Posted on 11/06/2010 9:46:19 AM PDT by george76
I’ve simplified things.....Achmeds and Chinamen
Put to rest?
Heck...it needs to be put to sleep. With extreme prejudice.
Thanks. That is a very interesting article.
As for the partition of India, there is one man who is responsible for that: Gandhi. Partition only took place after Gandhi said yes to it, even though he knew that it would precipitate a blood bath. And a blood bath he got: half a million people were slaughtered as India divided into two states.
The idea that Gandhi was a man a peace is a fabrication. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu because of the massacre that Gandhi brought about and could have avoided by saying no to partition.
What are the odds that NONE OF THEM are named Mohammed?
ANYONE who wants to wade through Gandhi's endless ruminations about himsa and ahimsa (violence and nonviolence) is welcome to do so, but it is impossible for the skeptical reader to avoid the conclusion--let us say in 1920, when swaraj (home rule) was all the rage and Gandhi's inner voice started telling him that ahimsa was the thing--that this inner voice knew what it was talking about. By this I mean that, though Gandhi talked with the tongue of Hindu gods and sacred scriptures, his inner voice had a strong sense of expediency. Britain, if only comparatively speaking, was a moral nation, and nonviolent civil disobedience was plainly the best and most effective way of achieving Indian independence. Skeptics might also not be surprised to learn that as independence approached, Gandhi's inner voice began to change its tune. It has been reported that Gandhi "half-welcomed" the civil war that broke out in the last days. Even a fratricidal "bloodbath" (Gandhi's word) would be preferable to the British.
And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men "using violence in a moral cause." How could he tell them that violence was wrong, he asked, "unless I demonstrate that nonviolence is more effective?" He blessed the Nawab of Maler Kotla when he gave orders to shoot ten Muslims for every Hindu killed in his state. He sang the praises of Subhas Chandra Bose, who, sponsored by first the Nazis and then the Japanese, organized in Singapore an Indian National Army with which he hoped to conquer India with Japanese support, establishing a totalitarian dictatorship. Meanwhile, after independence in 1947, the armies of the India that Gandhi had created immediately marched into battle, incorporating the state of Hyderabad by force and making war in Kashmir on secessionist Pakistan. When Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu extremist in January 1948 he was honored by the new state with a vast military funeral--in my view by no means inapposite.
BUT it is not widely realized (nor will this film tell you) how much violence was associated with Gandhi's so-called "nonviolent" movement from the very beginning. India's Nobel Prize-winning poet, Rabindranath Tagore, had sensed a strong current of nihilism in Gandhi almost from his first days, and as early as 1920 wrote of Gandhi's "fierce joy of annihilation," which Tagore feared would lead India into hideous orgies of devastation--which ultimately proved to be the case. Robert Payne has said that there was unquestionably an "unhealthy atmosphere" among many of Gandhi's fanatic followers, and that Gandhi's habit of going to the edge of violence and then suddenly retreating was fraught with danger. "In matters of conscience I am uncompromising," proclaimed Gandhi proudly. "Nobody can make me yield." The judgment of Tagore was categorical. Much as he might revere Gandhi as a holy man, he quite detested him as a politician and considered that his campaigns were almost always so close to violence that it was utterly disingenuous to call them nonviolent.
A large percentage of inmates will be fellow Muslims, and any non-Muslim who attacks a Muslim faces war from ALL the Muslim inmates.
Thanks for the article. Very interesting.
Diversity is our strength.
Nope.
Asians in Britain also means those from the Indian sub continent: India, Goa, Bangladesh, Pakistan.
It also means Orientals.
Please see my reply to Hillary’s Gate.
Pakistan is in SE Asia, the Indian subcontinent. Why anyone would class it as Middle Eastern is beyond me.
Thank you.
Actually Russian and East European gangs are the worst here.
Cut off their male parts and brand their faces with the words "Child Molester" and throw them in prison! Then human nature will take care of it!
And?.
The Serbs DID mass rape both Muslims and Croats in that war, as well as kill masses of them.
None of the three sides were clean, but the Serbs started that war and have most blood on their hands.
BTW, the film is a love story about two youngsters from opposing sides and how that love transcended hatred. Its actually going to be a positive film about peace.
I believe it is an easy mistake to make.
Does no one see a problem here?
The film is going to portray ONE side as the bad guy, guess which one? There is a reason why a group of thousands of rape victims were protesting the film over there.
Yes, based on inaccurate reports about what the film is about in Yugoslav newspapers.
Other non-Muslim Asian groups should complain about being falsely accused of these crimes. “Asian” has become a disguise terminology for muslim. It is hardly fair to people who are Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Hindu to be lumped in with muslim predators who are committing most of the crime in the UK.
British justice has all but abandoned white/native British women and children targeted for abuse by Muslim thugs. I saw a documentary that would make your hair curl. They have no way to defend themselves and reporting the abuse is suspected racism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.