Is the surge a success?

[Ben Kenobi]

And of course, the Brits pursued a divide and conquer policy, promoting a seperate Muslim identity (i.e. organizing political representation on religious and communal identity), the Muslim League over the Indian National Congress, etc.

Muslims never wanted to be ruled by the Hindus they had ruled for centuries, unless the British were in control. They never integrated in British India, in having their own schools apart from the Hindus. The Muslim league was not organised by the British, but by the Muslims themselves.

Blaming Gandhi and absolving the Brits of responsibility over partition is the height of lunacy.

He was willing to accept the consequences of Partition over a Muslim civil war. Partition could not have happened without his approval, and as much as he hated partition, he found it more palatable then the alternatives.

As for the BBC, how is that anything different from what I said? Also, Gandhi still isn't saying anything about the Sikhs in the Punjab.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm saying we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Saddam was contained - he wasn't a threat and I said so at the time, and the facts have borne that out. Invading and taking out Saddam made us responsible for helping the Iraqis through the aftermath. I don't think that invading, knocking off Saddam, and immediately leaving would have been morally right. The chaos would likely have been worse and the end result would almost assuredly have been a bloody sectarian war that ends with a new Saddam in command.

You seem to have a selective application of morality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Is the BBC an acceptable source, Ben?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/50664.stm

-Arrian

No, that's biased to. See anything that Ben doesn't agree with has to be biased.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Is the BBC an acceptable source, Ben?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/50664.stm

-Arrian

No, that's biased to. See anything that Ben doesn't agree with has to be biased.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, that's biased to. See anything that Ben doesn't agree with has to be biased.

Did you actually read my reply?

I've actually written for the BBC.

[rah]

and that would make it less biased how?

[Ben Kenobi]

True, I do consider every source that disagrees with me to be biased.

I also consider every source that agrees with me to be biased.

The question is not bias, but reliability. All sources are biased, but not all sources are reliable.

I would say the BBC source is reliable, but I don't agree that what I said and what the BBC says is different. I think we are corroborating each other.

[rah]

Stating that the BBC source is reliable right after mentioning that you've written for the BBC doesn't inspire my confidence.

[Dinner]

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Ben Kenobi]

Stating that the BBC source is reliable right after mentioning that you've written for the BBC doesn't inspire my confidence.

I wasn't the one who quoted the BBC as a reliable source.

I believe it was arrian.

[rah]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would say the BBC source is reliable, but I don't agree that what I said and what the BBC says is different. I think we are corroborating each other.

Now do you remember saying that the you think the BBC source is reliable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now do you remember saying that the you think the BBC source is reliable.

You need to read what I said in response to Arrian. Do both you and Imran have me on selective ignore?

As for the BBC, how is that anything different from what I said? Also, Gandhi still isn't saying anything about the Sikhs in the Punjab.

Where did I say the BBC source was unreliable? All I said is that the BBC source corroborates what I was saying. That means I consider the BBC source to be reliable.

Arrian was the one who brought up the BBC in the first place.

[rah]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That means I consider the BBC source to be reliable.

See, you did it again.
Your short term memory is awful.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS


You seem to have a selective application of morality.

Most people do.

I'm curious about exactly what you mean, however.

-Arrian