Jump to content

Ayodhya Verdict


Global.Baba

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Ranvir said:

How weak must Hindus be that when they are 80% they still tip toe around the 14% Muslim community.

 

That too after Muslims demanded a separate country. I think the day Pakistan was created things like this should have become a non entity.

Most Indians are brainwashed like velu

16 minutes ago, velu said:

construct both temple and mosque .. or let muslims sponsor for the temple and Hindus for the mosque

 

people who visit sabarimala will visit a mosque or darga before visiting ayyappa .. muslims yet to mind ayyappa devotees visiting darga/mosque and hindus dont mind visiting it before going to ayyapan temple  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, diga said:

Most Indians are brainwashed like velu

 

 

i visited madurai meenkahsi temple , mosque is there opposite to one of  the gopurams ..

same with sreerangam temple as well ... 

 

i dont have any problem having mosque near the temple ( most hindus dont mind as well i guess ) but it is muslims who always had issues with having temples

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, velu said:

 

i visited madurai meenkahsi temple , mosque is there opposite to one of  the gopurams ..

same with sreerangam temple as well ... 

 

i dont have any problem having mosque near the temple ( most hindus dont mind as well i guess ) but it is muslims who always had issues with having temples

There's a mosque known as Shahi Idgah  adjacent to Krishna Janmbhumi temple in Mathura. I guess something like that could be worked out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

There's a mosque known as Shahi Idgah  adjacent to Krishna Janmbhumi temple in Mathura. I guess something like that could be worked out. 

 

if we go through justice system ,  they will keep extending the case .. 

imho its better to settle between the parties through talk with non-negotiable ram temple at ramjenmabhumi ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After talking to the Indian Muslims, it seems they also fear that Ram Temple is only the beginning, and there are claims of dozens of more temples on the places which have mosques today. 

 

On 10/31/2018 at 2:26 PM, Moochad said:

Leaving this here

2le1x6.jpg

 

Yaar, religious people gather to fight and kill for religious places, but if atheists gather only in order to piss together, then you are pissed off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

After talking to the Indian Muslims, it seems they also fear that Ram Temple is only the beginning, and there are claims of dozens of more temples on the places which have mosques today. 

Yes, that is historical reality. I disagree with trying to flip it back to temples myself, though it does not change the fact that Islam has a long track record of converting other people's places of worship into mosques, both in the subcontinent and outside.

 

42 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Yaar, religious people gather to fight and kill for religious places, but if atheists gather only in order to piss together, then you are pissed off. 

:laugh:.
He's just salty that we give such thoughts zero % of our daily brain or financial energies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Straight Drive said:

Nobody in this world is going to try your approach of Gandhigiri when dealing with cruel people who come with swords and probably some weapons when fighting US or Coalition forces or Indian forces or the inter religion conflicts in middle east.

Wrong. Many have capitulated and kept their identity alive. How the eff do you think Greeks still managed to be 90% Orthodox Greeks after being ruled for 650 years by the Ottomans ? Granted, they were not the most brutal of muslim rulers, especially towards conquered land that paid their taxes, but they were no different than Mughals that way: they too tried to convert (and did convert) mass amounts of their land holdings- the reason there are muslims in Albania or Bosnia is due to the Ottomans converting the Slavs & whatever the hell Albanians are. 

 

Yet, Greece capitulated and retained their culture, their orthodoxy and waited for nearly 600 years, before breaking away and re-starting their own journey. 

 

19 hours ago, Straight Drive said:

Nobody tolerates terrorism today, every attempt is being made to crush it, not accept it.Gandhigiri is not a war tactics or a method to resolve a crisis where an environment is created like invasion or attacks over other countries.imo countries are aptly dealing with it.I differ on your view that Gandhigiri is the best way to resolve such issues.Terrorism has to be wiped out and its good to see the surgical strikes and US and coalition forces led war.Zero tolerance.

And nobody is talking about modern day terrorism, either.  I talked about long ago invaders and their resistors. My point is, the Rajputs were stupid to resist. Stupid, because they were decisively inferior strategically and tactically to their opposition. 
If you face a cruel warlord, you better win. And if you are decisively inferior in tactics, its stupidity to fight.

