Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members
  • Content count

    6,204
  • Runs

    79,780 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    50d 16h 17m 3s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Yeah. If there was ever a total, utter failure and 'manual on how NOT to fight a war, even with an inferior enemy', Panipat III should be the ultimate headline. Zero effort to make allies and categorically pissing off the few allies they did have, taking a humongous pilgrim train that they feel obligated to protect along, fighting a slow but sure tactically losing strategy. Its absurd how much hand-wringing Panipat III gets, when Panipat III would make the top-10 worst FAIL of a battle i can think of, but Saraighat gets like...zero air time. Indeed. If they had a 'Frederick/Peter the Great', they'd have taken a defensive, aggressive posture, centralized more, got the peasantry up on their feet and create a standing army that would frighten anyone for sheer size. If Marathas had a leader like that, we could have gone the way of China with imperial powers ( i.e., the Brits and rest would've expanded their trade posts and held their superiority over us no doubt, but we'd not be straight-up conquered by them). The odds were against the Marathas after Panipat debacle, true. But others have been in worse positions and lucked out with a strong, effective leader. Look no further than Russia - before Peter the Great's vigorous rule, Russia came within an inch of becoming Poland (as ridiculous as it sounds, its true). It could've been saved if their polity wasn't so short-sighted. I don't see Khanwa as such important, because i do not see defeat of Babur as defeat of Muslims in India. I see it as a potential to've been a successful Rajput rebellion/resitance of invader but Rajputs were in no position to take the Muslim strong-holds in Delhi-PUnjab region.
  2. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    How is it a wrong scale, since they too, are men sitting around thinking about what was 'told' to them by their ancestors before writing it down. When Sanjaya is describing the world, he is doing a bloody poor job compared to that of an actual map of the world, for eg. Ergo, he knew less of the world(Valmiki). So why is that a wrong scale ?! If someone is telling me to live my life a certain way, i would want facts from him/her. Facts about phenomenal universe why so, not just empty claims of 'God told me'. I have no way of knowing if thats a lie or truth, which means, its not a factual observation to begin with. So then we are left with, what they understood of this universe. And they understood a lot less than you or I do. How can people less educated than me, come up with more complicated facts than me ? They can think any fantasy they want- that i won't deny. They can dream all they want about a God story. Doesn't make it fact or real. So what is so 'complicated' to understand in the so-called scriptures, tell me ? Can you quote me a single part of the passage from any scripture, where 'humans today have not understood any of the meaning of the sentence' ? I have no way of knowing they were saying the truth, if there is no evidence of what they claim. As i said, if i am to 'wait for evidence that they are wrong', then logically, i am left with no alternative but to accept EVERYTHING i hear as true. Because everything, theoretically, can be true, if you do not know the entire universe. Since you do not know what else is in the universe, you must also accept any idea- because that idea can be true in an incomplete set. To say 'i searched, i didnt find any proof anywhere, there is nowhere else to look', is impossible with ANY fantasy claim. To demonstrate, i will say, whatever you say about God, just change the word to 'Superman/Batman/Thanos' and it is just exactly the same idea. Only difference, less people follow it, less rigidly. The reason its not easy to digest, is the same reason almost every religious book is not easy to digest- if it were so easy to digest, the fraud of their claim (that they are saying its God but can present no evidence of utter perfection of anything to demonstrate its from God), will be laid bare. First, Mahabharata is not written by Krishna. Its by Valmiki. He is the source we have. Krishna's hand didn't write the prose. Valmiki's did. Second, why would he tell me- oh i don't know- the best and most obvious way to demonstrate 'knowledge beyond your capability, that still won't make sense' is to show such knowledge. If i wanted to show a primitive amazonian I know way more than him, I'd simply prove it by leaving a math theorem that I know they will eventually crack but not for a thousand years maybe. Thats why. Obvious, implicit proof of divinity, is lacking. But claim is made, all over the place. You want ego-less life, well there are plenty of Buddhist and Jain ego-less monks too out there, who reject all the Gods of hinduism, so God is not necessary for ego-less life, i may add. To not believe in God, is not to be an egotist, that is the classic Abrahamic (Muslim/Jew/Christian) ploy. But as Indians, we should know better than to accuse atheists as egotistic. Because there ARE plenty of Buddhist sects and Jains too (even if they are minority), who still maintain their staunch atheism. Your ancestors were not a lot wiser, they were a lot less overstimulated than you were. thats the key difference. we are getting smarter and more educated as a species. No question. But with modernity, we are also getting over-stimulated and our entire lives revolve more and more around new, wonderful experiences. Our ancestors were a lot more black and white, because their lives were a lot more black and white. They had to live by a much narrower path or they died. Less secure world, way more disease related deaths, way more war related deaths, way more capital crimes, etc etc. Since you like the Gods so much, let me make an example for you: To compare Valmiki to us, is to actually compare Valmiki to Indra. Like Indra, our average guy today, knows more about everything than Valmiki- including, religion. We have millions and millions of people who have working knowledge of atleast half a dozen religions today, including Hinduism. Like Indra, we understand technology that we cannot explain to Valmiki in 2 minutes, like Indra, we have power and knowledge un-imaginable. But like Indra, we are not perfect and have our own set of 'godly problems' that may just be the end of us. And lastly, of course not- i am not discounting the baseline.Which is why i have taken care to call them people with inferior knowledge/less knowledge than grade 8 kids and not 'stupider, less smart/dumber people'. Because I have no problem accepting that Aryabhatta, the man, was 100 times smarter than me. But i know 1000 times more than him, is my point. Baseline is reality. Fair or unfair, reality is, you know more about this universe, what works and what doesn't, than guys 2000 years ago did.
