131–140 of 327 posts
[flagged]
Except the British didn't genocide during the partition of India - the internal clash of Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims going to war was it's own doing... You're framing it like British soldiers went in there and massacred India during that time. Wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one has yet recognized the Taliban government. Give it to Bangladesh then.
Pakistan would say no due to strained relations, and state level Indian governments would pressure the federal government to say no due to anti-Bangladeshi sentiment in India (sort of similar to anti-Central American sentiment in the US with an added Islamophobic element or Ethnic element depending on the region) - appearing to vacillate to Bangladesh over what is basically a dumb symbolic issue would piss off voters…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but so are an awful lot of other things. Animal rights and environmental activists have been frequently tagged with that term, even when engaged in nonviolent protest. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
Or 'fist bumps': https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist_fist_jab
When a news anchor says it, it’s a talking point. When Obama said it, a U.S. citizen was assassinated without trial. Whenever you see the executive branch use the phrase “terrorist” to describe an American citizen you should worry.
When news anchors used it to describe protests it was a talking point. When Trump used it to describe protestors, that was cause for concern.
When news outlets used the word to describe the Jan 6th riots, it was a talking point. When Biden used it for the Jan 6 riots, that was cause for concern.
The executive branch assassinates terrorists. News anchors do not.
Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…
Does it have to go to any country? Duleep Singh was the owner, when the British took it. Who is his legal heir?
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/british-took-45-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one has yet recognized the Taliban government. Give it to Bangladesh then.
Pakistan would say no due to strained relations, and state level Indian governments would pressure the federal government to say no due to anti-Bangladeshi sentiment in India (sort of similar to anti-Central American sentiment in the US with an added Islamophobic element or Ethnic element depending on the region) - appearing to vacillate to Bangladesh over what is basically a dumb symbolic issue would piss off voters…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/25/california-redwood-fo... Update: To clarify, Turing_Machine likened the suggestion that California be given to Mexico to alephnerd's description of the complex and unclear proper ownership of the Koh-I-Noor. I claim that the situation in California is simpler, at least in some places, because there are native Californians to give stuff back to and multiple tribes are willing to…
"Give it back to local indigenous groups" is an entirely different thing from "Give it back to Mexico". What is now California was never controlled by what is now Mexico until the Spanish colonizers showed up. The Aztecs (who were themselves brutal colonizers, as it happens) weren't running the show there or anything like that.
Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…
> It's a conundrum and an complicated legal question that honestly isn't worth it for any of the countries, all of whom have bigger issues to deal with. Sure, but the crown shouldn't keep it. Give it to a neutral 3rd party until an agreement is in place.
They can keep the stupid rock provided they return the $45 trillion they stole from India over 200 years. https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/british-took-45-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's just pretext. The obvious answer is, let the parties in question figure it out. I'm sure they'll come to an agreement on how to share custody of historical artifacts as long as they come back home rather than stay in Britain. Art and historical objects circle through different museums all the time, it's not a new concept. "Gosh I plundered something from India or Pakistan, oh my whoever will I give it back to?!"…
>I'm sure they'll come to an agreement That's not how geopolitics works, particularly in that section of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan_relatio...