[FiveofSwords]

You care about your own people being raped. The crime of rape is typically internecine...so that is an entirely different category than a strong nation oppressing a weak nation.

I apologize that my responses are so simple...but that is because it is simple.

[Tainari88]

There wasn't even much violence involved in the British conquest of India. Most of it was an economic takeover and driven by the greed of Indian people. What Violence did occur was perpetrated by mercenaries in India, primarily the sikh.

Accept it was Greed and Violence. That is what it was about. Just say the British elite were Greedy and Violent. Greedy and violent people are not civilized people. They are low lives and the worst of humanity. They use lies about caring about the people they want to invade, take profits from, and threaten with troops and violent retaliation. They want to say they are civilized. They are just barbarians.

When asked about why the British did not want to give India its independence? Google replied:

British government views on Indian independence

India was still considered the 'jewel in the crown' of the British Empire. Britain would lose access to cheap labour and natural resources. If India was given full independence, then other nations would soon demand the same and the British Empire would inevitably fall ...

Sorry to break it to you Sword man. You have invalid views and false shit as excuses for barbarism.

Here is a scene based on historical events where the British were a bunch of murderers.

Accept it. Murdering barbaric imperialists. Couching their greed and nastiness with shitty theories of caring about the Natives. No. They did not care. They should be ashamed for all time forever.

They locked the avenues of escape on purpose. And unarmed men, women and children were massacred. because....they are nice guys. PLEASE.

Why is violence necessary against a nonviolence social movement?

Because they are worried about losing their colony. Greed and violence. That is all they are Sword. Accept they are the worst of the worst. No matter how bad you want to make it seem that the British were just doing it for what reason again? Those Indians, Hindus, Tamils, etc were all warring among themselves. And the British were there as NICE GUYS. Do you expect anyone to believe that crock of SHIT?

[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords here is the evidence of Greed. And then violence.

https://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?page=imp ... 0to%201938.

There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India - as horrible as it may have been - was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long - the story goes - was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik -just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.

It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

Tell me is it Greed Fiveofswords? Yes or no? Tell me.

Then this is the amount of killing the Armed British forces did in India during rebellions. Not counting how many Indians were ripped off massively from the second paragraph of the above article. From the Khan Academy_
By the end, over 50,000 sepoys had died or were executed later, whether or not they were guilty of participating in the revolt. Another 100,000 civilians were killed by British efforts to put down the rebellion and take revenge.

READ: 1857 Indian Uprising (article) - Khan Academy

Khan Academy
:

Violence. On a mass scale.

So, Greed and Violence were the motivation and the weapon and that is that. Are they civilized? No. A bunch of brutes, thugs and gangsters and nightmare people who pass themselves off as civilized. Savage low lives that should be ashamed to even presume to look down on other nations because they are less rich than who? The UK? A nation full of bankrupt coucils because the House of Lords and the other Bluebloods SQUANDERED it all on PETTY NONSENSE.

Complete and utter FAILURES.

I rest my case.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords here is the evidence of Greed. And then violence.

https://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?page=imp ... 0to%201938.



Tell me is it Greed Fiveofswords? Yes or no? Tell me.

Then this is the amount of killing the Armed British forces did in India during rebellions. Not counting how many Indians were ripped off massively from the second paragraph of the above article. From the Khan Academy_
By the end, over 50,000 sepoys had died or were executed later, whether or not they were guilty of participating in the revolt. Another 100,000 civilians were killed by British efforts to put down the rebellion and take revenge.

READ: 1857 Indian Uprising (article) - Khan Academy

Khan Academy
:

Violence. On a mass scale.

So, Greed and Violence were the motivation and the weapon and that is that. Are they civilized? No. A bunch of brutes, thugs and gangsters and nightmare people who pass themselves off as civilized. Savage low lives that should be ashamed to even presume to look down on other nations because they are less rich than who? The UK? A nation full of bankrupt coucils because the House of Lords and the other Bluebloods SQUANDERED it all on PETTY NONSENSE.

