside to stop the army from entering the temple. Finally, around a hundred sick and old people were let out. These people informed the army that the others were not being allowed to come out. The army had grossly underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. Thus, tanks and heavy artillery were used to forcefully suppress the anti-tank and machine-gun fire. After a 24 hour firefight, the army finally wrested control of the temple complex. According to the Indian Army, 136 army personnel were killed and 249 injured. while insurgent casualties were 493 killed and 86 injured. Unofficial figures go well into the thousands. Along with insurgents, many innocent worshipers were caught in the crossfire. The estimates of innocent people killed in the operation range from a few hundred of people.


So as we see the event was a culminations of mistakes by both the army and insurgents which led to civilians deaths, so take your fake bullshit of care about the deaths here Irn because I am not buying any of this, you are using an event you know nothing about as stated to use the death of people to make political gain, how utterly pathetic. Even here it is clear even with the SAS officer they had very little intelligence of the situation from the indians to provide them with as seen they underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. So here we have insurgents going around committing violence and you think people should dance around with flowers in their hair to stop extremists killing innocent people. I again think it was wrong what was happening to the Sikhs, I do not though support their use of violence. Try reading some real history, not the left wing crap you read all the time thanks

 :/pwn://:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


No it was not wrong for what Thatcher did in helping a country that seek assistance, blaming you make me laugh again how you look back again at an incident in hindsight as that is all you commies do,you are nothing more than cowards trying to seek to blame here for nothing you can actually prove, that is the pathetic resolve of a commie like yourself[ because the reality is you hate her. You seek to use the deaths of people who we have again no idea she was involved in anyway the killing of these people, and you try to make political gain out of that, how pathetic. You even have no understanding of the situation at the time. Now it was Ghandi that brought about a peaceful solution to India, but with Bhindranwale he wanted to advocate violence, now are you telling me you support violence now? Really? I have never supported the violence committed by the ANC in SA, I condemn it but now it seems you think violence is the only option. I stated what made Mandela great was reconciliation, so it is you advocating violence from the Sikhs, no suprise there really.

So lets look at the situation at the time shall we my child? The Indian authorities were facing untold violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi, of which  Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was accused of amassing weapons in the Sikh temple and starting a major armed uprising. Now maybe your idea of a protest is to be sucking on some hippy girls nipple at an american airbase protesting, but it also seems you think the indian authorities were meant to do nothing about the continuing violence. Now I am not denying Sikhs were not denied rights, but no violence is every right either and you stupidly think nothing should be done about the violence, thank goodness you were not in charge in 1939 we would no doubt all be speaking German today.


So lets read what happened that day, because what happened was a culmination of events that led to some innocents dying of which Bhindranwale and his followers have to take some responsibility to:


The government seemed unable to stop the violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Indira Gandhi ordered the army to storm the temple complex in Punjab.Operation Blue Star was a mixed success. A variety of army units along with paramilitary forces surrounded the temple complex on 3 June 1984. The army kept asking the militants to surrender, using the public address system, but according to civilians inside the complex no announcements were made and the Army termed everyone inside the complex as enemies. The militants were asked to send the pilgrims out of the temple premises to safety, before they start fighting the army. However, nothing happened till 7 PM. General Brar then asked the police if they could send emissaries inside to help get the civilians out, but the police said that anyone sent inside would be killed by the militants. They believed that the militants were keeping the pilgrims inside to stop the army from entering the temple. Finally, around a hundred sick and old people were let out. These people informed the army that the others were not being allowed to come out. The army had grossly underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. Thus, tanks and heavy artillery were used to forcefully suppress the anti-tank and machine-gun fire. After a 24 hour firefight, the army finally wrested control of the temple complex. According to the Indian Army, 136 army personnel were killed and 249 injured. while insurgent casualties were 493 killed and 86 injured. Unofficial figures go well into the thousands. Along with insurgents, many innocent worshipers were caught in the crossfire. The estimates of innocent people killed in the operation range from a few hundred of people.


