Europe submits voluntarily

[untermensche]

Iraq was complying at that time because our army was there breathing down his neck. If we had pulled back he would have gone back to his old tricks.

It's like a kid that behaves just in time to keep from getting spanked--over and over.

Iraq was complying before the troops left the US and traveled half way across the planet to attack and torture the Iraqi people.

The US has no authority to attack anyone based on UN matters.

The attack was a violation of the UN Charter.

Colin Powell told a pack of lies to the UN and the UN said no.

Chanting lie, lie, lie doesn't make it so.

I'm not even going to say your position is a lie because that implies you know it's false and you're so blinded by your faith that you don't even realize you're wrong.

If Saddam was complying without our army being over there why did we send it over there repeatedly to get him to comply?

We didn't.

The UN sent Armies after Hussein invaded Kuwait.

The US launched an unprovoked terrorist attack in 2003.

It had nothing to with any evidence of WMD.

It was something Rumsfeld and Cheney desperately tried to get Clinton to do. They finally got their weak sucker in GW. The idiot who wanted to be a "war president".

Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq from day one, for over a decade before 911.

To say the attack of Iraq had anything to do with 911 or terrorism or WMD is a lie. It's only connection to terrorism was it was a massive act of terrorism.

They told lie after lie to drive the nation to an unneeded terrorist attack, some call it a war, and decade long terrorist occupation.

 

[angelo]

It's not because of their breeding like rabbits and having far too many people is it? It's because of Western Imperialism every time!

Your ignorance is showing again.

We've been over this more times than you can count.

The fact that a country (say, India) had a Total fertility rate (=lifetime number of children per women) of, say 6.5 when you heard about it in school doesn't mean that it has today.

It only means you're old.

India's TFR today is about 2.3-2.4, and there's precious few countries globally that have the same, or even anywhere near the same, TFR they had in the early 70s.

While there is considerable regional variation, this doesn't exactly help you either: By state, one of the highest TFRs in India today at 3.3 is found in  Meghalaya - a majority Christian region. The only two Muslim majority subnational entities, the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the Federal Territory of Lakshadweep (which you may now under its anglicized name "Laccadive Islands"), have TFRs of 1.7 and 1.5 respectively.

Source: 2016 census via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_territories_of_India_by_fertility_rate
original source at http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital...t_2016/7.Chap_3-Fertility_Indicators-2016.pdf

Incidentally according to the same census, Jammu and Kashmir also has the highest mean reproductive age (=mean age of the mother at childbirth) of all major Indian states, at 31.5-ish.

That doesn't change the fact that the country has far too many people. Birth rate may be lower now, but hasn't the horse already bolted?

 

[Jokodo]

That doesn't change the fact that the country has far too many people. Birth rate may be lower now, but hasn't the horse already bolted?

By what metric does it have "far too many people"?

By what metric has the horse bolted?

India today has higher literacy, a larger middle class, higher average and median levels of education, and less extreme poverty today than at any time during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

 

[angelo]

Thanks to Western backed industrialisation.
Less poverty? Again thanks to Western aid which amounts to trillions of USD over time. Still the slums of Calcutta are witness to vast overpopulation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazny, Muhammad Ghauri and the religious motivated crimes / forced conversions of the Delhi Sultanate, Tamerlane, the enslavement and killing of Hindu dhimmis who could not pay the dhimma all over Islamic rule and so on tell you something?

It tells me that the Mughal rulers liked money and used whatever methods and excuses they can get away with for collecting it.

It's not like the Islamic population in general got to share Mughal wealth. Exploiting the Hindus didn't benefit the Muslims. It benefited a single family and their cronies.

Also worth noting is that the Mughals were, overall, exceedingly competent rulers of India. India was more industrialised before the British took over, than when they left. India was an extremely wealthy region back then. Mostly because the Mughals didn't fuck with it. India isn't exactly associated with great wealth today, is it? All thanks to the "civilizing" influence of British Christianity.