Complete and utter FAILURES.

I rest my case.

Lol you can sit there and hate the British empire as much as you like, but it isn't a point. Yeah...the fact that you hate them is exactly why they did not want to be weak.. they didn't want to be oppressed by people like you. So you could have hated them all you loke but you never could have actually done anything about it. I have no doubt that India would have liked to be strong enough to avoid being conquered as well.. but they failed. It isn't about what is right or wrong it is just problem and solution. Being weak is a problem and being stronger is the solution. Telling people they are mean and barbaric does not make them weaker it just avoids the problem.

[Tainari88]

Lol you can sit there and hate the British empire as much as you like, but it isn't a point. Yeah...the fact that you hate them is exactly why they did not want to be weak.. they didn't want to be oppressed by people like you. So you could have hated them all you loke but you never could have actually done anything about it. I have no doubt that India would have liked to be strong enough to avoid being conquered as well.. but they failed. It isn't about what is right or wrong it is just problem and solution. Being weak is a problem and being stronger is the solution. Telling people they are mean and barbaric does not make them weaker it just avoids the problem.

That is what they are. What would you call people willing to kill fellow human beings over money? Nice people. Lol.

I am not avoiding anything. You want to make it about hating the British. Why don't you try to find a reasonable reason for invasions, killing and taking 45 trillion dollars of wealth? That is not about Greed or Violence?

No, you have no argument of any validity so you start with distractions about hatred. No man. I am always passionate in debate. I am not Anglo. You go to a Latin American forum and the debate is not about being cold and boring. That is for Anglo styles. It is not about that. Argue about the reason for invasions, Trillions and dead people.

Give a reason where the British were there for the reason of benevolence? Because?

You can't do it.

So, you need to just say, yeah it was about Greed and Violence and Imperialism. Yes, they lost all their ex Colonial possessions. Yes, today they are in debt and the Trillions did not make the UK a land of all wealthy folks living the high life. So where did the money go? To who? And where is that money now?

Make your case.

No. You just want to say I am a hater because I have a strong argument against you.

I find you are going to run like a rabbit like they all do. Because in the end you know what is true. If you were honest on why you defend a bunch of bluebloods who wasted money on shit instead of building their own nation up properly? You would do it.

Instead you identify with a bunch of foolish elitists who have zero moral codes.

Weak in the extreme in my honest opinion.

[FiveofSwords]

That is what they are. What would you call people willing to kill fellow human beings over money? Nice people. Lol.

I am not avoiding anything. You want to make it about hating the British. Why don't you try to find a reasonable reason for invasions, killing and taking 45 trillion dollars of wealth? That is not about Greed or Violence?

No, you have no argument of any validity so you start with distractions about hatred. No man. I am always passionate in debate. I am not Anglo. You go to a Latin American forum and the debate is not about being cold and boring. That is for Anglo styles. It is not about that. Argue about the reason for invasions, Trillions and dead people.

Give a reason where the British were there for the reason of benevolence? Because?

You can't do it.

So, you need to just say, yeah it was about Greed and Violence and Imperialism. Yes, they lost all their ex Colonial possessions. Yes, today they are in debt and the Trillions did not make the UK a land of all wealthy folks living the high life. So where did the money go? To who? And where is that money now?

Make your case.

No. You just want to say I am a hater because I have a strong argument against you.

I find you are going to run like a rabbit like they all do. Because in the end you know what is true. If you were honest on why you defend a bunch of bluebloods who wasted money on shit instead of building their own nation up properly? You would do it.

Instead you identify with a bunch of foolish elitists who have zero moral codes.

Weak in the extreme in my honest opinion.

You keep bringing it back to this absurd arbitrary discussion about ethics. Once again your feelings are hurt because Indian tribes were weaker than the British empire. Once again I am not telling you what is ethical...I am just reminding you that the most important aspect here is that Indians were weak. The British empire didn't have to kill them for money...we could have killed them for fun. And it is still irrelevant. The only solution is simply to not be weak.

