"UK is a Christian country"-David Cameron

Dovah

Untermensch
Super Mod
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
6,204
Likes
8,183
Country flag
Ahhh, interesting, so the only way to not hate someone (nation, country) is to eliminate him? Yep, this is veeerrrryyyy "civilized", yeah, bravo!
Again, where did I imply elimination...I have a suspicion that you don't know about the India-Pakistan history and are assuming that Pakistan somehow existed before India gained independence. What I meant by there won't be any Pakistan is, Pakistan wouldn't have been created in the first place...not destroyed. Doesn't sound very sick now, does it?

Ahh, so by this sick logic, I should now hate Germans and desire them all to be dead, only because some time in history they have goverment of maniacs, that deluded whole nation gaining it's support? I need to even hate little babies that born recently and are Germans?
Again, I never mentioned wiping of an entire populace in any of my post, did I? Are you even reading my comments or have decided to go off on a tangent?

By this sick logic Indians should hate British only because one goverment in past made wrong things?
We hate the British for thinking they "civilized" the world. Even then, hate is a strong word.

It is incredibly civilized, really, I'am just shocked. I can imagine hate for individuals, I hate terrorists for example, but hate for whole nation and desire to make their life hell is just... un human.
Again, I assume it was a reply to me...please quote where I say I hate "all" the Britishers for the crimes committed by their ancestors.
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
461
Pmaitra, to some extent trackwhack is right. INA did indirectly cause the naval revolt. That spread to the army and air force. The British raj was based on the loyalty of the Indian armed forces. Once that foundation was shaken it was game over for the Brits.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" - how would you respond if someone asked you this?

The premise of your question is false. When did I say America granted India independence? Quote me or Quit trolling.



And your comments are so ridiculous that they are beneath contempt. If you have too much of an attitude, keep it with yourself. I have one of my own.
Thirdly, Roosevelt did tell the Brits to give up their colonies. I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth


Quoting you - You claim the truth to be US gained India independence

Not responding to the rest as I'd like to debate in a civil manner.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Pmaitra, to some extent trackwhack is right. INA did indirectly cause the naval revolt. That spread to the army and air force. The British raj was based on the loyalty of the Indian armed forces. Once that foundation was shaken it was game over for the Brits.
Yes, there was a revolt during INA trials. It played a part, but there was no war of independence and to claim the Brits were booted out is simply incorrect. Also, assuming there was indeed a war of independence, we do not know what would have happened. India could have been still partitioned like Korea. In any event, it is partitioned now, that too by the British. Put all this together and you know what really happened.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Thirdly, Roosevelt did tell the Brits to give up their colonies. I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth


Quoting you - You claim the truth to be US gained India independence

Not responding to the rest as I'd like to debate in a civil manner.
I said exactly what is in bold. You claimed that I said US granted India independence; you made that up.

Learn to read before you debate.
 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
20,075
Likes
19,846
Country flag
So you'de be happy if the African tribes are still sending messages by smoke, pigeons or couriers? So you'd be happy if they're are still calling for the Gods and the spirits for cure? So you'd be happy if they're still planting crops by hand in small patches of soil?
she was indirectly referring me [Indians], I have no hate for EU or UK countries... as i lived there for 2 years, I would be happy if all the gold and was not taken from India, I would be be Happy if India was not cut into pieces, ,,,,,,,,,
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
Maybe Damian is right, you're just a child. I hope you don't get an important government position until you grow up, you're mindset I regret to inform you is simply out of touch.
Asianobserve, you idea of civilization and progress is different from mine.

My idea of civilization & progress is a society that lives in a civil manner and is at peace with everyone else. Who they pray to or where they get their food from or what machinery they use to plant crops is inconsequential.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
Again, where did I imply elimination...I have a suspicion that you don't know about the India-Pakistan history and are assuming that Pakistan somehow existed before India gained independence. What I meant by there won't be any Pakistan is :pakistan wouldn't have been created in the first place...not destroyed. Doesn't sound very sick now, does it?
I know that Pakistan did not existed before British leave India, but still, this one tiny fragment of Your post, gives me impression that by logic of You or some other people, the only way to not hate someone is to make him nonegsitant, and this can mean anything.

Again, I never mentioned wiping of an entire populace in any of my post, did I? Are you even reading my comments or have decided to go off on a tangent?
I read, and belive me, besides reading text, there is also such thing as context and message hidden under text. So as above.

We hate the British for thinking they "civilized" the world. Even then, hate is a strong word.
This is a reason? Becuse they are thinking something?! This is... this is just... I can't even find words to describe this!

Again, I assume it was a reply to me...please quote where I say I hate "all" the Britishers for the crimes committed by their ancestors.
Oh so when some users here that are Indians are talking that Europeans (British especially) are scums they have in mind some individuals, but on the other hand it is so easy to just say, hey, British are scums, or hey, maybe French are scums? Or maybe Poles are scums, they are also europeans... who will be also scum? Arabs? Or Muslims in general view? Maybe the whole world besides Indians are scums?

This is how I see some of these posts... and they are terrible.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
I said exactly what is in bold. You claimed that I said US granted India independence; you made that up.

Learn to read before you debate.
What am I supposed to infer from I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth?

