Joe(loudmouth) wrote "partition of India. Correct me if I'm wrong..."

Joe yes thats the official british version which they put in their history books...but the real power was the british, they ruled a huge population with a relatively small number of them in india...'advanced weaponry' was one but not much a rifle can do agaist a mass charging horde...so they used subconscious and psychological tactics too like parading in their finest and always appearing in their finest so to substantiate their claim they were superior, their uniform created image of cool confidence with efficient logic...and constructed and kept immaculate residences etc...all very different to the local way of life...
british were in india for a long time as traders before they acted from within to take power...so by the time it had become a military action they had learnt the local strengths and weaknesses and set up their hidden frame work of control and execution of power...never under estimate the power of money and promises of power on an local individual to loyally support no matter the damaging effects it causes...talking to you gillard...

until gandhi and his mass support among the ordinary people...which then usurped british power...whom was against division of india...but at the time there was the same mass manipulation of the muslim hindu with fears and claims of what india will be after independence etc...and democracy was forced onto india...it didnt evolve by itself ...and with the constant inflaming of the created tensions at will so to say...it didnt look like post india was going to be peaceful without division...

sam

Stevenlmyer:

...Chucking in Andrew Bolt’s blog as evidence for any point of view, is no recommendation for your form of logic either Steve :)...(I laugh).

@ Sam said,

<<until gandhi and his mass support among the ordinary people...which then usurped british power...>>

LOL

Muslims through various proxies ruled India for a LOT LONGER than the British and inflicted a LOT, LOT MORE SUFFERING than anything the Brits ever did.

But funnily enough, no Gandhi was ever able to (during those earlier Muslim COLONIZATIONS) --garner "mass support among the ordinary people...[and] then usurp [Muslim]power"--why do you suppose that might have been so?

Hint: It had nothing to do with the Hindu's being joyously happy --they weren't!

Poor mis-represented Geert.

Ludwig, you seem to have an understanding of his 'intentions'. My introduction to this concept was from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Author of "Infidel" and "Nomad". If you want to gain deep insight into Geert's intention and understanding of his charters etc look no farther. Her personal experiences and professional insights explain the depths of this faith... it is unlike any other.

XAVIER: "Wilders, who spoke at venues around the country last week, labelled Islam "a totalitarian political ideology "that "aims to impose its legal system on the whole society"."

YES... this (I believe) is the point. the POLITICAL element of Islam!!

In support Wilders quotes Australian theologian Mark Durie: "Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions. Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere."

Major concnern! Geert is potentially revealing a reality that just may bite every on the bum one day. But I'm not here to convert everyone's views... only to ask that you look deeper at Geerts point!

All it seems that he managed to do in his visit here, was allow the Aussie Polly's to reinforce their (votes) on our 'multicultural' Australia. i.e focus on the 'Intolerance' point, rather than the actual reality of what Geert wanted to share.

His parties methods of eradicating the (actual) issue may seem harsh and I don't know what the best answer is... but it's damn serious and real.

Racial I am not, never ever have been. Tolerant, I most certainly am.
...but this is irrelevent to the (actual) issue!

I strongly recommend that those who haven’t read Wilders’ Melbourne speech, do so: http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/geert-wilders-melbourne-speech/

Thanks Jay of Melbourne for putting up this link in the first post.

I’m with you, MotherXpectingAMiracle.

<< His parties methods of eradicating the (actual) issue may seem harsh and I don't know what the best answer is... but it's damn serious and real >>

I can’t see anything harsh about it. What he is saying is that we need to 1 understand the nature of Islam, 2 stop Islamic immigration, 3 deport those recent immigrants who break the law and 4 for goodness sake, be able to talk about this issue freely and fully and debate it and nut out a strategy for dealing with it, and to totally denounce those who strive for the suppression of messages of Wilders’ type.

From his speech:

< “In each one of our cities, there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” >

< In my country, the Netherlands, 56 percent of the population see Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity.
In Britain, a survey last month showed that the public regard immigration as the biggest issue facing British society.
In Germany, 64 percent hold that Islam is violent and 70 percent that it is fanatical.
In France, 74 percent are convinced that Islam is intolerant and not compatible with French society. >

Hi Ludwig,

Yes, having to defend the right not to tolerate what we may regard as abhorrent is a bit of a red herring - we should be asserting, without equivocation, that the Australian political system rests on equal rights for men and women, for believers and non-believers, and the rule of law.

All Wilders seems to be suggesting is precisely this - that in a modern, enlightenment-based society, those principles of equality are not negotiable. So no matter who lives here, they are to comply with those principles.

This has nothing to do with race or nationality, and not much to do with culture, except insofar as many cultural practices are based on inequality, and have to be fought against in any progressive society.

So the Left has a choice: support progressive measures such as equal rights, or support reactionary ideologies and backward cultural practices. They can wave their irrelevant banners around all they like, but sooner or later they will have to face up to the real issues.

Cheers,

Joe