  3. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    How am i twisting words, when you said 'name one', (i named more than one) and then also told you 'why its always the muslims'. Whats being twisted ?!
  4. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    She was as successful as the next military President of Pakistan would be, if he came out as gay. Thats the long and short (and its really short) of it, for dear little Razia.
  5. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Its ok to not have concept of not killing your kin. You think every Chinese emperor in the last 1000 years killed his own kin ? ( I don't mean the Mongol or Manchu overlords, i mean their natives). Nope. It was a dead-set system they came up with, where succession followed certain laws, no if and or but. If you fight,its you vs the entire empire and good luck, except in few 'ripe' situations. Much better,overall system, if you ask me. That is where the Maratha leadership failed. Mughals let go Shahu and everything fell apart for their leadership from then on. Very poor and i must point out, its not a flaw that the likes of Vijayanagar had (perpetual succession crisis), in the same catastrophic sense the Marathas did. Yes, but Marathas had no business not adapting AFTER Panipat. Sure, their leadership was fractured and thats what was the ultimate problem, but after getting crushed in Panipat, they had no business just doing 'more of the same'. Especially when they had knowledge what company troops can/cannot do, because they were around when Portugal tried to mess around with the Mughals and saw the power of the Euros 50 years ago. Their military system, right from the get-go, fails to adapt from an offensive, conqusitional force to a force that can fight pitched battles and win versus most opposition. these two things - failure to provide successful centralized admin and reform the military from a semi-guerrilla force of large numbers of light cavalry & infantry backed up by excellent cannonry- will go down as the prime failure of the Marathas in my books. Rajputs dropped the ball, but the ball was dropped a long time before the Rajputs came around. I just see Rajputs as the 'orcs' of India. You are morons to fight them, because they are the honey-badger who will always do more damage than it should, resist than it should. But beyond that, they never did much of any note. Even before the Rajputs were Rajputs, their Pratihara ancestors suffered from the same problem of 'perpetual division of feudal fiefs between clans and semi-independence when a weak ruler shows up'. This has been a fatal flaw of feudal architecture of western & Central India since the last 1500 years.
  6. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Sure. And I agree. My point still stands : I said most, not all. Your point is still incorrect : You said, and i quote: " tell me one king in the world who didnt do all this ? why everyone pick only muslims ?" To which, i answered your question. I told you of not one, but MANY kings who did not do this, even with power to do so. I also said, why people pick on the Muslims - because what we know of history shows, that in the last 2000 years, more Muslim kings - almost everywhere in the world (with SE Asia perhaps the only exception), are more prone to a little bit of genocide than not, while for rest of the world, barring a couple of cultural exceptions here and there (nomad steppe Indo-European/Turkic/Mongol cultures for e.g.), most kings in position to do so did not genocide a city and/or convert its population. I don't seem to see what the problem is, for you to continue this discussion forward and address what i just said.
  7. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Hindus need a reminder, but the jauhar sends the wrong message IMO. We shouldn't be like the Rajputs - talk about unity and fail (which we are inching towards), then go on suicide mission while all civilians kill themselves. Then we all die. We die = we lose. End of story. There are other examples to follow. Perhaps not Indian, but that shouldn't stop us from doing whats best for us.
  8. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Alexander was better educated, in 330 BC, than almost any muslim ruler has been, in history of Islam. Most people don't know this, but Alexander's actual teacher (his direct,living Guru) was Aristotle.
  9. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    And i specifically said, entire reason why Europe is the maibaap of the world, is because almost no Euro king in history promptly annihilated cities and forced people to convert. I said from the data we have, it becomes apparent, that MOST non-muslim kings, do not genocide the losers. You challenged that - on what basis ?
