Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions

[BMD]

Meh... typical whataboutism. Engineered famines & massacres are perfectly kosher.



We survived one of history's most brutal empires (though we lost tens of millions) so what makes you think we won't survive the Nazis ?



Are you talking about rebranded slavery or indentured labour as British called it ?

It's not typical whataboutism at all. You had empires which did the same. The only difference is the length of time which passed.

Because they would have worked you until near death and then gassed you.

Just stating facts. And I still come back to the question about why so many Indians signed up to the British - enough to actually invade India in the first place. I also question why you never give the French on this forum grief. See Puducherry. They would have invaded you if we hadn't and then you'd have stupid eating habits and be talking French right now as well.

 

[BMD]

Nailed it.

He didn't nail it at all. He said that the Germans never enslaved anyone in Europe and missed the fact that native Indians weren't exactly passive towards visitors.

 

[Amal]

It's not typical whataboutism at all. You had empires which did the same. The only difference is the length of time which passed.

Because they would have worked you until near death and then gassed you.

Just stating facts. And I still come back to the question about why so many Indians signed up to the British - enough to actually invade India in the first place. I also question why you never give the French on this forum grief. See Puducherry. They would have invaded you if we hadn't and then you'd have stupid eating habits and be talking French right now as well.

Meh...more whataboutist BS.

Your empire was built on exploitation & massacres, and you don't have any moral high ground to point fingers at anyone. No matter how much you try to whitewash it.

 

[Amal]

He didn't nail it at all. He said that the Germans never enslaved anyone in Europe and missed the fact that native Indians weren't exactly passive towards visitors.

Why should they be passive, especially given the kind of 'visitors' ?

 

[Amal]

They should have farmed more efficiently, same deal with Zimbabwe.

Nice excuse Padraig. Apparently your overpopulated little island fared even worse.

It was importing 60% of food even during wartime. Why did you kept it supplied with a huge fleet of ships, should have told them to 'farm more efficiently' or die.

 

[Amal]

I suppose the Mughals did that huh?

Only two kind of retards make such a claim- Islamists & British. Both scumbags of the highest order.

If you were so advanced and civilised you wouldn't have got invaded by a small British trading compliment, nor would your country people have signed up to fight for the British. The fact your own people signed up is an indication of how bad things were.

This kind of logic is expected from someone who claims to build an HLV in 10 years.

And I would regard the prohibition of child marriage and widow burning as civilising yes

I guess witch burning, slavery & massacre of natives were 'civilized' actions.

 

[BMD]

Meh...more whataboutist BS.

Your empire was built on exploitation & massacres, and you don't have any moral high ground to point fingers at anyone. No matter how much you try to whitewash it.

Well why should the descendant of the British Empire bear any guilt if descendants of Indian empires don't?

So were all empires and religions for that matter. You have no moral high ground either.

 

[BMD]

Why should they be passive, especially given the kind of 'visitors' ?

They began with the arrows and scalping.

 

[BMD]

Nice excuse Padraig. Apparently your overpopulated little island fared even worse.

It was importing 60% of food even during wartime. Why did you kept it supplied with a huge fleet of ships, should have told them to 'farm more efficiently' or die.

Food production was hampered by bombing and war-driven resource requirements. It was also being exported to soldiers overseas and to foreign personnel serving in the UK and refugees from Europe. The farming was also being done by women because the men were fighting. Many fields were also being used for fighter bases. Indians are still dying from hunger and malnutrition now, in peacetime with aid, so don't blame us. It's a side-effect of over-breeding, poor food hygiene and inefficiency.

 

[BMD]

Only two kind of retards make such a claim- Islamists & British. Both scumbags of the highest order.






This kind of logic is expected from someone who claims to build an HLV in 10 years.




I guess witch burning, slavery & massacre of natives were 'civilized' actions.

They did civilise you. You admit to being in broken tribes, fighting off invaders and widow burning and child marriage is well-documented.

So how did a small trading company invade an area of land with over 300 million people in?

No they were not, and we got rid of them earlier too. It's also a myth that slavery didn't exist in India before the British arrived and a huge deception. Contemporary slavery also existed in India after British rule had ended. Your only issue with slavery under the British, is that it was the British, which is racism.

 

[Volcano]

It never became an independent republic until 1965.
Singapore - Wikipedia



Self-governing and independent are not the same thing. France is self-governing but not independent of the EU, ditto for US states.

How about you start reading about things before opening your mouth to spout bullshit? Singapore become independent from 1959 the same way India become independent in 1947 but continued to keep queen as the figure head for few more years just like India. Once they got rid of British rule in 1958, their economy started growing 1st time since Brits stepped their feet in their land. Untill that day, singapoor was one of the most poor countries in the World. Hundreds of years of British occupation gave singapporians nothing but poverty and suffering.

