Richard Hillman wrote: » Why were countries, even smaller countries like Belgium, able to colonise much larger lands and populations? Why were they more powerful?
Odhinn wrote: » ...because they had advanced technology. Shooting men armed with sticks by way of a maxim machine gun is not the bravest or noblest of endeavours.
FTA69 wrote: » Colonial forces often displayed a far greater inhumanity and savagery than the silly natives who were being conquered;
FTA69 wrote: » Because the Belgians were facilitated by other European countries who saw the colonisation of Africa as a handy number. Europe industrialised and developed rapidly for a variety of reasons, chief amongst of which was the massive capital injection from the wholesale looting of gold and silver from South America.
imme wrote: » The recent protests cost the country $1.2bn in damage. The state agreed with religious groups that she cannot leave the country. Her lawyer has fled Pakistan reportedly. I won't be going to Pakistan on my holidays.
Based and Red Pilled wrote: » More intelligent, stronger people.
Based and Red Pilled wrote: » Yeah the Germans were miles ahead of them in WWII, no question there. Why did no african kingdom construct a navy to match the English, French or Spanish? Is it racist to merely ask a question?
imme wrote: » Industrialisation, weapons technology, lack of knowledge on behalf of their victims about Belgium's comparative numerical inferiority.
FTA69 wrote: » On the topic of Pakistan, the type of mad Islam being advocated there is a very, very new thing and is markedly distinct from the Islam being practiced there for the past thousand years dating back to the Mughals. On Netflix there’s a show called Amongst the Believers about how this Salafist sh*t took off there. Massive Saudi investment into education there in the form of Madrassahs (Islamic schools) facilitating extremism; they offered free school places to boys from families who couldn’t afford the state school fees. Such to the point hundreds of thousands of people came out of these institutions radicalised and ended up forming an insurrectionary subculture. I’m forever saying it, but whether it’s to do without East London or Pakistan or Morocco it comes back to the same source - f*cking Gulf oil money and Erdogan’s Turkey. But yet our governments are utterly determined to kiss their arses. That’s the row that needs to be had.
NIMAN wrote: » What was the video about with people battering cars?
Danzy wrote: » The Mughals were very strict in religious practice yes, Islam, all over the world is reverting back to the firm as Mohammed practiced once more and it is causing problems but the Islamic world was in nearly all places obscenely strict 100 years ago.
Odhinn wrote: » Not at all. The drive towards strict conservative sunni islam is largely the work of the Saudi state promoting their wahabbi sect.
old_aussie wrote: » Unlike the Pakistani muslim men calling for/demanding the hanging of an innocent Christian girl...….where that certainly is a noble endeavour of muslims!
Richard Hillman wrote: » Anyway back to Pakistan The main issue is how do we retrieve or disarm the nukes. I would imagine their outdated nuclear weapons can be disarmed or shot down if they got into the wrong hands but the materials are still the materials.
In the Worldwide Threat Assessment for 2018, US Director of National Intelligence Daniel R. Coats said, “Pakistan continues to produce nuclear weapons and develop new types of nuclear weapons, including short-range tactical weapons, sea-based cruise missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, and longer-range ballistic missiles. These new types of nuclear weapons will introduce new risks for escalation dynamics and security in the region”
JupiterKid wrote: » Pakistan is an utterly backward sh*thole that is gradually descending into another Islamofascist theocratic state. The Islamic world is going backwards, it is regressing. It is obvious for all to see.
DChancer wrote: » The world would be a better place without Religion. Like most organized religions Islam has many sects/divisions, some are extreme and very dangerous, some are quite the opposite.
Danzy wrote: » Two atheist societies, The USSR and People's Republic of China were the most murderous societies in a long time, Genghis khan, who let people believe or practice without fear or favour, killed up to 2 in every 100 alive at the time globally. It is more complex than blaming it on religion or one thing.