  10. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    So if you don't have knowledge either, how can you claim that most kings did kill and brutalize all the peasants ? In either case, you said 'name me someone who doesnt do it/all rulers do it'- i can prove that as categorically false. In recorded history we have so far, most kings do not go killing or converting civilians from the defeated kingdom/people. That much, is a fact.
  11. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    So where does it say that Mohairs are all converted at sword point or that all Pakistanis are converted at sword point ?? I specifically said that the Baloch/Sindhis were converted without genocide (i was wrong about the Sindhis).
  12. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    You are correct ! i totally forgot about Bin Qasim. (My focus on Sindh history from this period has been the catastrophic defeats suffered by Junaid at the hands of the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas).
  13. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Your answer is accepted but if you check, i was posting while you answered. And no, my many ARE enough. I can show you, most kings in the world, did not go brutalizing the civilians of conquered people. Most Indian kings, European kings for the last 600 years - did not force convert civilians or raze cities. Infact, the only reason Europe is the top dog of mankind, for science, tech and 'new world paradigm', i.e. the modern world, is because it becomes immediately apparent, that until WWI, Europeans hardly ever killed off an entire city of losing population. This allowed their knowledge to build over time, instead of re-inventing the wheel (proverbial) every 100 years. This is also why the Muslim empires worldwide, from after 1000 AD, amounted to Jack $hit in terms of science and tech. Because when you live in a system where one king kills off entire cities when he wins against another, you are stuck in a system where every 100 years or less, the system is 'reset' and nothing is built upon. This is also why India was an ancient bastion of knowledge and we invented so much things before muslims came - because most Indian kings didnt go destroying civilians and the knowledge associated with them, like Muslims did.
  14. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Most hindu kings - forget small fry like Prithviraj Chauhan. Raja raja Chola. Rajadhiraja Chola. Rajendra Chola. Vikramaditya III. Samudragupta. Chandragupta Maurya. Harshavardhana. Pulakeshi II the list is endless for # of Indian rulers who did not brutalize the civilians. Muslims find this an alien concept when conquering non-muslim population. Heck, even muslim population- if you check the fall of the Abbassids or the Ottoman-Safavid wars, it becomes clear that muslim kings are overwhelmingly okay with genocide. even when they are muslims.
  15. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    I said no such thing. I said most Pakistanis, they are muslims because their ancestors got raped and forced to be muslim. That does not equate to each and every one. I even specified which ones most likely are peaceful converts. So stop twisting my word and running away from the question asked of you.
  16. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Many kings didnt do this. Ashoka for eg. Countless Roman Emperors (not all of them). Frederick the Great. Peter the Great. There are plenty of rulers in the world, who don't promptly kill civilians and force convert people to their faith. And now, kiddo, stop dodging the question.
  17. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    How is this analogy relevant ? What did i not 'understand' from religious texts ? There aint no math theorem unsolved hanging out there or a logic conundrum that is unknown. Those are books which makes a claim. And supply zero evidence except 'i say so, in this book'. The 'real meaning of life', rests ultimately, on understanding the phenomenal universe- the facts about universe. Its this worldly knowledge that lets me know, i evolved from a bacteria, not from two magic beings (Adam, Eve, Manu, whatever). Everything we understand of this universe - where it came from (so far), where it may be going, etc. are derived from worldly, empiric knowledge. And those who wrote those books, had far less knowledge of this universe than you or I do. So why do they get to tell me about existence, which is fundamentally a question of universal knowledge and phenomena, when they knew so much less than me on the very same topic ?? Knowledge is only measured in tangiable ways. If you cannot provide evidence/logical theorem of your knowledge (mathematics for e.g.), then its not knowledge, its belief. Infact, that is the critical difference between fantasy belief system and knowledge - one does not have proof and evidence, other has. This is why 'God' is a matter of belief, but Sun is not. Because we have knowledge about the Sun- belief is not required. And yes, everything i said is true- your writer of Mahabharata did not even know how many moons are around Saturn. or what the heck is a black hole. Or quantum phenomena. Or any such thing. I can easily prove, that a grade 10 math guy with A in math, knew more math than the greatest mathematician (Aryabhatta) 1500 years ago. Just as i can easily prove, that i know more about math and physics than Issac Newton did. I am not claiming you or I are more 'evolved' than our ancestors. Not in the genetic/biological sense. But they were inferior to us in knowledge. That much, is categoric. So why are we letting less knowedgable people than us, tell us what to do with our lives ?? Does that not seem contradictory to you ??
  18. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Which you are dodging. Thats the question i referred to. So quit dodging and answer the question.