So as we see the event was a culminations of mistakes by both the army and insurgents which led to civilians deaths, so take your fake bullshit of care about the deaths here Irn because I am not buying any of this, you are using an event you know nothing about as stated to use the death of people to make political gain, how utterly pathetic. Even here it is clear even with the SAS officer they had very little intelligence of the situation from the indians to provide them with as seen they underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. So here we have insurgents going around committing violence and you think people should dance around with flowers in their hair to stop extremists killing innocent people. I again think it was wrong what was happening to the Sikhs, I do not though support their use of violence. Try reading some real history, not the left wing crap you read all the time thanks

 :/pwn://:

I’ve bumped this post up again just to demonstrate where it all went wrong for you and the way you debating about me and nothing on the topic are trying to present yourself debating about me and nothing on the topic as a victim. Above is the response I got back from you debating about me and nothing on the topic where you went berserk to a perfectly reasonable post which even recognised your debating about me and nothing on the topic position yet you debating about me and nothing on the topic littered it with abuse and personal insults directed at me – in other words personal abuse – no debate..  Yet here you debating about me and nothing on the topic are bleating away that that you are a victim of personal attacks.

This thread is not about you at all it is about Thatcher’s  agreement  to send  the military to India instead of offering up a diplomatic mission to negotiate and mediate to try and bring about  an end through peace and reconciliation. You debating about me and nothing on the topic just happened along to support the military option instead of offering up a diplomatic option which the British government were well able to provide.  You debating about me and nothing on the topic disagreed with that which shows that your debating about me and nothing on the topic commitment to peace and reconciliation has been false all along and you debating about me and nothing on the topic have been faking it.

The points you debating about me and nothing on the topic have raised in that last post have already been dealt with throughout this thread and how you debating about me and nothing on the topic can possibly say that the ending of the siege was a great success when hundreds died in the attack and thousands in the aftermath. So what price human life in your book and so much for your stance on standing up for peace against violence.

And I think it was Nicko that said that a great leader was Winston Churchill which I would agree with but neither Thatcher or any other leader since r can even come close to uniting in a nation in the way he did.

So go and read your response above and you will see why I can now add Bleat bleat bleat I'm a victim (when you clearly are not) to wriggle wriggle wriggle.

SEXY MAMA wrote:Of course he would say that!!!!!

When has a MP ever been honest?

SEXY MAMA wrote:Of course he would say that!!!!!

When has a MP ever been honest?

PhilDidge wrote:Nothing shocking about it, I was bang on the money and you got it all wrong, as said they advised to exhaust all avenues and as seen advised a much better plan, which I said the SAS would not have advise them anything as bad as happen.

Thatcher did nothing wrong and now you are clutching at straws

PhilDidge wrote:I suggest you read back as this backs everything I said Irn to a tea and will highlight the words important for you:


Wiliam Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has said that British military advice to the Indian authorities ahead of the Golden Temple raid in 1984 had only a "limited impact" on the operation which resulted in a massacre of Sikh dissidents.
An investigation led by the Cabinet Secretary confirmed a British military adviser travelled to India in February 1984 to give advice on Indian government contingency plans for storming the temple.

But the adviser warned military action should only be taken “as a last resort, when all attempts at negotiation had failed”.
He also advised that any military option should involve a surprise attack using helicopter-borne troops "in the interests of reducing casualties and bringing about a swift resolution".

British advice was for a "fundamentally different" operation, Mr Hague said.
He said: "The Cabinet Secretary's report finds that the nature of the UK's assistance was purely advisory, limited and and provided to the Indian government at an early stage; that it had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the temple three months later; that there was no link between the provision of this advice and defence sales and there is no record of the (British) government receiving advance notice of the operation."


Again there is nothing wrong in advising nations, on contingency plans when all else fails, the SAS as stated were on of our best selling products after the Iranian Siege success.
The fact is they advised only to do as a last resort and their plans were not used, all of which you claimed otherwise.