 

Yes, you may say that there is no way Rana Sanga may've known that he was fighting a general (Babur) who KNEW how to fight on the field and not just a mindless battle-field meat-grinder butcher like he or his adversaries were. Sure. But it also means we should stop glorifying these IDIOTS as valiants. Valor is not a lamb not knowing when to run the heck away from a tiger. That is stupidity. And stupidity from a warrior who could've saved his people by capitulating instead of eliciting wanton slaughter by losing and leaving his people defenceless. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

And nobody is talking about modern day terrorism, either.  I talked about long ago invaders and their resistors. My point is, the Rajputs were stupid to resist. Stupid, because they were decisively inferior strategically and tactically to their opposition. 
If you face a cruel warlord, you better win. And if you are decisively inferior in tactics, its stupidity to fight.

How are you so sure that there was no diplomacy? There are plenty of examples of inter marriage,diplomatic exchanges and peace treaties among Rajputs and Mughals.

 

Sometimes there is no other option but to stand up and fight even a losing battle

 

Hindu culture is based on fair fight. On honor and ethics which a lot of these barbaric cultures lacked. They fought dirty. That is not some great strategy.

 

 

Edited by Global.Baba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Wrong. Many have capitulated and kept their identity alive. How the eff do you think Greeks still managed to be 90% Orthodox Greeks after being ruled for 650 years by the Ottomans ? Granted, they were not the most brutal of muslim rulers, especially towards conquered land that paid their taxes, but they were no different than Mughals that way: they too tried to convert (and did convert) mass amounts of their land holdings- the reason there are muslims in Albania or Bosnia is due to the Ottomans converting the Slavs & whatever the hell Albanians are. 

 

Yet, Greece capitulated and retained their culture, their orthodoxy and waited for nearly 600 years, before breaking away and re-starting their own journey. 

 

And nobody is talking about modern day terrorism, either.  I talked about long ago invaders and their resistors. My point is, the Rajputs were stupid to resist. Stupid, because they were decisively inferior strategically and tactically to their opposition. 
If you face a cruel warlord, you better win. And if you are decisively inferior in tactics, its stupidity to fight.

 

Yes, you may say that there is no way Rana Sanga may've known that he was fighting a general (Babur) who KNEW how to fight on the field and not just a mindless battle-field meat-grinder butcher like he or his adversaries were. Sure. But it also means we should stop glorifying these IDIOTS as valiants. Valor is not a lamb not knowing when to run the heck away from a tiger. That is stupidity. And stupidity from a warrior who could've saved his people by capitulating instead of eliciting wanton slaughter by losing and leaving his people defenceless. 

 

Disagree that those  who defended India during terrifying invasions were stupid. Agree to disagree on the differences of opinion though on this issue and I leave it at that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Straight Drive said:

Disagree that those  who defended India during terrifying invasions were stupid. Agree to disagree on the differences of opinion though on this issue and I leave it at that.

 

well those who fight like stupid, are stupid. As i said, read about the actual battle- what little information there is. Then read about history of warfare through various cultures. It becomes immediately apparent that Sanga was STUPID when it came to strategy. 
Like many others before him- the count is numerous. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

How are you so sure that there was no diplomacy? There are plenty of examples of inter marriage,diplomatic exchanges and peace treaties among Rajputs and Mughals.

Indeed, there was. By the time after Akbar's conquests, the Rajputs had learnt their lessons more or less. Prior to this, there is very little diplomacy or strategic nous shown by the rulers who opposed them. 

Quote

 

Sometimes there is no other option but to stand up and fight even a losing battle

Yes, there is !

Even if you have to fight, fight like a smart guy. 

I will point out a simple example: Caeasar's civil war and his Spanish campaigns. Specifically, the battle of Illerda. 
Caesar showed up with a smaller force, facing up against the best soldiers in the Optimates' army - the Spanish veterans. On their soil. 
Caesar simply made sure that he secured his supply-line into the Spanish beach-head, then shut up shop, erected walls and sat put. 
The Spanish army, despite being FROM Spain, hard marched for a week to get to the battlefield, while Caesar had secured his supply at Ilerda and could afford to wait. Day by day, the position of the Spanish Legions weakened, ultimately resulting in a half-a$$ed battle and quick surrender.


