Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marduk said:
If you are anything else that's not Muslim, probably British Empire still.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but not likely for one you can change your religion you can't change so you are white.
Second the British never had any colonial subjects like Indians, or Africans as prime ministers or advisors to the King or Queen. While there have been Ottoman Grand Vizier's who were Christian. The Muslim empires were generally more religiously tolerant than other nations, yes Muslims were the privileged class, above others, but others could still live and do well for themselves.

The reason why being a white european would be better to be occupied by British is because the British and other Europeans were generally more competent and had societies that were less idiotic shit shows. Starting in the 1700's the Ottomans were going down. It's the same reason why the German states like Austria or Prussia were better than Russia. The Russian leadership was incompetent and corrupt not just oppressive. While the Germans may be above the locals, at least German rule was ordered and more prosperous.
 
Marduk said:
If you are anything else that's not Muslim, probably British Empire still.
Click to expand...

Definitely the British empire still.

King Arts said:
Maybe, but not likely for one you can change your religion you can't change so you are white.
Second the British never had any colonial subjects like Indians, or Africans as prime ministers or advisors to the King or Queen. While there have been Ottoman Grand Vizier's who were Christian. The Muslim empires were generally more religiously tolerant than other nations, yes Muslims were the privileged class, above others, but others could still live and do well for themselves.
Click to expand...

This some of the most blatantly wrong revisionist history out there.

The Muslims systematically enslaved and wiped out every Christian territory they took control of. North Africa used to be Christian. Anatolia used to be Christian. When the Muslims took the territory, Christians were forced to convert under threat of death, or largely lived as slaves, often having their children taken away from them and raised to be Muslims. The Mughals were not noted for being terribly nice to Hindus and Buddhists either, though I'm less conversant with that part of history.

Muslims have been the least religiously tolerant conquerors in history. Stop drinking the progressive kool-aid about Islam.


The Ottomans were much less bad than most other Muslim empires, part of why they did relatively well, but they were still at best as 'good' as European colonial empires, other than the horror of Belgian Congo.
 
LordsFire said:
Definitely the British empire still.
Click to expand...
Lol your just saying that cause you are British.

LordsFire said:
This some of the most blatantly wrong revisionist history out there.

The Muslims systematically enslaved and wiped out every Christian territory they took control of. North Africa used to be Christian. Anatolia used to be Christian. When the Muslims took the territory, Christians were forced to convert under threat of death, or largely lived as slaves, often having their children taken away from them and raised to be Muslims. The Mughals were not noted for being terribly nice to Hindus and Buddhists either, though I'm less conversant with that part of history.

Muslims have been the least religiously tolerant conquerors in history. Stop drinking the progressive kool-aid about Islam.


The Ottomans were much less bad than most other Muslim empires, part of why they did relatively well, but they were still at best as 'good' as European colonial empires, other than the horror of Belgian Congo.
Click to expand...
As for what you are saying it's generally false. Christians and Jews who lived in Dhimmitude were far better treated than Muslims and Jews who were in Christian European lands.
There are still many Christians in the middle east who survived from the middle ages onward. If you are complaining about the majority of the people there no longer Christian well that's because most people are not that devout, and even without torture, or executions many converted to the religion of the conquerors and those in power. To not be second class citizens, and to avoid paying the Jizya tax.
And western modern nations have been a much bigger cause for less Christians in the middle east. Iraq used to have a decent amount of Christians who were generally ok. Then when neo colonial wars happen under Bush, many died and are displaced, now under the great democratic nation it's less Christian than ever. Thank you Anglo nations.
Also as a side note no the ottomans were not much less bad than most other Muslim empires, they were actually worse. They just were better because they were Turkish and not Arabs so they had less incompetence.
 
LordsFire said:
though I'm less conversant with that part of history.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that some sources place number of dead Hindus well above the Holocaust... as in, by a factor of couple of dozen.

Of course, it was a much longer period.