The British used to understand that. They don't anymore. And they don't control their own country. And I am not going to waste my time crying to you about it because I know you don't care. There is only one solution: get stronger

[Tainari88]

You keep bringing it back to this absurd arbitrary discussion about ethics. Once again your feelings are hurt because Indian tribes were weaker than the British empire. Once again I am not telling you what is ethical...I am just reminding you that the most important aspect here is that Indians were weak. The British empire didn't have to kill them for money...we could have killed them for fun. And it is still irrelevant. The only solution is simply to not be weak.

The British used to understand that. They don't anymore. And they don't control their own country. And I am not going to waste my time crying to you about it because I know you don't care. There is only one solution: get stronger

Oh God. Now it is some imagined argument about the British had to invade and take the 45 Trillion dollars because they were stronger than the Indians? Stronger how? Brute force? Military prowess? Craftiness?

The solution is simply not to be weak? What does that mean? Do not be weak?

You are brand new here. Can you be upfront and state what your political philosophy is about?

This statement of killing off the weak and that is irrelevant is because?

Come on dude. Do some arguing.

You have to be aggressive and take over? To do what? Take money that comes from cheap labor and exploitation. Show them who is boss in a land that does not belong to them? Because England is not in Asia where India was located.

The Europeans have been looking for a direct route to India for a long time. That is why the Caribbean Islands are called the West Indies. Why did the Spanish crown want a route to India? Let me guess....for trade. Spices, silk, tea and all that jazz? Hmm. Is it Greed again?

This strong versus weak argument? They (the British Empire Period) was once mighty. But now they are no longer mighty because they became weak? So how do they get it back? Invade, war and throwing bombs? Or what do you suggest on getting their MOJO back...

I noticed you are lobby fodder. You need time to mull this over.

This is your opportunity.

[FiveofSwords]

Oh God. Now it is some imagined argument about the British had to invade and take the 45 Trillion dollars because they were stronger than the Indians? Stronger how? Brute force? Military prowess? Craftiness?

The solution is simply not to be weak? What does that mean? Do not be weak?

You are brand new here. Can you be upfront and state what your political philosophy is about?

This statement of killing off the weak and that is irrelevant is because?

Come on dude. Do some arguing.

You have to be aggressive and take over? To do what? Take money that comes from cheap labor and exploitation. Show them who is boss in a land that does not belong to them? Because England is not in Asia where India was located.

The Europeans have been looking for a direct route to India for a long time. That is why the Caribbean Islands are called the West Indies. Why did the Spanish crown want a route to India? Let me guess....for trade. Spices, silk, tea and all that jazz? Hmm. Is it Greed again?

This strong versus weak argument? They (the British Empire Period) was once mighty. But now they are no longer mighty because they became weak? So how do they get it back? Invade, war and throwing bombs? Or what do you suggest on getting their MOJO back...

I noticed you are lobby fodder. You need time to mull this over.

This is your opportunity.

So I noticed you are actually trying to disagree with me. Can we therefore assume that you believe that it is safer to be weak than to be strong?

[Tainari88]

What I notice @FiveofSwords is that unless you work a lot harder on logic and actual argumentation, you are a very poor quality debater.

You are not strong. You are really avoiding strong points. What are the strong points? The two reasons why the British were in India were about wanting to be greedy and backing it up with violence. Do you dispute greed was the motivator for them? Is it a very clear yes or no answer? Was Greed the reason?

Greed is strong in your view? Yes or no? Start with that. How strong do you have to be to be a greedy person and use violence to get something out of others? That is what you consider being strong? Using immorality and fear of being killed as a way of doing business?

Lol. For me that is the epitome of being weak, and savage. You disagree? Why?

[FiveofSwords]

What I notice @FiveofSwords is that unless you work a lot harder on logic and actual argumentation, you are a very poor quality debater.

