Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "'Pro-Palestine marches on Armistice day is a CHALLENGE to British culture': Former Army Officer" video.

@ViralDabro 'India was colonised for 300 years by the British.' You need to buy a dictionary and look up 'colonised.' India was never colonised by Britain, although it was governed by British administrators, for around 200 years. Which, incidentally, brought an end to the regular wars between the assorted Hindu & Muslim states which had previously occurred. Oh, after buying a dictionary, you might buy a history book to go with it, perhaps?
3
@christinelawrence4315 Correct. The problem is that some people in Britain have an odd need to seek to destroy western culture. Usually, ones who benefit most from the freedoms it gives them.
2
@run2cat4run Opinions are not the issue here. The fact that a deliberate attempt appears to be being made to create confrontation on the one weekend each year dedicated to Remembrance, however, is.
1
@run2cat4run 'Too bad the British Empire didn’t think of this when they invaded other countries.' Invade? In 1801 Britain had a population of 10.1 million, and was at war with the largest military power in Europe. India alone had a population of around 160 million. Ask your indoctrinators to explain how Britain managed to 'invade' anywhere.
1
@AA-ss2vo The two state 'solution' waas devised by the United Nations after the end of the British mandate. Didn't you know that?
1
@ViralDabro 'and the Kashmiri problem Again Britain left that crap behind and the Muslim are suffering at the hands of the Hindus in India.' If you fret so about partition, perhaps you might look up Jinnah's role in it?
1
@ViralDabro Population of India in 1857. Approximately 180 million. Numbers of British administrators in India in 1857. Approximately 30,000. One Administrator per 6,000 people. Colonisation? You also need to look up the structure of the army in India, which was overwhelming made up of Indian troops. It was, by the way, only established in 1895. The term Indian Army appears to have been first used informally, as a collective description of the Presidency armies, which collectively comprised the Bengal Army, the Madras Army and the Bombay Army, of the Presidencies of British India, particularly after the Indian Rebellion. So, it appears these 'military armies' with 'totalitarian rule' were overwhelmingly Indian ones.
1
@jazd1621 What am I denying? Don't you understand sarcasm, you idiot? Would you suggest that we should condemn the Germans of today for what an earlier generation did eighty years ago? Or all muslims should be despised because of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571?
1
A Challenge indeed. I believe that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has already said that supplying the demonstrators with warm drinks and snacks will require considerable planning.
1