[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Gunnair Gunnair:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Here's a nice picture of a 'British' Muslim excercising his right to free speech outside the court where these leeches were convicted.
Free speech that our guys fought for in various wars against tryanny and facism within and abroad.

British India Muslims fought for freedom in both World Wars as well as a number of smaller ones.

It would be fair to them to remember that, no?

Absolutely. The Sikhs were the backbone of the British Indian Army. Oh and only Sikhs or Lancers wore turbans in the old BIA. Muslims saw it as a slight on their faith to where anything that resembled Sikh religious head dress. Just a few Regs that came out as a result of the 1857 Indian Army mutiny.

There are moves afoot in the UK to create a Sikh regiment in the modern British Army from immigrant and 1st/2nd generation British Sikhs.

I don't see the 'British' Muslims looking at even joining the Army. Good picture though Gunnair.

Idetified as BIA Muslims.

Edit - fixed 'borking'...

[Thanos]

Dude, you borked the board width!

Anyhoo, the solution to public gatherings of these types of Muslim protestors is quite simple.
Just have the police, who always get called out to stand guard over these assholes, quietly step
aside and walk away. Restorative justice will quickly assert itself at the vigourous hands of
the locals. Rage-boy and the other Muslims probably won't be heard from again afterwards.

In the real world, free of lawyers and liberal media types, there's very little out there that
can't be quickly fixed with a good swift kick right to the knackers.

[EyeBrock]

It's easy to tell who are Sikhs Gunnair, they have beards. Non Sikhs in both the British and British Indian Army were forbidden to have beards.

Obviously there were Muslim soldiers in the BIA but there were problems with 'Sepoy' type head dress and their similarity to Sikh turbans. The Ceremonial uniform headdress of the modern Pak Army may resemble a turban to the casual observer but the military minded with Imperial experience can tell easily tell the difference. Your first picture was of Sikhs, your second picture looks like Sepoy headress of the late 19th century but it's a bit small to tell.

And if you have studied the BIA at all you will know that the core or the BIA were the Sikh and Ghurka regiments. They were the teeth arms of the BIA. If you check the modern Indian Army you will see that many of it's Regiments are Sikh as are a good chunk of its General Staff and Field Officers.

Prior to Partition, there had been many problems with Mulsim Regiments. Winston Churchill and Mountbatten each had less than favourable things to say about this portion of the segregated BIA.

On the propensity of the very large Muslmim population in the UK to cause shit, you have gone quiet.

[Gunnair]

$1:

It's easy to tell who are Sikhs Gunnair, they have beards. Non Sikhs in both the British and British Indian Army were forbidden to have beards.

Not true. Bengal Native Infantry.

$1:

Obviously there were Muslim soldiers in the BIA but there were problems with 'Sepoy' type head dress and their similarity to Sikh turbans. The Ceremonial uniform headdress of the modern Pak Army may resemble a turban to the casual observer but the military minded with Imperial experience can tell easily tell the difference.

A bit of semantics since we're not talking about the modern Pakistani Army. Muslims in BIA regiments wore turban style headress. If you take umbruge with it being called a turban vice a lungee or sepoy style headress then we'll call it a sepoy style headress with a resemblance to a turban.

$1:

Your first picture was of Sikhs, your second picture looks like Sepoy headress of the late 19th century but it's a bit small to tell.

Yes to both.

$1:

And if you have studied the BIA at all you will know that the core or the BIA were the Sikh and Ghurka regiments. They were the teeth arms of the BIA. If you check the modern Indian Army you will see that many of it's Regiments are Sikh as are a good chunk of its General Staff and Field Officers.

I have read a book or two.

The backbone of the army came from the predominantly muslim regiments of the Punjab. and not the Sikhs and Ghurkas as you suggest. From 1862 to 1914 Muslim regiments from the Punjab grew from 28 to 57. Add to their numbers the Pathans, Dogra, and Baluchis and I submit it ain't as simple as you suggest. Though there may have been more Sikhs, they had their own issues that made them tempermental. Muslims were seen as great warriors and very loyal to the Sirkar.

$1:

Winston Churchill and Mountbatten each had less than favourable things to say about this portion of the segregated BIA.

O

Such as?

$1:

On the propensity of the very large Muslmim population in the UK to cause shit, you have gone quiet.

Well since you are simply offering a subjective opinion on the subject, what is there to say?

[EyeBrock]

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient" Rome.

Winston Churchill.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient" Rome.

Winston Churchill.

Ever read the book?

Anything more modern?

[EyeBrock]

Any decent history of the 1857 Mutiny will advise of the Martial Races theory the Brits imposed after the Sikhs and the Ghurkhas remained loyal whereas most Muslim regiments mutinied.
Things have pretty much stayed that way.

Muslims were mixed in with the Hindus as the Sikhs and the Ghurkhas took the more prestigious roles in the BIA, as independant race or creed or tribal loyalty regiments.

Muslims were not trusted. As Churchill noted; Muslims are loyal to Allah before the Queen or India.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Any decent history of the 1857 Mutiny will advise of the Martial Races theory the Brits imposed after the Sikhs and the Ghurkhas remained loyal whereas most Muslim regiments mutinied.
Things have pretty much stayed that way.

Muslims were mixed in with the Hindus as the Sikhs and the Ghurkhas took the more prestigious roles in the BIA, as independant race or creed or tribal loyalty regiments.

Muslims were not trusted. As Churchill noted; Muslims are loyal to Allah before the Queen or India.

Yet the muslim dominated regiments of the Punjab were doubled in number to 1914... after the mutiny.

Hmmmm....

[EyeBrock]

But in shittier regiments and roles. The top echelon of the BIA was Sikh. Muslims were neither trusted or respected. They were always seen as more loyal to their religion than the Crown.

[ShepherdsDog]

sorry to play devil's advocate here, but the oath I swore asked that I be loyal to God before I showed loyalty to Queen and country too. But then again, isn't God an Englishman and I was told never to trust an Englishman....or a MacDonald around your unsecured livestock.

[ShepherdsDog]

At this time the Muslims knew if they tried any jihadi shit against the Raj the reprecussions would have been swifter and more brutal than anything they could have come up with. Western, Sikh, Hindu and Gurka regiments from across the Indian Empire would have crushed them like bugs. For this reason they behaved and kept their place in the established order of things.