No it was optimisation of land usage, which is a fact proven by the aftermath of Mugabe's land reform policies, which were ethnic cleansing.

So the GDP went down but it is better off? Despite the food shortages?

Yes. For the native Africans it is still a good deal. The previous economy was 98% owned by British settlers for the benefits of settlers. Native Africans were not even allowed to enter in cities like Salisbury. Zimbabwe's agricultural productivity decreased by 40% since 1980 and this decrease is mostly associated with the increase in the population during the same time which actually doubled. The difference is that this time everything they have is 100% owned by the natives, where as the entire economy was owned by the colonial british settlers before. A Good deal for the Africans I say.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/zimbabwe/1980/
Zimbabwe Agriculture productivity - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com

You lie again.
Famine in India - Wikipedia

It has also suffered millions of famine and malnutrition-related deaths every year since, despite aid and agricultural technology improvements. More people died of famine in China during the colonial period too and more people have died in India since too.

Except that there is nothing that disprove anything I said. less than 3,000 peoples died in independent India due to even the worst famines of 1960. The number of peoples dead in the British times due to famines are in tens of millions.for example, Bengal famines of 1770 under British occupation left a quater of entire Bengali population dead. The number of peoples dead in all other famines even during the worst once under non British rule are around 3,000. Millions never died in India due to poverty except under British occupation.Life expectancy of Indians actually decreased in British Rule and it was just 31 years at the end of British occupation.

 

[Volcano]

They did civilise you. You admit to being in broken tribes, fighting off invaders and widow burning and child marriage is well-documented.

So how did a small trading company invade an area of land with over 300 million people in?

No they were not, and we got rid of them earlier too. It's also a myth that slavery didn't exist in India before the British arrived and a huge deception. Contemporary slavery also existed in India after British rule had ended.

Child marriage and inbreeding are actually a trait of British royal family. The entire history of British Royal family is filled with it.

Civilized behavior is not something that Brits ever known for. Most of them were nothing murderous and looters, looting all across the World.

This is how the "civilized" Brits behaved with the natives of Newziland and Australia. Slavery and genocide. God, these scums have no shame at all.





native head collection by British invaders in Newziland.

 

[Guynextdoor]

Hey @BMD is it true that you are headed for a second referrendum? Several of my highly placed contacts are hinting that May wants it privately and Corbyn has been instructed to whip up sentiment arounfd it. Is it true? Are you going for a seconf referrendum to reverse this? That will be the final nail in UK's coffin as a great power.

 

[BMD]

How about you start reading about things before opening your mouth to spout bullshit? Singapore become independent from 1959 the same way India become independent in 1947 but continued to keep queen as the figure head for few more years just like India. Once they got rid of British rule in 1958, their economy started growing 1st time since Brits stepped their feet in their land. Untill that day, singapoor was one of the most poor countries in the World. Hundreds of years of British occupation gave singapporians nothing but poverty and suffering.



Yes. For the native Africans it is still a good deal. The previous economy was 98% owned by settlers for the benefits of settlers. Zimbabwe's agricultural productivity decreased by 40% since 1980 and this decrease is mostly associated with the increase in the population during the same time which actually doubled. The difference is that this time everything they have is 100% owned by the natives, where as the entire economy was owned by the colonial settlers before. A Good deal for the Africans I say.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/zimbabwe/1980/
Zimbabwe Agriculture productivity - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com




Except that there is nothing that disprove anything I said. less than 3,000 peoples died in independent India due to even the worst famines of 1960. The number of peoples dead in the British times due to famines are in tens of millions.for example, Bengal famines of 1770 under British occupation left a quater of entire Bengali population dead. The number of peoples dead in all other famines even during the worst once under no British rule are around 3,000. Millions never died in India due to poverty except under British occupation.

Nope. Singapore was self-governed like Hong Kong was. That is not the same as independent. And it was already growing from 1958 before self-government took over for internal affairs only.

So poor that their GDP/Capita was still higher than India's is now.

A bad deal for the country I say. You have to skew facts to make it look like a good deal. Even you say they did worse.

Lie. Millions die from hunger and malnutrition every year.
Starvation deaths in 2018
Death by hunger is India’s tragic reality
Hunger Facts | The Hunger Site for Facts: Bhookh.com

You lie, you lie. Hunger and slavery in India were not invented by the British nor did they end after the British.

 

[BMD]

Child marriage and inbreeding are actually a trait of British royal family. The entire history of British Royal family is filled with it.

Civilized behavior is not something that Brits ever known for. Most of them were nothing murderous and looters, looting all across the World.