You are not strong. You are really avoiding strong points. What are the strong points? The two reasons why the British were in India were about wanting to be greedy and backing it up with violence. Do you dispute greed was the motivator for them? Is it a very clear yes or no answer? Was Greed the reason?

Greed is strong in your view? Yes or no? Start with that. How strong do you have to be to be a greedy person and use violence to get something out of others? That is what you consider being strong? Using immorality and fear of being killed as a way of doing business?

Lol. For me that is the epitome of being weak, and savage. You disagree? Why?

You seem incapable of getting my point. I actually don't care what motivated the British empire to conquer india...but Greed is honestly one of the most noble reasons for conquest. At least there is some rational point for greed instead of mere psychopaths. One could interpret 'greedy as simply expanding your resources and therefore your power which is needed to defend yourself from other hostile nations (the British probably had France or north America in mind for that)...so I'll take it...let's say the British conquered India to expand their resources and their ability to defend themselves. Great.

But from the point of view of India or anyone who doesn't want to be conquered the most important lesson should simply be that if you are weak you will be conquered. So you should try to not be weak. No powerful empire is going to care that it makes you sad that they conquer you, nor are they going to care if you think their motivations are 'savage'...so you would accomplish nothing by crying. The only reason crying works on the modern British is because the modern British are weak. But because they are weak they also cannot assist you very much. So you are basically wasting your efforts by crying. That is the only important observation that should be made here.

[Rich]

I'm beginning to wonder what I'm watching. Can this Trevor Noah really be this cretinous this ignorant. I've got to the 2 minute mark in the video and he doesn't seem to know that the Christian God has a name. Is this cretinous retard Trevor Noah not aware that by he time the British became majorly involved in India the Portuguese had actually been pretty successful in converting the parts of India they controlled to Catholicism. He seems to talk as if he imagines that the Hindu's were completely resistant to conversion to monotheism, when in fact there had been large scale conversion to Islam through out northern India, particularly in the west and in Bengal.

Perhaps the biggest issue with this cretin is that like so many cretinous lefties, they seem to think if the British conquered a place, that the people were unconquered before. The basic process of a group of armed men arriving and telling you that some far away person was now your monarch and had divine support would have been very familiar to proto or pre Indians. What the British did had been happening for thousands of years. What was different about the British is that, they were less selfish and less cruel than the previous rulers. The British helped the people educate themselves and prepared them for self government.

[Rich]

So I've got to about 4 minutes. Just on the previous points, the Christian God is Yahweh or Jehovah. As I've indicated the ignorance of this guy just beggars belief. He doesn't seem to be even aware of the Krishna Consiousness movement that had a form of quasi consciousness. Its not just that he knows nothing about India, he doesn't seem to know anything about Christianity. Its like he's watched 2 minutes of some Christian preacher on Youtube, has heard that Hindus have many Gods and then just created a pathetic fantasy world out of his imagination.

What is remarkable is that he's able to assemble a whole audience of people who are so stupid and ignorant themselves that they actually think he's being witty and clever. And how does he get everything wrong? You'd think just by random chance he would get some things right. Anyway coming up to four minutes he starts ranting on about the name "Great Britain". Again how can he be such an ignorant cretin that he doesn't know why Great Britain has the term "Great" in the name? How do you find an audience so stupid and ignorant that they think you're being witty and clever? Britain is called Great Britain to distinguish it from the province in north west France. The term "Great" was not used out of arrogance, but out of respect and the need to differentiate it from the French province. Great just means large in this context.

[Tainari88]

You seem incapable of getting my point. I actually don't care what motivated the British empire to conquer india...but Greed is honestly one of the most noble reasons for conquest. At least there is some rational point for greed instead of mere psychopaths. One could interpret 'greedy as simply expanding your resources and therefore your power which is needed to defend yourself from other hostile nations (the British probably had France or north America in mind for that)...so I'll take it...let's say the British conquered India to expand their resources and their ability to defend themselves. Great.