Heck, even one of the greatest generals of ALL-TIME- Hannibal- was effectively neutralized, despite NEVER having lost a battle in Italy, by the Fabian strategy ( which, in a nutshell, is when on home-ground, deny battle, harass the enemy continuously and keep hoarding supplies from your people while burning every shred of supply in the enemy's path, so much so that the enemy ends up leaving due to food shortages in his own army!). 

 

Now contrast that with Rana Sanga. He Marches on babur, who'd been in India less than a year. Almost 1000 kms from his supply base in Kabul. Had not even pacified Punjab, let alone Doab region. Rana Sanga's domains lay less than 200km away and had many allies. 

 

Imagine if Sanga had the BRAINS to march just north of babur, set up shop, throw up some palisades and sit tight. Every day Sanga waits, his position grows stronger and Babur's weaker: he'd just positioned himself between Babur and his supply-lines. There is no way babur is going to win a supply-logistics war from a power in Ajmer when his power-base is Kabul, the fight is near Delhi.  This FORCES Babur to march out and meet Sanga, on a battle-field of Sanga's choosing, in a set-up of Sanga's choosing, with Babur at his weakest position strategically. 
Did he pitch tent to wait out babur's supply ? No.  Instead, he rushed head-long into a fight. 

Babur knew this moron would charge like a proud fool, so he put wagons-chained in the middle of the field flanked by his infantry & musketmen shooting through the wagons, deliberately weakening his center. Rana Sanga, like the tactical moron he was, took the bait and funnelled straight into the middle, ending up getting his army killed.

 

Now take Prithviraj Chauhan - when he beats Ghori in the first battle of Tarain, Ghori does NOT return to Ghor/Afghanistan. Instead, he takes the fortress of Bhatinda, from Phrithviraj's ally and just sits there, strenghtening his supply lines and levying fresh troops ALL THE WAY FROM AFGHANISTAN.  FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR !! 

 

Do you know the distance between Sambhar (Prithviraj's capital) and Bhatinda versus Ghor and Bhatinda ? 

Prithviraj, sitting almost THREE TIMES CLOSER, in his home-base, does jack $hit. Does not even put up a siege. Nothing. Its 'Ostrich time, put your head in the sand and pretend Ghori just loves to vacation in Bhatinda before he returns home, coz we beat him once'. And then die like a fool a year later, because Ghori was smart enough to know this idiot and his army wouldn't fight at night or some nonsense like that. 

 

Need i go on ? 

You can glorify these fools all you wish, but to any student of history, they are nothing more than the worst combination possible in an autocrat: too incompetent to win on the battle-field or via logistics and too proud to bend the knee. Morons like these need to be called out for the morons they are - needlessly throwing away lives to an enemy because they are as smart as a dog with dementia, not glorified. 

Quote

Hindu culture is based on fair fight. On honor and ethics which a lot of these barbaric cultures lacked. They fought dirty. That is not some great strategy.

That is more or less nonsense. Read your actual books of classical antiquity when it comes to warfare. The Magadh empire was masters of assassination & night-warfare. The Pratiharas were known for their hit-and-run attacks, something they'd picked up from the Arabs. 

Somewhere along the lines, Indian generalship just lost its edge and by the time the muslims arrived, they fought with this stupid concept of 'fair fight' and all that nonsense to feel stupidly proud about.

 

Or maybe its the stories they told their survivors to cover for their massive tactical and strategic incompetence. Because as one reads the Chola-Chalukya wars, it becomes quite clear that these hindu emperors were quite okay with genociding a city here or a region there, just to draw out the enemy and force a fight on (their) favorable terms. 