This is how the "civilized" Brits behaved with the natives of Newziland and Australia. Slavery and genocide. God, these scums have no shame at all.

View attachment 3200

View attachment 3201

native head collection by British invaders in Newziland.

A long time ago maybe, but you were still doing it in the 199th century. Many of your family trees were literally circles.

A bit like the Indian empires of old then. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Slavery existed in India for at least 1000 years before Britain arrived.

Collection of heads was common among tribes. We wanted to make them feel at home.

 

[BMD]

Hey @BMD is it true that you are headed for a second referrendum? Several of my highly placed contacts are hinting that May wants it privately and Corbyn has been instructed to whip up sentiment arounfd it. Is it true? Are you going for a seconf referrendum to reverse this? That will be the final nail in UK's coffin as a great power.

No, that's just the bearded one playing politics, even though he was actually antii-Eu himself.

 

[Guynextdoor]

No, that's just the bearded one playing politics, even though he was actually antii-Eu himself.

ok. I also thought it would be weird to call another referrendum after Juncker/barnier called Teresa May a sissy and Boris Johnson a moron in those meetings.

 

[Volcano]

Nope. Singapore was self-governed like Hong Kong was. That is not the same as independent. And it was already growing from 1958 before self-government took over for internal affairs only.

So poor that their GDP/Capita was still higher than India's is now.

Ahh here came the shameless Brit again. Singapore become Independent in 1959 just like India and Pakistan did in 1947. They become a "Republic" in 1965 just like India in 1950 and Pakistan in 1956. They even joined Independent Malaysia briefly in 1962 after a referendum. Your country have nothing to do with the economic success of Singapore and Malaysia. i know its a hard thing to ask to a brit, but have some shame and stop lying.
Again, hundreds of years of British Rule left Singapoor as one of the poorest nation in the World. The biggest British contribustion to their economy is the fact that Brits left them in 1958.

A bad deal for the country I say. You have to skew facts to make it look like a good deal. Even you say they did worse.

Lie. Millions die from hunger and malnutrition every year.
Starvation deaths in 2018
Death by hunger is India’s tragic reality
Hunger Facts | The Hunger Site for Facts: Bhookh.com

It was a great thing for the Africans. "kicking us out was bad you you Africans" argument is just a bullshit propagated by white supremacist YouTube channels. Facts differs very much. The economic situations of Africans in Zimbabwe got better after Independence. They now control more new share of economy and agricultural products than ever. The economy of the past was completely owned by the British settlers for the benifits of British settlers. Why should they give a damn about that economy?

You lie, you lie. Hunger and slavery in India were not invented by the British nor did they end after the British.

There was no widespread slavery in India before or under British rule. There was some cases of slavery in the middle ages though. I never said there was slavery in India under British rule. Slavery was mostly under Dutch colonialists. Portuguese and British did bought lots of slaves from Africa to India though.[/QUOTE]

 

[advaidhya]

Ahh here came the shameless Brit again. Singapore become Independent in 1959 just like India and Pakistan did in 1947. They become a "Republic" in 1965 just like India in 1950 and Pakistan in 1956. They even joined Independent Malaysia briefly in 1962 after a referendum. Your country have nothing to do with the economic success of Singapore and Malaysia. i know its a hard thing to ask to a brit, but have some shame and stop lying.
Again, hundreds of years of British Rule left Singapoor as one of the poorest nation in the World. The biggest British contribustion to their economy is the fact that Brits left them in 1958.



It was a great thing for the Africans. "kicking us out was bad you you Africans" argument is just a bullshit propagated by white supremacist YouTube channels. Facts differs very much. The economic situations of Africans in Zimbabwe got better after Independence. They now control more new share of economy and agricultural products ever. The economy of the past was completely owned by the British settlers for the benifits of British settlers. Why should they give a damn about that economy?



There was no widespread slavery in India before or under British rule. There was some cases of slavery in the middle ages though. I never said there was slavery in India under British rule. Slavery was mostly under Dutch colonialists. Portuguese and British did bought lots of slaves from Africa to India though.

[/QUOTE]
Just quit it for god's sake. This thread is for brexit.

 

[Volcano]

A long time ago maybe, but you were still doing it in the 199th century. Many of your family trees were literally circles.

A bit like the Indian empires of old then. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Slavery existed in India for at least 1000 years before Britain arrived.

Collection of heads was common among tribes. We wanted to make them feel at home.

Ohh.. i am talking about how civilized the British Invaders used to be. British level of civility include slavery, genocides on a continental level. Collection of heads is not common among civilized peoples, it was common among British invading scums. And no, its not from long time ago.