But from the point of view of India or anyone who doesn't want to be conquered the most important lesson should simply be that if you are weak you will be conquered. So you should try to not be weak. No powerful empire is going to care that it makes you sad that they conquer you, nor are they going to care if you think their motivations are 'savage'...so you would accomplish nothing by crying. The only reason crying works on the modern British is because the modern British are weak. But because they are weak they also cannot assist you very much. So you are basically wasting your efforts by crying. That is the only important observation that should be made here.

So now the argument is about how being fearful and competitive with other greedy Empires in Europe who might steal your right to steal then you have to use force. You do not care about the reasons. With your reasoning then war is inevitable and you have be warmongering forever to not be weak? So what does war require eh? Soldiers taking orders and arms and occupations. You also need to recruit locals. A relationship is established, and you show them who is boss. You deny them some rights that you only apply to your own group and create hatred, resentment, defiance, and rebellion with the lack of respect that implies--and then you get someone like Gandhi leading a nonviolent social movement for Indian independence. But since the Indians are weaklings and deserve what they get? That movement is bound to fail and all is good in conquest. But, it did not fail. India got her independence in 1946.

So they were kicking out the English conquerors who thought they could hold on to the weaklings forever for greed purposes. Meanwhile, the English started receiving a lot of British subjects from India and Pakistan living in English towns and villages. Because once you take over the weaklings you start interacting with them and they then have to have immigration rights in order for you to salvage what you can from your Greed Filled Conquest and boorish lack of respect for the Rights of the weaklings.

Wow, what terrific results from all that shitty violence. And you do not care about the reasons.

So how to get that back eh? The MoJo...they need to feel good about being an old Has Been Empire again. because now, they are just the poodles of the USA.

To come down so low because they found it too difficult to keep hold of nations that did not want their STRONG and VIOLENT and GREEDY leadership eh?

And the 45 Trillion with a T money siphoned off of them for a long time--What happened to it? Why are Welsh villages and a bunch of British households living off of pittances and the dole if the UK got all that money off of the weaklings? Did it stay at the top with the elite?

And what did they do with it? Waste it on more wars and invasions that eventually led to loss of control because they never gave a damn about the reasons. Only the results. The results then became after WWII a bunch of Jamaicans moving to London and other towns, to build up the bombed out properties....because they needed the labor. The labor of the weaklings.

What a crock of shit you believe in @FiveofSwords. War is expensive and costly today and tomorrow. The sooner you stop wasting your money on it and you invest it in the education, health and well-being of your own people instead and start being some weakling nasty cold violent greedy Empire the better off everyone is going to be in the long run.

The other alternative is to take another 50 million refugees from every corner of the Ex Empire and displace the native Anglos, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. See how stable your strong society will remain with all the ones seeking a better life after receiving the gentle ministrations of the British empire for a few centuries.

No, warmongering is no longer cost effective. It is draining resources when human resources are becoming scarce and difficult to obtain and extract. The only thing your mentality will accomplish is a total collapse of systems and angry mobs willing to be angry at the ones charging them too much for energy and food. The Strong then become vulnerable. Weak. And they have to face that which they did to others, will eventually be done to them. Justice. A fitting thing eh? You do not like misery, living with Muslims in your backyard and in your major cities? And losing a bunch of power in terms of being able to have at least some minimum standards of living. I am afraid to tell you? But I must insist. You did not care about the reasons Sword dude. So when the shit hits the fan....no one is going to be crying tears for the ones who did not care about the reasons.

Ave Maria, how foolish can you be?

[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords according to this video the British were super CRIMINALS. A bunch of criminal mentality folks I rest my case. Greed and violence. Breaking thumbs. It is bad Sword.

Sunak is the PM. Kissing ass man. But the leader.

I hope you get millions more in there in the UK. Make sure you lose it all. I cry not a tear for such savage greedy mothers. No. You deserve the worst fate the world has ever known. I wont be crying. Hee hee.

