Is there any fighting in India?

[Tayski]

Yeah, I bet.
That's why Americans and Brits took over the entire globe. Because we are bad at fighting? More like the best! Wake up cuck!

Not so much to do with "better at fighting" but more to do with having a bigger advantage in weaponry, be it during the British world colonisation or the Americans in modern wars of the 20th century.

 

[I am your real dad]

Not so much to do with "better at fighting" but more to do with having a bigger advantage in weaponry, be it during the British world colonisation or the Americans in modern wars of the 20th century.

Nope.
British routinely defeated Indians sword on sword, alot of it was because Indians slashed more than stabbed.

Not to mention Europeans letting Native Americans have the same weapons as them and fighting a war for 400 years.

Europeans are very sportsmanly in there combat and also the best at defeating other nations and breeding there women.

Your welcome for your blue eyes, red hair , and freedom world!

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Yeah, I bet.
That's why Americans and Brits took over the entire globe. Because we are bad at fighting? More like the best! Wake up cuck!

It does not work like that. Conquest and colonisation is not a matter of individual valour at all. Technology, planning, control of logistic lines, diplomacy, strategy and luck all play a more important role.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Nope.
British routinely defeated Indians sword on sword, alot of it was because Indians slashed more than stabbed.

Not to mention Europeans letting Native Americans have the same weapons as them and fighting a war for 400 years.

Europeans are very sportsmanly in there combat and also the best at defeating other nations and breeding there women.

Your welcome for your blue eyes, red hair , and freedom world!View attachment 770276

You are right on the sword thing. Very few people know that. Do you follow Matt Easton??

 

[Finding Deebo]

Vegetarians are still a minority in India. Sure there's probably a higher percentage of vegetarians in India than a lot of other places, but even in India the majority of people eat meat.

Also, it's been scientifically proven that you don't need to eat meat to show the same level of performance as an athlete. You can get enough protein via plants, and as a vegetarian you even have more options to get proteins from with dairy and eggs. You should check out "the game changers" documentary on Netflix on that topic, which actually shows that you might perform even better as an athlete with less animal consumption.

Wasn't alot of the science in that documentary debunked?

 

[Tayski]

Nope.
British routinely defeated Indians sword on sword, alot of it was because Indians slashed more than stabbed.

Not to mention Europeans letting Native Americans have the same weapons as them and fighting a war for 400 years.

Europeans are very sportsmanly in there combat and also the best at defeating other nations and breeding there women.

Your welcome for your blue eyes, red hair , and freedom world!View attachment 770276

Pretty much all the colonies acquired by the Brits were acquired with better weaponry, pretty much like all wars fought by Americans. If I ask you to name colonies acquired by the Brits who had better or equal weaponry you'll struggle to find any examples, same with wars won by Americans, that's why when you say "That's why Americans and Brits took over the entire globe. Because we are bad at fighting? More like the best!" it's not accurate since it was mostly done with better technology and weaponry not because they were "better at fighting".

@KBE6EKCTAH_CCP was talking about hand to hand combat when he talked about pitting Pashtuns/Sikhs vs Americans/Brits. Counter arguing what he said with "Brits and Americans conquered the world so they're better at fighting" is not a valid argument.

Also the blue eyes and red hair genes present in the UK and America mostly come from Iberia originally since the Celts are descended from a group of tribes which arrived from Iberia around 5000 BC. Then you also have Nordic countries with similar genes and their colonisation of Great Britain and some parts of Europe and reproducing with its local populations also helped with that spread of genes.

 

[I am your real dad]

You are right on the sword thing. Very few people know that. Do you follow Matt Easton??

Schola Gladiatoria!

Yes sir, I do.
Very interesting channel on YouTube.

 

[I am your real dad]

Pretty much all the colonies acquired by the Brits were acquired with better weaponry, pretty much like all wars fought by Americans. If I ask you to name colonies acquired by the Brits who had better or equal weaponry you'll struggle to find any examples, same with wars won by Americans, that's why when you say "That's why Americans and Brits took over the entire globe. Because we are bad at fighting? More like the best!" it's not accurate since it was mostly done with better technology and weaponry not because they were "better at fighting".

@KBE6EKCTAH_CCP was talking about hand to hand combat when he talked about pitting Pashtuns/Sikhs vs Americans/Brits. Counter arguing what he said with "Brits and Americans conquered the world so they're better at fighting" is not a valid argument.

Also the blue eyes and red hair genes present in the UK and America mostly come from Iberia originally since the Celts are descended from a group of tribes which arrived from Iberia around 5000 BC. Then you also have Nordic countries with similar genes and their colonisation of Great Britain and some parts of Europe and reproducing with its local populations also helped with that spread of genes.

Europeans are the best at combat, just a fact. Hand to hand, swords, guns, knives, cannons, ECT.... always have been the best. The results speak for themselves.