 

 

The point of war, is to win. Honor or ethics go out of the window when it comes to COMBATANTS, until the formation of the UN. If you are going to risk the lives of your people in war, the only thing that matters, is winning, period. Even today, when fighting gets grisly, the UN convention is tossed aside for combatants and everyone looks the other way ( Iraq-Iran war & their chemical attack on the troops for eg). 

 

Making excuses like 'they fought at night' - so what ? They fought at night because they knew their enemies were stupid enough to not fight at night. 10/10 to them for doing what it takes to win and 0/10 for the idiots who thought they'd rather be honorable dead fools than win a bloody fight ! 

Why should i fight anyone 'fair and square' ? this is not a kindergarten fight over candy, this is fighting over survival of thousands of people, a culture, a life-style, etc. Or to dominate one. I will take every advantage i get, thank you very much, because that's what EVERY SINGLE GREAT GENERAL IN HISTORY HAS EVER DONE. And that is why they are great generals. And that is why the only Indian generals who make the list - such as Krishna II of the Rashtrakutas for eg, did not fight fair and square but did what it takes to ANNIHILATE his adversaries. 
Heck, if i found out that your army has a designated cooking & crapping time in the evening, i will make sure my troops are well fed and took a crap before that time and hit your guys while they are defecating !! 

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

Hindu culture is based on fair fight. On honor and ethics which a lot of these barbaric cultures lacked. They fought dirty. That is not some great strategy

Mahabharata do not teach about fair fighting.It simply tells dharma should win at all cost. So this fair fighting concept must be invention of some stupid kings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

Mahabharata do not teach about fair fighting.It simply tells dharma should win at all cost. So this fair fighting concept must be invention of some stupid kings. 

Mahabharata doesn’t encourage unfair fighting, it justifies wherever a rule has been violated. Obviously that doesn’t make it right or wrong.

 

Infact if you look at Mahabharata as a moral guide, even Yudhistra who was supposed to be beacon of justice and righteousness supposedly spent a few minutes in hell for the only time he crossed the line during the war. So the guys who wrote and compiled Mahabharata had all these placeholders.

 

Also no common man was hurt, the war was confined to a battlefield and soldiers.

 

Stark contrast to tenets that give full license to  war booty, conversions and collateral damage of innocents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Mahabharata doesn’t encourage unfair fighting, it justifies wherever a rule has been violated. Obviously that doesn’t make it right or wrong.

 

Infact if you look at Mahabharata as a moral guide, even Yudhistra who was supposed to be beacon of justice and righteousness supposedly spent a few minutes in hell for the only time he crossed the line during the war. So the guys who wrote and compiled Mahabharata had all these placeholders.

 

Also no common man was hurt, the war was confined to a battlefield and soldiers.

 

Stark contrast to tenets that give full license to  war booty, conversions and collateral damage of innocents.

1) Krishna picking his chakra and attacking Bhishma  when realising that Dharma is losing.

2) Arjun attacking Bhishma from behind shikhandi

3)Killing drons when he was unarmed.

4) Killing karna when he was unarmed

5) Killing Duryodhana by hitting on his thighs going against the rules.

 

The fact is by their standards the rules were broken by both sides.There was no need for Hindu's to stick to war rules against muslims.

 

And Hindu rulers were not going to hurt common people as war was going to happen in India not on muslim soil.

 

As far yudhistra going to hell is concerned , acheiving hos status of Dharma is impossible for any human

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2018 at 12:41 AM, Mariyam said:

Not foolish, but idealistic.

 

Ideally, the Waqf board should just have relinquished all claim to that spot and built a mosque on land maybe a few kms from the lord Ram janmabhoomi. But given the boards' (pre demolition) unnecessary stubborn attitude , we have missed that bus. It would have been a very good example of reconciliation.

But to expect Waqf board to not fight it now, after the demolition is very naive. Backing down now would look very cowardly on their part. I don't see them backing out at all.

wb have not missed anything. It is plain and simple denying of the fact that they dont believe in pluralism. I can understand that they are like that but what about moderates from the community, especially those who were chest thumping for intolerance, the award wapsi gang, those who felt like leaving the country. 

