British Created an Indian Holocaust

[Izyan]

yea sure they did and the pink flying elephants exist also. :rollseyes

Muslims conquered most of the world, toppled 3 superpower empirers and ruled the world for centuries. If they were anything like the white ethenocentric christion zealous, most of the world they ruled would've been Muslim or dead. The very fact india is hindu majority religion contradicts your silly allegations. Now how about you stick to the topic of british and their good little deeds rather then derailing the topic as you neocons always do.

You just contradicted your own argument. Weren't the Brits white ethenocentric christion zealous at the time they occupied India? Aren't the majority still Hindu?

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Akbar created his own religion right? Din-i-Elahi...

Yes, more of a cult status for himself. But his persection of non-muslims was halted by his meeting with Dhan Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and aknowledged him to be a Fakir of God.

BTW - What a match yesterday! Turkey cameback from 0 - 3!

 

[north_malaysian]

Yes, more of a cult status for himself. But his persection of non-muslims was halted by his meeting with Dhan Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and aknowledged him to be a Fakir of God.

BTW - What a match yesterday! Turkey cameback from 0 - 3!

What's a "Fakir of God". In Arabic "Faqir" means "poor man"

Yeah...Turkey rocks!!!:thumbs_up

 

[islamirama]

You just contradicted your own argument. Weren't the Brits white ethenocentric christion zealous at the time they occupied India? Aren't the majority still Hindu?

British war criminals were there to commit holocaust and steal the natural resources, not to "save" the "colored heathens". 10 million murdered aren't enough for you?

Charles Dickens: "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race."

 

[Trumble]

British war criminals were there to commit holocaust and steal the natural resources, not to "save" the "colored heathens". 10 million murdered aren't enough for you?

I take it you haven't yet stopped playing ostrich in order to research some earlier Indian history, then?

Look, I know this probably won't sink in but the point is we have no more idea of how many were killed by the British than we have how many were were killed by muslims centuries earlier. Both articles are not lists of 'facts' but theories based on limited evidence gathered by their authors. Accepting one as 'true' and totally rejecting the other with a puerile argument is ludicrous. Neither seem to represent mainstream positions regarding the number of deaths although, in both cases, it is clear a great many innocents may have been killed. We all have to face up to the past... I'm afraid muslims are not immune.

BTW, Charles Dickens was a novelist, not a politician or soldier. I don't think he ever got any nearer to India than Switzerland.

 

[islamirama]

I take it you haven't yet stopped playing ostrich in order to research some earlier Indian history, then?

Look, I know this probably won't sink in but the point is we have no more idea of how many were killed by the British than we have how many were were killed by muslims centuries earlier. Both articles are not lists of 'facts' but theories based on limited evidence gathered by their authors. Accepting one as 'true' and totally rejecting the other with a puerile argument is ludicrous. Neither seem to represent mainstream positions regarding the number of deaths although, in both cases, it is clear a great many innocents may have been killed. We all have to face up to the past... I'm afraid muslims are not immune.

BTW, Charles Dickens was a novelist, not a politician or soldier. I don't think he ever got any nearer to India than Switzerland.

We have plenty of evidence. It's just buried by the colonial war criminals. These two articles i posted in here are an attempt at researching these and what we discover is that british committed holocaust of 10 million people there and covered it up under the guise of shortage of food or what not. You can play the denial card for only so long till it sinks in....

Charles dickens remarks shows the mentality of these people. If a novelist can say that, then what about the military people?

apparently 10 million dead doesn't mean much to you and rather then deal with this fact, you (like few other trolls here) like change topics or try to turn the tables.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

What's a "Fakir of God". In Arabic "Faqir" means "poor man"

Yeah...Turkey rocks!!!:thumbs_up

Meant Pir/Peer!

 

[Fishman]

Muslims conquered most of the world, toppled 3 superpower empirers and ruled the world for centuries.

Romans, Persians, which was the third? :?

If they were anything like the white ethenocentric christion zealous, most of the world they ruled would've been Muslim or dead.

Interestingly, the second Islamic Caliphate/dynasty, the Umayyads, were racist and ethnocentric, but in a different way to Western colonialism. The Umayyads believed that Islam was for Arabs only, and actually made converting to Islam very difficult. They certainly wouldn't want to force anybody to convert to Islam, as they believed that a non-Arab that became Muslim willfully was insincere, let alone somebody who was compelled!

At the end of the Umayad's reign, only about 40% of people in the Caliphate were Muslims, whilst at the end of the Abbasids (the next dynasty) the number was near 100%. The Abbasids were the dynasty during which the Islamic golden age took place.

Now how about you stick to the topic of british and their good little deeds

Some British people do have a habit of sweeping Colonialism under the carpet with remarks such as 'the British were better than the French, at least!' and 'we brought them roads and modern infrastructure'. I don't really see why Americans would have this attitude though, opposing colonialism is part of American patriotism as America used to be a British colony.

 

[Keltoi]

Just to clarify, The Roman Empire was long gone by the time the Turks took Constantinople, and the Byzantines were hardly a superpower either.

 

[Fishman]

Just to clarify, The Roman Empire was long gone by the time the Turks took Constantinople, and the Byzantines were hardly a superpower either.

In Islamic sources the Byzantines are usually referred to as 'Romans'. In fact, the name 'Byzantine' is just an invention by modern historians, not what the Bzyantines actually called themselves.

The main damage Muslims did to Byzantium was to conquer the middle east and north Africa from them. The rest just screwed itself up eventually due Arab raids, the Crusaders and various Turks. The Ottomans just delivered the finishing blow.
In a way the Ottomans replaced the Byzantines, at the height of the Ottoman Empire it controlled all the territory of the eastern Roman Empire and more.

 

[Trumble]

Some British people do have a habit of sweeping Colonialism under the carpet with remarks such as 'the British were better than the French, at least!' and 'we brought them roads and modern infrastructure'. I don't really see why Americans would have this attitude though, opposing colonialism is part of American patriotism as America used to be a British colony.

At the risk of taking this further off-topic I would point out that "the Americans" were in fact the colonizers themselves, not the native inhabitants. The weren't remotely concerned with "opposing colonialism", only in no longer being a colony (or colonies, to be precise) themselves. What did happen to the native inhabitants was every bit as bad as any British colonial excesses. Again, though, this all happened a long time ago.

As to the quoted remarks very few Brits these days do "sweep colonialism under the carpet". What I, and indeed most of us, will not do is go on some sort of massive guilt trip because of something done before our great-grandparents were born. Particularly when we all have skeletons in the ancestral cupboard - even those who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and cry "off topic!" rather than admit them.

 

[Fishman]

At the risk of taking this further off-topic I would point out that "the Americans" were in fact the colonizers themselves, not the native inhabitants. The weren't remotely concerned with "opposing colonialism", only in no longer being a colony (or colonies, to be precise) themselves. What did happen to the native inhabitants was every bit as bad as any British colonial excesses. Again, though, this all happened a long time ago.

It's still part of their patriotism though, the idea of being free and 'keeping the king of England out of your face'. Whether they actually violated their principles is a different matter.

As to the quoted remarks very few Brits these days do "sweep colonialism under the carpet". What I, and indeed most of us, will not do is go on some sort of massive guilt trip because of something done before our great-grandparents were born. Particularly when we all have skeletons in the ancestral cupboard - even those who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and cry "off topic!" rather than admit them.

I'm just saying what I've seen, I am British!