Your last paragraph I agree with totally and is accurate. I was just making some jokes in my previous post.

 

[Tayski]

Wasn't alot of the science in that documentary debunked?

Some of the claims they made didn't have real science behind it to prove they are accurate, but there's also nothing to prove that getting your protein from plants is less healthy, rather the contrary. The "fork over knife" documentary is also eye opening in terms of the negative effects animal consumption has on the human body especially in terms of heart disease and cancer and how some of those diseases are healed and reversed when the patients switch to a whole food plant based diet and reduce or even better completely eliminate animal foods from their diet. So there's more studies indicating that getting your proteins and nutriments from plants is healthier than from animals, and on the contrary no study shows that eating animals makes you a better athlete than when you don't.

 

[I am your real dad]

It does not work like that. Conquest and colonisation is not a matter of individual valour at all. Technology, planning, control of logistic lines, diplomacy, strategy and luck all play a more important role.

That's true also.
But Europeans have showed the most success with it. That's not from luck.

 

[Finding Deebo]

Some of the claims they made didn't have real science behind it to prove they are accurate, but there's also nothing to prove that getting your protein from plants is less healthy, rather the contrary. The "fork over knife" documentary is also eye opening in terms of the negative effects animal consumption has on the human body especially in terms of heart disease and cancer and how some of those diseases are healed and reversed when the patients switch to a whole food plant based diet and reduce or even better completely eliminate animal foods from their diet. So there's more studies indicating that getting your proteins and nutriments from plants is healthier than from animals, and on the contrary no study shows that eating animals makes you a better athlete than when you don't.

You might be right, but when the overwhelming majority of athletes in high intensity sports - guys looking for any edge possible - consume animal protein, it makes me think there's some validity to it. John Fitch discussed quitting the vegan diet...

 

[SuperLuigi]

Europeans are the best at combat, just a fact. Hand to hand, swords, guns, knives, cannons, ECT.... always have been the best. The results speak for themselves.

Your last paragraph I agree with totally and is accurate. I was just making some jokes in my previous post.

Gotta give the Mongols their props, they had the title for a while. Turks also showed martial excellence historically.

 

[Finding Deebo]

Gotta give the Mongols their props, they had the title for a while. Turks also showed martial excellence historically.

Yup, Tamerlane was a dangerous dude...

 

[TRYHARD 2001]

I truly can not think of a less athletic nation than India. Well over a billion people. Haven't won an Olympic gold medal since 2008... and that was in shooting! I guess they still have cricket, right?

But seriously, with a gigantic population like they have and the diversity of the sports in the Olympics, both in terms of the sports themselves and the weight classes and subdivisions therein, the law of averages should dictate you stumble across a couple gold medals in SOMETHING!

 

[Tayski]

You might be right, but when the overwhelming majority of athletes in high intensity sports - guys looking for any edge possible - consume animal protein, it makes me think there's some validity to it. John Fitch discussed quitting the vegan diet...

That's only because those researches about animal consumption and health issues are relatively new, it's still a new trend to switch to veganism while some athletes like Nate Diaz and quite a few others have done it for quite a while. If it was very obvious that animal consumption was an advantage, no athletes would dare going vegan. But it's also a personal choice, people feel different on different diets. I can guarantee you that the high fat high animal product diets some body builders go for would make some athletes feel terrible to perform in their sport.

 

[I am your real dad]

Gotta give the Mongols their props, they had the title for a while. Turks also showed martial excellence historically.

That is true.

 

[Snubnoze707]

Gotta give the Mongols their props, they had the title for a while. Turks also showed martial excellence historically.

Props for mass murder, I mean martial excellence!

 

[Finding Deebo]

That's only because those researches about animal consumption and health issues are relatively new, it's still a new trend to switch to veganism while some athletes like Nate Diaz and quite a few others have done it for quite a while. If it was very obvious that animal consumption was an advantage, no athletes would dare going vegan. But it's also a personal choice, people feel different on different diets. I can guarantee you that the high fat high animal product diets some body builders go for would make some athletes feel terrible to perform in their sport.

Fair points. Appreciate that you can disucss the matter without flying off the handle bars like some people do.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

That's true also.
But Europeans have showed the most success with it. That's not from luck.

Yes absolutely. Overall, Western nations are by far the best at war and nobody worth taking seriously would ever contradict that statement.

My only point is that individual valour and bad-assness of individual soldiers does not win wars. There are a bunch of first hand accounts throughout history where it is established that conquered nations where composed of tougher warriors, but got their shit pushed in nevertheless due to the conquering nation's better organisation, technology and strategy.

Tight formation, discipline and equipment usually prevails against strength and courage. Case in point: the Romans and the English. These two were not tougher than their apanyents, they were simply smarter and better equipped.

 

[Kanka]

Yeah, but China will soon become superior with their advances in AI-technology. In USA, AI is largely driven by private conpanies and universities, in China, the state is the major player.