Again I am not going to respond to your aggression. Three such posts from you would be enough to bury the hatchet I would think. Lets debate please.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Super Mod
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
6,204
Likes
8,183
Country flag
Another interesting assertion. How long did the British Empire existed again? And how about NAZI Germany?[FONT=helvetica, arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=helvetica, arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]The British Indian empire? [/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica, arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]100 years.[/FONT]

[FONT=helvetica, arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Death toll?[/FONT]

BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: How Churchill 'starved' India
[FONT=helvetica, arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]And this is just a footnote in their glorious[/FONT] Raj.






 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
20,075
Likes
19,846
Country flag
I said exactly what is in bold. You claimed that I said US granted India independence; you made that up.

Learn to read before you debate.
Is this True.!!!
never heard about this before....
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Is this True.!!!
never heard about this before....
Yes Sir.

Roosevelt did tell Britain that the US was willing to help them economically to rebuild their country but Britain must give up her colonies. The US was not willing to finance British ambitions of retaining her overseas colonies and this was made clear to the British by the US.
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
461
Yes, there was a revolt during INA trials. It played a part, but there was no war of independence and to claim the Brits were booted out is simply incorrect. Also, assuming there was indeed a war of independence, we do not know what would have happened. India could have been still partitioned like Korea. In any event, it is partitioned now, that too by the British. Put all this together and you know what really happened.
Partition was a necessary evil of that time. Back then, in 1946 there was the direct action riot instigated by surrawardy and jinna. This gave the then leaders a reality check. Had Pakistan been with us today, we would be having hundreds of communal riots today. That was not something the Brits imposed on us,it was inevitable. However during the naval revolt, there were a little more than 100,000 Brits in India, hardly enough to impose their will.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Super Mod
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
6,204
Likes
8,183
Country flag
I know that Pakistan did not existed before British leave India, but still, this one tiny fragment of Your post, gives me impression that by logic of You or some other people, the only way to not hate someone is to make him nonegsitant, and this can mean anything.
Actually, my post indicated no such thing apart from pointing your flawed(circular) logic out.

I read, and belive me, besides reading text, there is also such thing as context and message hidden under text. So as above.
You mistook me then. I meant no such thing, I'll leave it at that.

This is a reason? Becuse they are thinking something?! This is... this is just... I can't even find words to describe this!
I apologize if you find this offensive, but would you not hate the Germans if they start taking pride in the Reich and believing that their invasion civilized Poland?. Again, I did point out that "Hate" is a strong word.

Oh so when some users here that are Indians are talking that Europeans (British especially) are scums they have in mind some individuals, but on the other hand it is so easy to just say, hey, British are scums, or hey, maybe French are scums? Or maybe Poles are scums, they are also europeans... who will be also scum? Arabs? Or Muslims in general view? Maybe the whole world besides Indians are scums?This is how I see some of these posts... and they are terrible.


Perhaps you can't empathize with people who had family members who suffered during the Raj.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Partition was a necessary evil of that time. Back then, in 1946 there was the direct action riot instigated by surrawardy and jinna. This gave the then leaders a reality check. Had Pakistan been with us today, we would be having hundreds of communal riots today. That was not something the Brits imposed on us,it was inevitable. However during the naval revolt, there were a little more than 100,000 Brits in India, hardly enough to impose their will.
Not debating the merits of partition. If the British wanted, they could have brought in troops to quell any revolt. They had the wherewithal, means, weapons and military setup to do so. They could have possibly succeeded if the US started financing Britain without that condition that Britain must give up her territories.
 
Last edited:

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
What am I supposed to infer from I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth?

Again I am not going to respond to your aggression. Three such posts from you would be enough to bury the hatchet I would think. Lets debate please.
Am I waiting for a response or should I enlist for an English comprehension course?
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
The latter sounds like a reasonable investment of your time.
Obviously there is not an argument to substantiate what you said. I thought as much. Over and out.

Never thought that I would one day have to hear that the Americans bought (not brought) us our freedom. You made my day and I shed a tear for those who put their necks through a rope to buy me my freedom.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Obviously there is not an argument to substantiate what you said. I thought as much. Over and out.
You can do whatever you want. Read below if it helps:

  • Roosevelt told Britain to give up her territories and US will help Britain financially for rebuilding. - fact.
  • US granted India independence. - drivel that you made up.
Never though that I would one day have to hear that the Americans bought (not brought) us our freedom. You made my day and I shed a tear for those who put their necks through a rope to buy me my freedom.
Sensationalism and rhetoric seldom moves me. Put forward facts. I have no time for emotional melodrama.

For your perusal:

Yes Sir.

Roosevelt did tell Britain that the US was willing to help them economically to rebuild their country but Britain must give up her colonies. The US was not willing to finance British ambitions of retaining her overseas colonies and this was made clear to the British by the US.
Not debating the merits of partition. If the British wanted, they could have brought in troops to quell any revolt. They had the wherewithal, means, weapons and military setup to do so. They could have possibly succeeded if the US started financing Britain without that condition that Britain must give up her territories.
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
461
Not debating the merits of partition. If the British wanted, they could have brought in troops to quell any revolt. They has the wherewithal, means, weapons and military setup to do so. They could have possibly succeeded if the US started financing Britain without that condition that Britain must give up her territories.
What you do not realize is that Indians formed the bulk of British troops anywhere in the world. India had the the 2nd largest population in the world back then-300 million. Indian troops formed the pivotal role in any any British campaign anywhere -be it the anglo afgan war or any world war campaign. And besides,they were simply broke. If that was indeed the case-that they were magnanimous,why did they leave Kenya nearly 10 year from then?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top