So please do not claim otherwise it is there in black and white for all to read.  
Advising a  nation who asked for help on contingency plan is not a crime or backstabbing anyone, especially as it seeks to have as little causalities as possible and clearly advise a a last resort.  I do you so this was the case and you did not believe me

PhilDidge wrote:Have a good evening Irn

PhilDidge wrote:Now you are making things up now with collusion?

Really, they asked for advise for contingency, that is not collusion, months before any decision has been made as what to do, hence why it is called a contingency plan.
Thus they never colluded over the attack on the temple, for one they had not decided to attack the temple, because again this was contingency planning, second, they were advised to only do so as a last resort and three their plans were not even used.

That is not colluding, that is advising contingency planning, of which was never used and offering military support is not wrong either if it brought about minimizing causalities.

I see no wrong and all counts you got it wrong on many points here

Sorry, I rest my case and happy this was just as I predicted

Right have to go, bye Irn

PhilDidge wrote:That is not collusion,

That shows a difference in planning and again collusion would be involvement right up to the attack itself, which was never the case, you are clutching at straws

I am also appalled you would go to such lengths to try and smear someone when as seen there is clearly no evidence of collisions.

I am afraid you are the one coming out with the excuses for being very wrong.

All my points tick the boxes throughout the debate, I suggest you get over being wrong!  

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:That is not collusion,

That shows a difference in planning and again collusion would be involvement right up to the attack itself, which was never the case, you are clutching at straws

I am also appalled you would go to such lengths to try and smear someone when as seen there is clearly no evidence of collisions.

I am afraid you are the one coming out with the excuses for being very wrong.

All my points tick the boxes throughout the debate, I suggest you get over being wrong!  

Would you like to call it something else then? Cooperation for example? The fact is that Thatcher was prepared to cooperate in setting up a plan to attack the Golden Temple and she sent the military out there to do just that and that is a fact. Whether the advice was taken is neither here nor there, the fact is that it was given in the first place.

Do you deny that happened?

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:That is not collusion,

That shows a difference in planning and again collusion would be involvement right up to the attack itself, which was never the case, you are clutching at straws

I am also appalled you would go to such lengths to try and smear someone when as seen there is clearly no evidence of collisions.

I am afraid you are the one coming out with the excuses for being very wrong.

All my points tick the boxes throughout the debate, I suggest you get over being wrong!  

Would you like to call it something else then? Cooperation for example? The fact is that Thatcher was prepared to cooperate in setting up a plan to attack the Golden Temple and she sent the military out there to do just that and that is a fact. Whether the advice was taken is neither here nor there, the fact is that it was given in the first place.

Do you deny that happened?

Again British excellence with the Iranian Siege had put the SAS in the spotlight of the world.

India asked for nothing more than help with a contingency plan, that is all, that is helping advise or assist with planning, of which they did not even use. If the plan had been a success off the back of SAS help you would know doubt be saying different, as I have no doubt if this was the SAS, the outcome would have been very different if they had been in actual collusion training the operatives and detailing the plan of attack!

PhilDidge wrote:How is the title accurate when it says Thatcher stabbed the sikhs in the back, she never.


That is not 100%, you could not even get that right in the whole debate or admit I was bang on the money with the points I made before this came to light

Happy days

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:Contingency plans of which again you fail to understand dear Irn, oh dear, seems you do not understand anything, India asked for nothing more than help with a contingency plan, that is all, that is helping advise or assist with planning, of which they did not even use. If the plan had been a success off the back of SAS help you would know doubt be saying different, as I have no doubt if this was the SAS, the outcome would have been very different if they had been in actual collusion training the operatives and detailing the plan of attack!

You can keep trying to make it out to being something else and have failed to show collusion in the actual attack on the temple something that you are reeking of desperation over.