It's not because of their breeding like rabbits and having far too many people is it? It's because of Western Imperialism every time!

Here's what I think. Only racists talk about groups of humans as "breeding". Especially "breeding like rabits". It's purpose is to dehumanize the group.

The same was said about Catholics in USA 150 years ago and Catholics still isn't the dominant faith in USA. Who would have thunk?

 

[Jokodo]

Thanks to Western backed industrialisation.
Less poverty? Again thanks to Western aid which amounts to trillions of USD over time. Still the slums of Calcutta are witness to vast overpopulation.

You know nothing about the trends, drivers, and obstacles of development in India today.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

 

[metacristi]

Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazny, Muhammad Ghauri and the religious motivated crimes / forced conversions of the Delhi Sultanate, Tamerlane, the enslavement and killing of Hindu dhimmis who could not pay the dhimma all over Islamic rule and so on tell you something?

It tells me that the Mughal rulers liked money and used whatever methods and excuses they can get away with for collecting it.

It's not like the Islamic population in general got to share Mughal wealth. Exploiting the Hindus didn't benefit the Muslims. It benefited a single family and their cronies.

Also worth noting is that the Mughals were, overall, exceedingly competent rulers of India. India was more industrialised before the British took over, than when they left. India was an extremely wealthy region back then. Mostly because the Mughals didn't fuck with it. India isn't exactly associated with great wealth today, is it? All thanks to the "civilizing" influence of British Christianity.

The British brought with them in India the positive elements of Enlightenment and Modernity, including rationality (even regarding religion), the ideas of individual rights, democracy etc, the main cause of the so called 19th century 'Renaissance' in India and rediscovery of its past is undoubtedly the British rule (the India of the 18th century was in a total state of intellectual decadence*). It is also a fact that Lord Curzon for example carried out a widespread preservationist programme for, in his words, the British cannot 'allow the memorials of an earlier and superior art or architecture to fall into ruin'. By the way even in Mughal times intellectual curiosity was not much more praised I'm afraid, as Toby E. Huff shows clearly in his book 'Intellectual curiosity and the scientific revolution' the arrival of the telescope in India in the early 17th century (just a few years after Galileo built his own) was received with a total lack of interest, unlike Europe where it sparked a multitude of new discoveries in a rapid succession. Indian historian Jadunath Sarkar hits the nail:

The barrenness of the Hindu intellect and the meanness of spirit of the Hindu upper classes are the greatest condemnation of Muhammadan rule in India....The Islamic political tree, judged by its fruit, was an utter failure....The greatest gift of the English, after universal peace and the modernization of society, and indeed the direct result of these two forces, is the Renaissance which marked our nineteenth century. Modern India owes everything to it.

It is true now that the British had also their imperialist agenda which cannot be seen as progressive but even this brought about modern railways, the telegraph, a modern legal system and so on. No one rational denies the negative parts of the Britsh rule. But let's give to the British what they fully deserve. Contrary to what you suggest indirectly (and the r'post colonial studies', revisionist, historians for that matter) the Mughal India was not at all on the brink of Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment or capitalism. I'm afraid the evidence shows the contrary. And by the way focusing only on the Mughals does not wipe out the horrendous crimes committed by the muslims (on religious ground) before them.


* besides the muslims tried to obliterate the pre-Islamic past basically everywhere until some 150 years ago (even the pyramids in Egypt were a source of material for the new houses, it was the Europeans who rediscovered the ancient civilization of Egypt).