If you do not give a shit about the suffering of others? Then suck it up when you wind up getting blowback and problems. Instead of dealing with these elites @FiveofSwords you just continue on some long bygone era of imperialism that you can never repeat.

I think if you fail to be civilized with others? You will have serious problems. Failures. For sure. No one likes greedy and violent people.

Would you like a greedy and violent person breaking into your home and holding you at gunpoint and robs you blind, and continues to come in consistently over and over again. And then calls you weak and inferior.

And when you get your act together and boot that criminal out? You then say....I was weak.

Whatever. That is the reason India and Pakistan got nukes. To avoid British Empire mentality. Instead of making the world safer all you wind up doing is giving them an opportunity to take the world into nuclear war.

What a horrible mentality.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords according to this video the British were super CRIMINALS. A bunch of criminal mentality folks I rest my case. Greed and violence. Breaking thumbs. It is bad Sword.

Sunak is the PM. Kissing ass man. But the leader.

I hope you get millions more in there in the UK. Make sure you lose it all. I cry not a tear for such savage greedy mothers. No. You deserve the worst fate the world has ever known. I wont be crying. Hee hee.

If you do not give a shit about the suffering of others? Then suck it up when you wind up getting blowback and problems. Instead of dealing with these elites @FiveofSwords you just continue on some long bygone era of imperialism that you can never repeat.

I think if you fail to be civilized with others? You will have serious problems. Failures. For sure. No one likes greedy and violent people.

Would you like a greedy and violent person breaking into your home and holding you at gunpoint and robs you blind, and continues to come in consistently over and over again. And then calls you weak and inferior.

And when you get your act together and boot that criminal out? You then say....I was weak.

Whatever. That is the reason India and Pakistan got nukes. To avoid British Empire mentality. Instead of making the world safer all you wind up doing is giving them an opportunity to take the world into nuclear war.

What a horrible mentality.

All you seem capable of doing is telling us over and over that you don't like the British. We get it. We figured that out a long time ago...and you use way too many words to say such a simple thing that has no relevance to anything.

[Rich]

OK so about 4.45, he starts talking about skin colour. Its amazing, just amazing, his unerring ability to get things flat out wrong. You'd think just by random chance he'd get somethings at least half right. He seems to live in a pathetic fantasy world where modern "progressive" identities are projected back into history. Back then there was no notion of a global south, there were no "people of colour". There was no "Black is beautiful" in fact it tended to be the reverse.

In agrarian societies, most people are peasants and the forests are chopped down, meaning most people have to spend their days out in the hot shadeless sun. Where as the Aristocrats and particularly the female aristocrats can spend a lot of time indoors or in the shaded gardens of their palaces and mansions. This means in a number of places lighter skin was associated with higher status. This was true in India. The Brahmin caste will certainly have looked down on the British, seeing them as unclean, but not untouchable, but not because of their skin colour.

In Agrarian societies we often find obesity associated with high status, because as with light skin only the rich were obese. Skinniness was associated with poverty and low status. These things start to reverse with the industrial revolution, the lower classes now being confined for most of their days to factories, mines and offices. Pasty white skin is now associated with low status. Darker skin with health, vitality and intelligence. Obesity has also reversed and become a low status symbol.

[FiveofSwords]

OK so about 4.45, he starts talking about skin colour. Its amazing, just amazing, his unerring ability to get things flat out wrong. You'd think just by random chance he'd get somethings at least half right. He seems to live in a pathetic fantasy world where modern "progressive" identities are projected back into history. Back then there was no notion of a global south, there were no "people of colour". There was no "Black is beautiful" in fact it tended to be the reverse.

In agrarian societies, most people are peasants and the forests are chopped down, meaning most people have to spend their days out in the hot shadeless sun. Where as the Aristocrats and particularly the female aristocrats can spend a lot of time indoors or in the shaded gardens of their palaces and mansions. This means in a number of places lighter skin was associated with higher status. This was true in India. The Brahmin caste will certainly have looked down on the British, seeing them as unclean, but not untouchable, but not because of their skin colour.