King Arts said:
As for what you are saying it's generally false. Christians and Jews who lived in Dhimmitude were far better treated than Muslims and Jews who were in Christian European lands.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. They weren't.
isi.org

The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

The existence of a Muslim kingdom in Medieval Spain where different races and religions lived harmoniously in multicultural tolerance is one of today’s most widespread myths.
isi.org isi.org
 
Marduk said:
Would you rather be occupied by the British Empire or the Ottoman Empire?
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the opium wars? british occupation was not a bed of roses.
I certainly wouldn't volunteer to sacrifice my life to defend british occupiers from otoman occupiers. Let the two enemies fight each other.
 
King Arts said:
Lol your just saying that cause you are British.
Click to expand...

1. I'm not British.

2. Citing Wikipedia, notorious for being completely captured by the left on any page that has anything to do with the culture wars, isn't getting you any credence.

3. Blaming Bush (or any government/nation etc) for what muslims do to people who had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq is textbook blame shifting.

Islam teaches that all infidels must convert or die. They can have an intermediary period where they pay the Jizya, but in the end, it's conversion or the sword.
 
mrttao said:
Ever heard of the opium wars? british occupation was not a bed of roses.
I certainly wouldn't volunteer to sacrifice my life to defend british occupiers from otoman occupiers. Let the two enemies fight each other.
Click to expand...
Yes you would if you knew what you are talking about, which you don't.
Opium wars are fucking nothing compared to the shit Ottoman Empire did.
www.history.com

Armenian Genocide: Facts & Timeline - HISTORY

The Armenian genocide was the systematic killing and deportation of millions of Armenians by Ottoman Empire Turks from 1915-1920, during and after World War I.
www.history.com www.history.com
 
Marduk said:
Yes you would if you knew what you are talking about, which you don't.
Opium wars are fucking nothing compared to the shit Ottoman Empire did.
www.history.com

Armenian Genocide: Facts & Timeline - HISTORY

The Armenian genocide was the systematic killing and deportation of millions of Armenians by Ottoman Empire Turks from 1915-1920, during and after World War I.
www.history.com www.history.com
Click to expand...
0.6 to 1.5 million dead armanian vs
www.independent.co.uk

The five worst atrocities carried out by the British Empire will make you wonder why we're apparently proud of it

It is the 70th anniversary of the partition of India
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
12 to 29 million dead Indians died under british occupation.

But sure, keep on going on and on about how wonderful and friendly the british empire was to the point where any sane person would give up his very life to ensure they are under british occupation instead of ottoman occupation.

Also, has it occured to you that when the occupier forces fight each other, is the perfect time to make a bid for true freedom? many nations have done just that.

Because I didn't say ottomans were fun to be occupied by. I said
mrttao said:
The Ukranian people are already occupied. Why should they fight and die to protect their current abusive occupier from another occupier?
Click to expand...
mrttao said:
Ever heard of the opium wars? british occupation was not a bed of roses.
I certainly wouldn't volunteer to sacrifice my life to defend british occupiers from otoman occupiers. Let the two enemies fight each other.
Click to expand...
 
mrttao said:
0.6 to 1.5 million dead armanian vs
www.independent.co.uk

The five worst atrocities carried out by the British Empire will make you wonder why we're apparently proud of it

It is the 70th anniversary of the partition of India
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
12 to 29 million dead Indians died under british occupation.
Click to expand...
By anti western bullshit count, couldn't even get to a million without the attempt to blame the British Empire for India having famines. Because you know, there were never major famines in India without British Empire.
mrttao said:
Also, has it occured to you that when the occupier forces fight each other, is the perfect time to make a bid for true freedom? many nations have done just that.
Click to expand...
With what exactly?
 
Marduk said:
By anti western bullshit count, couldn't even get to a million without the attempt to blame the British Empire for India having famines. Because you know, there were never major famines in India without British Empire.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, India is essentially geographically fucked when it comes to famines. Something to do with a particular current in the surrounding oceans or something, and it's been a problem since the dawn of Dharmic civilisation.