 

[DrZoidberg]

The British brought with them in India the positive elements of Enlightenment and Modernity, including rationality (even regarding religion), the ideas of individual rights, democracy etc, the main cause of the so called 19th century 'Renaissance' in India and rediscovery of its past is undoubtedly the British rule (the India of the 18th century was in a total state of intellectual decadence*). It is also a fact that Lord Curzon for example carried out a widespread preservationist programme for, in his words, the British cannot 'allow the memorials of an earlier and superior art or architecture to fall into ruin'. By the way even in Mughal times intellectual curiosity was not much more praised I'm afraid, as Toby E. Huff shows clearly in his book 'Intellectual curiosity and the scientific revolution' the arrival of the telescope in India in the early 17th century (just a few years after Galileo built his own) was received with a total lack of interest, unlike Europe where it sparked a multitude of new discoveries in a rapid succession. Indian historian Jadunath Sarkar hits the nail:

There's been loads of apologistic books written about the British colonisation of India. The short story. The first British East India company managers were great. Because they had weak power. Their power stemmed from making the customer happy. By the time they took complete control and had total power, that regime was pure evil. Not far from Leopold's Congo. The abuses were so great eventually the British government had to take their toys away from them. From 1770 to 1820. The first govorners were incompetent. This was a pattern in British colonial holdings. The UK parliament kept appointing nobles as governers. These were nothing better than overpaid welfare recipients. They hadn't worked a day in their lives. They couldn't run their own lives, let alone a hole continental empire. So absolute disaster for India. While the British East India were exploitative and greedy. They took care of the economy. The noble rulers were much worse, even though they were well meaning. Indian economy plummeted. Starvation was rife. In 1848 the British parliament decided they needed to do something about the rapid decline of India. So India experienced 40 years of rapid industrialisation. They had the same problems any country has that industrialises rapidly. Massive social unrest, and starvation. Same problem Stalin had in USSR and China under Mao. For similar reasons. Eventually it all turned out well. But at a high cost. Around 1870 scientific racism was the word de jour. Horrendous laws were put in place, and anything culturally Indian was discouraged, alienating the ruled. Christianity was, for the first time, aggressively spread. This caused a lot of friction. Then WWI happened and the UK didn't give a fuck about India. They took their food and let it starve. Treated it abysmally. After WWI British India was incredibly repressive. Basically a police state. WWII. Again the UK treated India as a free lunch they didn't have to care about.

The few and far between positives, hardly outweigh the negatives. But then again, it's easy to complain. Who knows what would have happened if the British hadn't ruled it. Still wasn't a fairy tale of love.

The barrenness of the Hindu intellect and the meanness of spirit of the Hindu upper classes are the greatest condemnation of Muhammadan rule in India....The Islamic political tree, judged by its fruit, was an utter failure....The greatest gift of the English, after universal peace and the modernization of society, and indeed the direct result of these two forces, is the Renaissance which marked our nineteenth century. Modern India owes everything to it.

That's just pure racism. The Mughals didn't start to become militantly Muslim until Aurangzeb, and that was probably as a response to British intrusion.

It is true now that the British had also their imperialist agenda which cannot be seen as progressive but even this brought about modern railways, the telegraph, a modern legal system and so on. No one rational denies the negative parts of the Britsh rule. But let's give to the British what they fully deserve. Contrary to what you suggest indirectly (and the r'post colonial studies', revisionist, historians for that matter) the Mughal India was not at all on the brink of Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment or capitalism. I'm afraid the evidence shows the contrary. And by the way focusing only on the Mughals does not wipe out the horrendous crimes committed by the muslims (on religious ground) before them.

Hinduism is a much richer and sophisticated religion than Christianity. The reason the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment was such a big deal in the West was because Christianity is so horrendously backward and repressive. It needed a clear break to start to become civilised. India already had all this. India has had a long and rich scientific tradition. Remember that India and China, most of human history, have been the wealthiest regions in the world. The west is just a recent upstart.

And you can't compare the Mughal take-over of India with the British. The conquest of India is probably the only invasion in history which happened by accident. Every other conquest was made by sheer military force.

* besides the muslims tried to obliterate the pre-Islamic past basically everywhere until some 150 years ago (even the pyramids in Egypt were a source of material for the new houses, it was the Europeans who rediscovered the ancient civilization of Egypt).