 

hypocrites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2018 at 10:39 PM, Mariyam said:

The so called 'representatives' of the Muslim community not only accept that there were atrocities, but some of them tend to gloat over it too. It is sickening.  But what has that to do with the verdict? Which 'representative' has a case going on wrt Babri Masjid/ lord Ram Janmabhoomi issue?

Who exactly is a Muslim community representative? For integration into the mainstream it s necessary that people have representatives on the basis of the work they do and not on the basis of their religious affiliation.

Sir, you may call me all the names that you wish to. But some basic premises about this case.

1-The Waqf board is doing what is kind of its stated job. It is the precise reason that the state governments has instituted this board on the basis of the Waqf Act.. To regulate and maintain Waqf property issues both movable and immovable. Of course, you can pose the question: should they be taking the fight to the Supreme Court? Ideally not. Give up all claim. But they are well within their rights to fight it out. 

2-Waqf board is not spreading fear/hatred in the minds of common Muslims. If anything, the act of demolition of the Masjid did that. Since we are on this topic, the massive political gain because of the Babri Masjid demolition was for the BJP. And that too can be a cause of fear. 

3-Waqf board's case is basically that of a title deed. The Waqf board or its predecessor organization has not changed the status quo. Their case so far has been to challenge the changes in status quo.

4- Every action of the Waqf board has been completely constitutional. Yet you choose to vilify them, of all people.

How do they claim rights to the land? There was no wakf board when Babar demolished the Ram temple and built a moque on it's land. Does Wakf board have the right to own, Jumma Masjid in Delhi/Agra, Taj Mahal, etc?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 11/1/2018 at 7:19 PM, Muloghonto said:

:laugh:.
He's just salty that we give such thoughts zero % of our daily brain or financial energies.

More like you are desperate for attention, every thread I am atheist blah blah blah using the same tired gif. For someone who spends hours on this forum in every religion related thread, this post is kind of ironic, that speaks volumes of your brain energies, or lack there of in this : you literally spam threads related to religion and then say at the same time that you don't spend brain energy on the matter. 

 

Poor guy is so insecure about it he shares it in every thread:hysterical: 

 

 

Edited by Moochad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2018 at 8:43 PM, Muloghonto said:

This is simply because, we are NOT talking about nationalists or rulers of a NATION. This is the Maratha King, *NOT* King of England or Emperor of Japan of the last 500 years. These were ALL upper-class lordlings, fighting for *THEIR* Jaagirs and their personal domains. 

As such, they fought the Mughals, the same way ANY ruler fights their rivals or overlords - just like the muslims rulers of Bahmani Sultanate or the Nizams - they sense an opportunity and rebel to seize the moment. Some die in failure, some succeed. 

Sorry missed this gem, 

 

This is a bold faced lie

 

Please provide evidence that the named Hindu kings were only concerned with their personal jaagirs :facepalm:

Edited by Moochad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2018 at 6:35 PM, Alam_dar said:

Yaar, religious people gather to fight and kill for religious places, but if atheists gather only in order to piss together, then you are pissed off. 

 
I am not your yaar, anyone who justifies discrimination against Hindus like you did before is no friend of mine.

 

Read the pic again, I guess I will have to spell it out for you: a person is minding his own business taking a piss in an empty restroom, but an Atheist feels it necessary to come up to him in the direct next toilet and share with him that he is an Atheist.   

 

Mulo and you are apparently so desperate for attention that you need to tell people who didn't ask, that you are atheists and bring up the subject when noone is talking about it. Literally nothing in this thread has anything to do with Atheists, for or against them etc, it was only he who brought it up. That is textbook attention seeking behavior.    

 

Then again, your countryman @Green Monster called you out on doing the same exact thing earlier a long time ago. And you are proving him correct in the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread.  Literally no one on this forum cares if you are Atheist or not, yet you lot need to derail threads unrelated to the topic? 

 

And you are the cartoon who accused another poster @Tibarnof planning on killing you with conservative Pakistanis. Pot meet kettle.  

 

FYI, Atheists are some of the biggest murders in history, especially in recent history. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to justify it, the record is as bad as Islamists in kill counts.   

Edited by Moochad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...