“Gandhi even said that he disagreed with their methods but believed that they’re committed patriots and that they’re right to refuse to take on the creed of nonviolence,” Ghosh said. “It’s very interdependent; you can’t tell the story of Gandhi without telling the story of the revolutionary terrorists.”
Yeah, I don’t think that proves your point at all.
No, it is just you and your one Ghandi quote saying they were part of it. It is not a quote saying he would never had made it without their violence.
You really should stop pretending you know shit about this. I studied it in college and I don’t feel like I could explain all the complexities of the groups interacting.
It is clear there have been many peaceful movements. Which leads us back to the concept that we need moar guns to solve our problem.
Did moar guns solve Ghandi’s problems? Did moar guns solve Martin Luther King’s problems? Don’t bother answering because these are rhetorical questions.
Yeah, I don’t think that proves your point at all.
No one attributes the success of the movement in freeing India with violence even if it did happen.
You are really reaching trying to prove violence has a purpose. And that purpose is apparently to get you off.
Nobody attributes it, except for people who have studied it beyond pop culture.
No, it is just you and your one Ghandi quote saying they were part of it. It is not a quote saying he would never had made it without their violence.
You really should stop pretending you know shit about this. I studied it in college and I don’t feel like I could explain all the complexities of the groups interacting.
It is clear there have been many peaceful movements. Which leads us back to the concept that we need moar guns to solve our problem.
Did moar guns solve Ghandi’s problems? Did moar guns solve Martin Luther King’s problems? Don’t bother answering because these are rhetorical questions.
Guns create problems, they don’t solve them.