Not to true for the Mughals. They went out of their way to protect and care for Hindu buildings. It wasn't until the Western Enlightenment and the rise of Western archaeology. If you wonder why that first happened in the West I recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel. It happened in the west despite Christianity. Not because of Christianity. You're using the wrong things and evidence for Muslim savagery.

I don't think Muslims are uniquely evil. I think they're like most people. That's my only contention.

 

[Derec]

The invasion is still ongoing.
Spain Now Sees More Migrant Arrivals Than Any Other European Country
The new Spanish government is hell-bent on letting huge numbers of them in.
The razor wire that separates Europe from Africa might be coming down
Instead of reinforcing the border, they want to remove anything that stands between mass migrants and Europe.

“It’s easy here. You show [your] passport,” said Lotfi, 28, a Tunisian man who’s spent nearly five months in Melilla and hopes to travel to France.

Apparently they are just letting them cross the border. This is the failure of EU - if Spanish government is unconcerned about mass migrants because most want to go other EU countries, what's the use of EU anyway? Schengen was predicated on member countries protecting the outside borders of the Schengen zone more strongly. Did the new socialists running the place not get the memo or are they violating that treaty knowingly?

Ibrahim Abouyoussef, a 40-year-old Palestinian man from Gaza, spent a week traveling through Egypt and the desert of the western Sahara before reaching Melilla. He’d heard Spain would process his asylum request, he said, and is hoping to have his wife and five children follow if his request is granted.

This is another problem. Muslims have a lot of children. You let in one Muslim migrant and he is likely to pull a lot more after him once he is settled in. In the case of this guy, 6 other people.
Merkel let in a million people in 2015 alone. How many will it be once all of them start bringing their families? Four million? Five Million? Six? Seven?

Also, many Gazans are terrorists. It's very risky letting them in.

 

[angelo]

Thanks to Western backed industrialisation.
Less poverty? Again thanks to Western aid which amounts to trillions of USD over time. Still the slums of Calcutta are witness to vast overpopulation.

You know nothing about the trends, drivers, and obstacles of development in India today.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

How does a nation of well over 1 billion people and only a limited industrial base find it possible to employ or feed them all?

 

[angelo]

Thanks to Western backed industrialisation.
Less poverty? Again thanks to Western aid which amounts to trillions of USD over time. Still the slums of Calcutta are witness to vast overpopulation.

You know nothing about the trends, drivers, and obstacles of development in India today.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

These figures are misleading because even though the unemployment rate seems very low, the living wage is like most Third World nations hardly enough to live on.

https://tradingeconomics.com/india/unemployment-rate

 

[angelo]

Freedom, democracy and Islam are incompatible..https://gellerreport.com/2018/10/islam-freedom-coexist.html/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Thanks to Western backed industrialisation.
Less poverty? Again thanks to Western aid which amounts to trillions of USD over time. Still the slums of Calcutta are witness to vast overpopulation.

You know nothing about the trends, drivers, and obstacles of development in India today.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

How does a nation of well over 1 billion people and only a limited industrial base find it possible to employ or feed them all?

That's a bizarre question. Why would it have a problem with it? I the modern world starvation only ever occurs because of mismanagement. All the starvation events in India the last 1000 years is due to war or idiot rulers. India abandoned it's idiot socialist attempts in the 1980'ies and hasn't looked back.

The image of India as a poor nation is no longer true. It's an image from the 1960'ies. India is a high tech nation now. There's large parts of India now indistinguishable from any modern industrialised nation. Only about 15% of Indians now count as extremely poor. That's a meteoric rise in wealth. And they're not slowing down.

The world is only getting increasingly high tech. So the number of engineers is what will secure our future economic growth. India graduates 1,5 milion engineers each year. USA 100 000. India only has about three times as many people as USA. Yet educates more than 10 times as many engineers.