"If any of us thought that any British assistance had contributed to unnecessary loss of life and to suffering in this or any other case," Hague said in Parliament, "then we would all want to say that this was a mistake and, for the country, to make an apology. But that is not what is established by the Cabinet secretary's report."

Britain's assistance was, Hague said, "purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in their planning."

Heywood's inquiry confirmed that a British military officer visited India from Feb. 8 to Feb. 17, 1984, conducted reconnaissance of the temple site and advised India's intelligence services. But the report emphasized that there were significant differences between the advice offered and the operation that took place in June 1984. By that time, dissident forces in Amritsar, in northwestern India near the border with Pakistan, had increased, as had their fortifications.

"In particular, the element of surprise was not at the heart of the operation," the report said. "Nor was simultaneous helicopter insertion of assault forces to dominate critical areas."

The report said India had requested the advice from Britain, but Heywood described it as "a one-off" and said that the government "did not link the provision of this military advice to defense sales."


Last month, the BBC reported that the Indian general, who led the operation to take the Golden Temple, Kuldip Singh Brar, had denied using British help.


Oh dear!

Sassy wrote:Thatcher sent a telegram saying that?   Frigging disgusting bitch!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Contingency plans of which again you fail to understand dear Irn, oh dear, seems you do not understand anything, India asked for nothing more than help with a contingency plan, that is all, that is helping advise or assist with planning, of which they did not even use. If the plan had been a success off the back of SAS help you would know doubt be saying different, as I have no doubt if this was the SAS, the outcome would have been very different if they had been in actual collusion training the operatives and detailing the plan of attack!

You can keep trying to make it out to being something else and have failed to show collusion in the actual attack on the temple something that you are reeking of desperation over.




"If any of us thought that any British assistance had contributed to unnecessary loss of life and to suffering in this or any other case," Hague said in Parliament, "then we would all want to say that this was a mistake and, for the country, to make an apology. But that is not what is established by the Cabinet secretary's report."

Britain's assistance was, Hague said, "purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in their planning."

Heywood's inquiry confirmed that a British military officer visited India from Feb. 8 to Feb. 17, 1984, conducted reconnaissance of the temple site and advised India's intelligence services. But the report emphasized that there were significant differences between the advice offered and the operation that took place in June 1984. By that time, dissident forces in Amritsar, in northwestern India near the border with Pakistan, had increased, as had their fortifications.

"In particular, the element of surprise was not at the heart of the operation," the report said. "Nor was simultaneous helicopter insertion of assault forces to dominate critical areas."

The report said India had requested the advice from Britain, but Heywood described it as "a one-off" and said that the government "did not link the provision of this military advice to defense sales."


Last month, the BBC reported that the Indian general, who led the operation to take the Golden Temple, Kuldip Singh Brar, had denied using British help.


Oh dear!

Didge old bean. You just keep coming back with the same old stuff whilst the whole point goes over your head.
Sadly that is what you are doing wee lad

Was military advice requested?
For a contingency plan never used

Did Thatcher approve of advice being given?
Yes she aprove to help advise a plan never used

Was military advice given?
For a plan never used

Whether that advice was used or not,  a Yes, yes, yes answer to these three questions will be more than enough to prove that Thatcher colluded (or Cooperated) with the Indian Government to raid the Golden Temple.
 ://?roflmao?/: That is not collusion, that would mean thy were involved in the plan to attack, you really are clutching again at straws, because sadly some lefties want this to be the case they have nothing to debate so they implicate people they hate with false accusations, which is lower than low

And just days after the raid Thatcher sent a telegram to Mrs Ghandi approving of the action that took place (a massacre) and giving her an assurance that any reaction by the Sikh community here in the UK would be dealt with according by our own security forces.
Really see below, so did she approve of all the actions taken in trying to bring about a resolution and that any extremists would be dealt with, you really love to twist words don't you, I find your callus nature to find connection here nothing but the works of someone low and callus themselves  

Churchill must have been turning in his grave.