Indeed, thanks to the railways, Britain laid the foundations for putting them to an end (trains are good for shifting grain where it is needed). Good or bad, the British Empire is just not the monster it has been built up to be. By my reckoning, much of Eastern Europe would probably have far preferred to be under London's rule than Moscow's.
 
Husky_Khan said:
Fake posturing against Poland could be potentially very helpful in drawing off Russian resources from the real conflict occurring in Ukraine. So this could be a plus, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The Russians can shift assets to build up military forces on every other border in Europe they want. All it'll really do is give the Ukrainians an easier time of it.

Poland isn't a paradigm country, but from everything I've seen, they're in better shape than the Ukrainians, economically and militarily. I think they could finish off the Russian military by themselves, much less with the rest of NATO's support.
 
Marduk said:
By anti western bullshit count, couldn't even get to a million without the attempt to blame the British Empire for India having famines. Because you know, there were never major famines in India without British Empire.
Click to expand...
From your citation (Although take it with a grain of salt because for some reason you are citing wikipedia, which is a woke disinformation source.)
your citation: wikipedia said:
British rule[edit]
See also: Timeline of major famines in India during British rule
See also: Category:Famines in British India

The late 18th and 19th centuries saw an increase in the incidence of severe famine.[fn 2] Approximately 15 millions died from 1850 to 1899 in 24 major famines; more than in any other 50-year period.[25] These famines in British India were bad enough to have a remarkable impact on the long term population growth of the country, especially in the half-century between 1871–1921.[26] The first, the Great Bengal famine of 1770, is estimated to have taken the lives of nearly one-third of the population of the region—about 10 million people.[27][28][29]
Click to expand...
Anyways. Famines were always a thing. But quite a coincidence that suddenly they get massively intensified when under foreign occupation.

Also more important
After independence, the Dominion of India and thereafter the Republic of India inherited these codes, which were modernized and improved, and although there were severe food shortages in India after independence, and malnutrition continues to the present day, there were neither serious famines, nor clear and undisputed-, or large-scale ones.[16][17][18][19][20] The economist Amartya Sen who won the 1998 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in part for his work on the economic mechanisms underlying famines, has stated in his 2009 book, The Idea of Justice:

Though Indian democracy has many imperfections, nevertheless the political incentives generated by it have been adequate to eliminate major famines right from the time of independence. The last substantial famine in India — the Bengal famine — occurred only four years before the Empire ended. The prevalence of famines, which had been a persistent feature of the long history of the British Indian Empire, ended abruptly with the establishment of a democracy after independence.[21]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
so... last major famine is 4 years before indian independence. And since then 0 major famines thanks to actually having government policies in place to protect food security.
 
mrttao said:
From your citation (Although take it with a grain of salt because for some reason you are citing wikipedia, which is a woke disinformation source.)

Anyways. Famines were always a thing. But quite a coincidence that suddenly they get massively intensified when under foreign occupation.

Also more important

so... last major famine is 4 years before indian independence. And since then 0 major famines thanks to actually having government policies in place to protect food security.
Click to expand...
With selective quoting you can argue anything. With that, you are worse than said woke wikipedia.
Even fucking wikipedia can quote 2 people who are for this theory and 2 who blame environmental causes and subsistence farming, concluding in:
The famines were a product both of uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies.
Click to expand...
Basically, YMMV, to some degree both were to blame, but you can play all sorts of games in claims of how much exactly.
But back to Ottomans, they didn't kill by mismanagement of agriculture threatened with troublesome ecology, they killed with clear and definite intent.
 
Lord Sovereign said:
As I understand it, India is essentially geographically fucked when it comes to famines. Something to do with a particular current in the surrounding oceans or something, and it's been a problem since the dawn of Dharmic civilisation.

Indeed, thanks to the railways, Britain laid the foundations for putting them to an end (trains are good for shifting grain where it is needed). Good or bad, the British Empire is just not the monster it has been built up to be. By my reckoning, much of Eastern Europe would probably have far preferred to be under London's rule than Moscow's.
Click to expand...

Everybody,even Irish,would preferred London to Moscow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top