India also has a long tradition of multi-culturalism and cosmopolitanism, making it highly suitable to take advantage of an increasingly globalised world. I predict that India will very rapidly come up to Western levels of wealth and blow right past us. Because Indians focus less on bullshit, and more on things that are actually useful. Indians tend to have extremely high work ethic. That's how you get rich in life.

 

[angelo]

15% of 1.2 billion is a hell of a lot of people living in squalor and poverty.

 

[untermensche]

Freedom, democracy and Islam are incompatible..https://gellerreport.com/2018/10/islam-freedom-coexist.html/

Have you ever actually met a Muslim?

You don't understand the difference between temporary geopolitical contingency and a defining feature.

Take Iran for example. It was a secular democracy not that long ago.

But due to US and British malfeasance and meddling the nation veered off a democratic pathway and was taken over by religious fanatics.

A contingency of history, not because all Muslims are fanatics.

The meddling from the West into the affairs of Muslims in Muslim nations has been non-stop since the discovery of oil.

There is nothing natural about the level of religious fundamentalism in the region.

It is a temporary contingency due to a lot of meddling, support of fanatical dictatorships and brutal dictators, and outright massive attacks. It is a contingency of a region under constant attack from the West for the last 100 years.

To see it as some inherent feature of Islam is hilarious.

It shows a gaping ignorance of post-WWII history.

 

[angelo]

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

- - - Updated - - -

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[untermensche]

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

- - - Updated - - -

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

That is a joke.

History is separated into pre-Industrial Revolution and post-Industrial Revolution. The massive modern power imbalance begins with the Industrial Revolution. When oil is discovered England begins to meddle massively with impunity in the ME.

We are in the post-Industrial Revolution age of history.

And the post-Industrial Revolution age has been one massive crime after another against Muslims by the West.

Destroying Muslim democracies.

Invading Muslim countries.

Promoting dictatorships, especially the Saudi dictatorship.

Your history that has nothing to do with the modern world is a joke.

 

[DrZoidberg]

15% of 1.2 billion is a hell of a lot of people living in squalor and poverty.

Sure. But in 1955 it was estimated at 65% in poverty. But still not as bad as peak poverty in 1920'ies. In the first half of the 20'th century India was catastrophically mismanaged by England. From 1770 to 1920 poverty only increased over time. Which is hard to do even if you tried doing it on purpose

 

[angelo]

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

- - - Updated - - -

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

That is a joke.

History is separated into pre-Industrial Revolution and post-Industrial Revolution. The massive modern power imbalance begins with the Industrial Revolution. When oil is discovered England begins to meddle massively with impunity in the ME.

We are in the post-Industrial Revolution age of history.

And the post-Industrial Revolution age has been one massive crime after another against Muslims by the West.

Destroying Muslim democracies.

Invading Muslim countries.

Promoting dictatorships, especially the Saudi dictatorship.

Your history that has nothing to do with the modern world is a joke.

What a f......g joke. You mentioned Islam and democracy in the same breath. I believe you know f all about Islam.

 

[untermensche]

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

- - - Updated - - -

Educate yourself on the origin of Islamic terrorism!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

That is a joke.

History is separated into pre-Industrial Revolution and post-Industrial Revolution. The massive modern power imbalance begins with the Industrial Revolution. When oil is discovered England begins to meddle massively with impunity in the ME.

We are in the post-Industrial Revolution age of history.

And the post-Industrial Revolution age has been one massive crime after another against Muslims by the West.

Destroying Muslim democracies.

Invading Muslim countries.

Promoting dictatorships, especially the Saudi dictatorship.

Your history that has nothing to do with the modern world is a joke.

What a f......g joke. You mentioned Islam and democracy in the same breath. I believe you know f all about Islam.

Iran was a secular democracy in the 1950's.

That is not ancient history.

The US and British decided they didn't like how the Iranians were dealing with their oil and installed a dictator.

This eventually led to religious fanatics taking over. Democracy eventually became theocracy because of US and British meddling.

To not know it usually means you're an American.