In Agrarian societies we often find obesity associated with high status, because as with light skin only the rich were obese. Skinniness was associated with poverty and low status. These things start to reverse with the industrial revolution, the lower classes now being confined for most of their days to factories, mines and offices. Pasty white skin is now associated with low status. Darker skin with health, vitality and intelligence. Obesity has also reversed and become a low status symbol.

Not really.it has always been the case that altruism is linked to genetic similarity. That is why (sane) mothers care more about their own children than the child of somebody else. That is why thr most savage wars occur between people of different races. That is why Trevor Noah hates me, and why I hate Trevor Noah.

The reason you did not see so much of this in the past was because travel was more difficult and distinct races don't normally live nearby each other.

But you did see someone this in the most sprawling empires in ancienthistory...such as Rome or Persia or the Mongolians.

If distinct races occupy the same space then it is simply fundamental biological instinct for one to wipe out the other...just like ant colonies would. It means that more of your own genes can reproduce based on the carrying capacity of the habitat...rather than some competing life form that may technically be the same species but different enough to be noticed as a competitor.

People like Trevor Noah like to frame rhis as a uniquely white thing...as if only white people are capable of genocide. They do this in an attempt to dehumanizing us and justify their own attempt to genocide us.

Ultimately this is not a thing that can ever be fixed with 'negotiations'. No understanding can be reached and there can never be peaceful coexistence.

[Rich]

https://youtu.be/gIzQxNZfGM4?si=5XJh_Z6zv5Ez-5hw

I thought for a minute there that you had found someone who knew something that actually had a bit of intelligence, but it turns out at the one minute mark, this is just another leftie cretin another retard.

...as a foreign power...

India was no stranger to dealing with foreign aggression

Now technically this is a true statement. He has by dumb luck said something true. India was no stranger to foreign aggression. But India was also no acquaintance of foreign aggression. India was no anything. India did not exist. I don't doubt that the people at the time had a concept of foreignness but that did not come from an Indian identity. Numerous population groups within the territory of what became India will have been foreign to each other.

[QatzelOk]

...Being weak is a problem and being stronger is the solution. ...

Greed is honestly one of the most noble reasons for conquest

Indian tribes were weaker than the British empire.

I can understand your point of view in the above statements. But what I don't understand is how you could have posted this on the same page:

The crime of rape is typically internecine...so that is an entirely different category than a strong nation oppressing a weak nation.

Here, you mention "rape" as being "an entirely different category to "colonialism." But what you have written about your love of colonialism... describes something very close to rape.

1. The strong "taking" from the less (physically) strong

2. The weak "having a problem" (being inferior, in your eyes) that is remedied by the rape-colonialism by "the strong."

3. The lack of respect that you demonstrate for leaving the less violent alone to live their lives as they choose without the interference of rape or colonialism. (Greed - for colonialism, being something you admire, perhaps just like Lust - for Rape?)

One of the problems (one of your strategies) is your choice of vocabulary.

If a bankrobber storm into a bank and kills all the clients and staff, that isn't because he is "stronger" than the other people there. Do you get this?

[QatzelOk]

...What is remarkable is that he's able to assemble a whole audience of people who are so stupid and ignorant themselves that they actually think he's being witty and clever. ...

I went with friends to a free comedy show a few years ago, and as luck would have it, it was for a multi-act show with political themes!

I didn't laugh even once, and felt uncomfortable when the crowd laughed at what I thought were silly jokes that only dummies would respond to.

Since that time, I refuse offers of free tx to comedy shows. The audience is so dumbed down and has been fed so much political garbage by commercial media lies... that it isn't possible for comedians to be edgy unless they are open to being censored and perhaps doxxed.

A mainstream media guy like Trevor is NEVER going to leave the ranch of money.