Deadly NATO attack in Pakistan

Childlike Empress said:
The thing is that the very existence of those countries is a heritage of colonialism - the Brits literally drew the border lines. The idea that they promoted the spread of extremist views is not at all far-fetched. Certainly not more than gummi's whateverism fairy tales.
Click to expand...

You wish you could blame Britian.

The Nazis inspired, funded and supported the emerging Islamist movement.

They didn't just poision your own country after you voted them into power and killed twenty million people and started WW2.
 
Childlike Empress said:
No. Check Logic 101.
Click to expand...

The logic here is that you unwittingly promoted an antisemitic book (you still do, but not "entirely"), found out your mistake, retroactively changed the link to an edulcorated version of the same book and now are pretending nothing wrong happened.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
You wish you could blame Britian.

The Nazis inspired, funded and supported the emerging Islamist movement.

They didn't just poision your own country after you voted them into power and killed twenty million people and started WW2.
Click to expand...


Bwahaha, crusader. That's utterly silly. You can't blame the Nazis for EVERYTHING.
 
I think the book I'm going to read is Gumboot's book, it doesn't seem to have had any parts of it edited out or erased.

Thanks Gumboot.
 
Pardalis said:
The logic here is that you unwittingly promoted an antisemitic book (you still do, but not "entirely"), found out your mistake, retroactively changed the link to an edulcorated version of the same book and now are pretending nothing wrong happened.
Click to expand...


There's no logic there. The preface may be antisemitic (I evidently rejected it), the book is not. I could write a very unpleasant preface to your work on this forum, and as true as that may be, nobody would be able to blame you for it.
 
Childlike Empress said:
There's no logic there. The preface may be antisemitic (I evidently rejected it), the book is not.
Click to expand...

Two different people wrote the preface and the book, is that what you are saying?

I could write a very unpleasant preface to your work on this forum, and as true as that may be, nobody would be able to blame you for it.
Click to expand...
The preface greatly informs on the state of mind and ideology of its author. And the fact that it was edited out by other versions shows that the people promoting it have something to hide.
 
Pardalis said:
I think the book I'm going to read is Gumboot's book, it doesn't seem to have had any parts of it edited out or erased.

Thanks Gumboot.
Click to expand...


It's a fascinating read. I think a lot of readers are disappointed by it because they expected it to focus on Wahhabism and its connections to modern Islamic terrorism, but that appears to be a case of the book summary being written to catch a popular topical subject. Charles Allen is a widely respected expert on British India (he was born in India), having written such works as "Soldier Sahibs" and "Buddha & the Sahibs".

The book details to progression of Ahmad's movement over 200 years as they followed a constant pattern of growth, open rebellion, near destruction, recover, and growth. What's fascinating is how many times the British came within a whisker of wiping them out, but failed to carry it through and let them recover. And each of their phases of violence was more successful than the last, ultimately achieving the conquest of an entire country with the Taliban's conquest of Afghanistan.

What particularly interested me is that I had studied the history of British India but it has been very much through the lens of nationalism, and we were taught that all of the violence in the 19th Century was derived from that. Allen paints a very different picture of Radical Islamic upheaval. I had no idea, for example, that the Sepoy Mutiny was primarily a Radical Islamic uprising, having always been taught it was a class and nationalism driven rebellion. The British authorities of the time were well aware that it was a religious incident, driven by what they called the "Hindustani Fanatics", but over time we've glossed over that inconvenient fact.
 
Pardalis said:
And how do you know the preface was written by someone else?

I've read some parts of it, including the conclusion (which is also "interesting", it divides the world in three camps) and it all seems to be written the same way.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2845610/HISTORICAL-BOOK-CONFESSIONS-OF-A-BRITISH-SPY-
Click to expand...


Well, maybe because it's the eighths edition, Wagf Ikhlas Publications No 14, www.hakikatkitabeki.com, Turkey 2001 of a text that has been around for quite a while? Preface co-signed by "Miladi 2001"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom