|
Post by Διαμονδ on Mar 14, 2018 23:18:49 GMT
Russia calls UK’s ‘hostile’ actions a provocation, vows response:The UK’s hostile actions against Russia under the pretext of the poisoning of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal are an unprecedented provocation which won’t be left without a response, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said. UK Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of using a chemical weapon on British soil, suggesting a set of measures to retaliate against Moscow. Those include the expulsion of 23 diplomats, limiting ties and freezing Russian state assets in the UK. The British move is “an unprecedentedly rude provocation, which undermines the foundations of a normal dialogue between our countries,” the ministry said in a statement. The ministry said that "the British government chose confrontation with Russia" instead of completing the investigation and using international formats “including those in the framework of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW].” "It’s obvious that by opting for unilateral and non-transparent methods of investigating this incident, the British authorities have once again tried to unleash an indiscriminate anti-Russian campaign,” the statement read. Moscow said that it was “unacceptable and unworthy” for the UK leadership to further escalate tensions in relations with Russia “in pursuit of its own deplorable political aims.” “Of course, our response [to the UK sanctions] is forthcoming,” the Foreign Ministry concluded. Former Russian-UK double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter remain in critical condition after being discovered slumped on a bench in Salisbury in early March. The UK authorities claim that they were poisoned with a Soviet-engineered nerve agent called Novichok. Russia has said that it’s open to cooperation with the UK on the Skripal case if it’s carried out in accordance with international law and Moscow is treated as an equal partner in the probe. Russia has also officially requested that the UK provide all the case files regarding the incident, but was turned down. www.rt.com/usa/421302-uk-hostile-action-rude-provocation/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:10:27 GMT
ha ha, I am not much into the fanatic nationalis, that they LOOTED US, MADE US BEGGAR. Fact is, it were the indian middle men, who were selling those things. Why the indians did not fight? Because your ancestors had bows and arrows and they had cannons? we had lands LOLs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:15:00 GMT
Because your ancestors had bows and arrows and they had cannons? we had lands LOLs I was actually answering "Why the indians did not fight?" part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:15:40 GMT
I was actually answering "Why the indians did not fight?" part. Ahh I see. That's so true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:17:12 GMT
I was actually answering "Why the indians did not fight?" part. Ahh I see. That's so true. Well, bottom line Indians don't seem to me like trigger-happy egomaniacs. That's more like us Serbs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:22:40 GMT
It's because they preserved many of the old races here, and before they arrived here, they did lot of anthropological surveys, and many indologists came up with correct interpretation of sanskritic texts, and then they realized that long long time back, here also, some eurasian or central asian people had invaded the subcontinent, and then, they chartered out their mappings based on that. ACtually, the name indian means mongrel breeds, HINDOOS means mixed race people. This name is not present in the old aryan texts. That's why when Diamond said that aryans were not considered good race, it is because of those interpretation of non aryans, because, those old aryans were really harsh on these mixed race indians, actually. Then britishers started to do what those old overlords were doing, trying to extinct these mixed race indians, but, they too could not anihilate them. A simple fact! All that the Anglo-Saxons have done and is doing is only in their interests! They did not think about the welfare of the Celts, Native Americans, Africans or Indians! I agree, that anglo-saxons were doing it for their interests, there was a doctrine of lapse by Mr Dalhousie, which stated that if a person is no heir or don't have any biological father, their wealth would be snatched. Interstingly, both my grandfather and his elder brother were adopted by his mother's sister, and they got lands through their aunt, and still, even under british rule, retained it. This is the sole reason for me to support it, and make certain point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:29:42 GMT
The 'doctrine of lapse' was an annexation policy applied by the British East India Company in India before 1858. According to the doctrine, any princely state or territory under the direct influence (paramountacy) of the British East India Company (the dominant imperial power in the subcontinent), as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".[1] The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.[citation needed] In addition, the British decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its application were widely regarded by many Indians as illegitimate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:35:55 GMT
The 'doctrine of lapse' was an annexation policy applied by the British East India Company in India before 1858. According to the doctrine, any princely state or territory under the direct influence (paramountacy) of the British East India Company (the dominant imperial power in the subcontinent), as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".[1] The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.[citation needed] In addition, the British decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its application were widely regarded by many Indians as illegitimate. And now you tell me if they were any good for the people of India
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:36:49 GMT
Also, my grandfather used to tell me, now that britishers have gone, our race will perish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:44:16 GMT
The 'doctrine of lapse' was an annexation policy applied by the British East India Company in India before 1858. According to the doctrine, any princely state or territory under the direct influence (paramountacy) of the British East India Company (the dominant imperial power in the subcontinent), as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".[1] The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.[citation needed] In addition, the British decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its application were widely regarded by many Indians as illegitimate. And now you tell me if they were any good for the people of India Yes, because subcontinent was a melting pot, and actually, the maratha-peshwa empire, or rather peshwa, the konkanstha chitpavan empire was a jewish empire. These chitpavans were classified as jews, and india was getting into the hands of jews, slowly and steadily.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Mar 15, 2018 10:44:48 GMT
Also, my grandfather used to tell me, now that britishers have gone, our race will perish. What kind of race is this? Can not you defend your position in India?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:45:52 GMT
Infact, my own father told me, that our ancestors never considered the 'caste brahmin's as real overlords, we never married anyone outside of our cousins, it is only from 1970's that caste marriages came into our own clans, and with this, my cousins married the local girls.
So downfall of our tribes or clans!!!
And this is what angers me a lot now days
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:46:44 GMT
Also, my grandfather used to tell me, now that britishers have gone, our race will perish. What kind of race is this? Can not you defend your position in India? daityas or asuras en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daityavedic race. The local people used to call my ancestors lambu, as my ancestors were talls, once upon a time. ITs all gone now
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Mar 15, 2018 10:56:53 GMT
lamburkAnyway you should be happy that you now have an independent country and politics!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 10:57:49 GMT
lamburk Anyway you should be happy that you now have an independent country and politics! Yeah, just leave it, I will revive my own ancestry, as of now, on ARKTOS, I have a TASK .
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Mar 15, 2018 11:01:36 GMT
What do you mean?
|
|