  19. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    ^^ Though i agree the Marathas were far superior in statecraft to the Rajputs, even they suffered from the critical flaw of confederacy. It becomes apparent that the reason Marathas came close to being a great power and failed are two fold: 1. Like rajputs, they could not devise a successful, long term plan of imperialism, they fractured in Scindhias, Bhonsales and such, with the Peshwa running to the Brits and selling off the future of the Maratha empire, just to protect himself against the other major clans !! They were not as bad as rajputs, but their confederate nature was fully exploited by the British 2. Marathas came to power as a guerrilla army. By guerrilla warfare, they brought a major world power (Mughal Empire) to its knees. And then it became, for a 30-50 year period, a major world power. But they forgot, that they are no longer guerrilla rebels, its THEY who are the empire. And as such, failed to reform their military system. The Pindaris work great, when you are raiding a state power and inflicting 'death by a thousand cuts, will run away when you try to challenge me, until i meet you on MY terms'. But what the heck do Pindaris do when THEY are the state power, when THEY have to protect their domain and fight pitched battles ? Be useless and die. That is not to say, India didn't have good statecraft polities. Vijayanagara was our last, non-muslim polity who had a clear plan, were united, had great long term picture, etc. So were the Cholas, Palas, Rashtrakutas, Guptas and the Magadh dynasties. but the people who get all the limelight today- Rajputs and the Marathas - they were an embarrassment for the big picture in the long term. Rajputs more so than Marathas.
  20. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    1. Why ? because most Indians are ignorant of history, thats why. Most Indians know jack-$hit about Kanauj triangle or Chola-Chalukya ravages. 2. Saying you are more evolved, doesn't make you so. 3. I am not saying only atheist can be liberal. I am saying an atheist liberal has more integrity than a religious liberal, because an atheist liberal is doing it, because its right. A theist does it, because there is risk-reward to their ideology for it. 4. I am yet to meet an atheist, who discards 'knowledge'.What they do discard, is books written by men who knew less of the universe, than grade 8 kids do today, when those books tell us how to live our lives. Do you take life lessons from a 5 year old ? No ? Why ? Because they lack knowledge (not because they are dumb. Nobody follows a super-intelligent 5 year old either). Same applies to those who wrote those religious books. They are ignorant, with knowledge level of today's children. So why should we listen to them ?? 1. I have no need to search for said answers of God. Searching for God is as valid as searching for the Avengers. Are you searching for the avengers ? for Tony Stark ? no ? God has exactly that much relevance to us. God does not interact with me directly- there is nothing about God that comes from outside human source. And its always been used for social control, so i see the need to invent God (social control), but no need for God to actually exist. Either way, 'why we are here' is not an ultimatey relevant question to 'what to do once we are here'. 2. Your analogy assumes there is a God. Atheists are not 'all religions are wrong, true God got a bad rep', atheists are like 'i see no reason to believe in God in the first place'. 3. Yes, it can be empirically proven, that those who wrote the Mahabharata/Ramayana/Koran/Bible knew less of this universe than grade 8 kids do. Grade 8 kids today know the difference between virus and bacteria. They know of Neptune and Pluto. They know of black holes. All of these facts are not known to those with inferior knowledge thousands of years ago, who wrote those books. Valmiki, Mohammed- we are a thousand times more knowledgable than them- Forget religious preachers, any high school graduate with good grades know more than Aryabhatta did. Any grade 12 biology pass knows more than Sushruta ever did. Its not an empty claim, that those of 1000-1500+ years ago, knew less than our children do today. The most knowledgable man 1000 years ago, knew less- about everything- than a 18 year old high-school graduate does with As. It is empirically verifiable. I won't claim to be smarter than Issac Newton. But i know way, way more math than that guy. I knew more than Aryabatta when i was in grade 10. Every kid who got As in GCSE/ICSE/CBSE grade 10 math, knows more math than Aryabhatta ever did. These are all empirically verifiable. So explain to me, why does a man who knows far less about the universe than me, gets to tell me how to live my life in this universe.
  21. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    As a side note, i wish Indian media stopped glorifying the Rajputs. yes, they were brave warriors. And one or two of their rulers were smart enough to prioritize education. But thats it. They were primitive, backwards fools, even by their own day's standard - total & utter failure in forming a stable kingdom. No Rajput was able to start a dynasty - even the few Rajputs who managed to become 'maharaja', failed to form a dynasty. This, despite the entire genesis of Rajput identity happening while Muslims are invading. Being brave in war is good, but to glorify such fools, who were such utter failures in meaningful things-like forming a stable kingdom, unity, seamless transition of power, etc. is just glorification of stupids. Rajputs were more 'Hulk' than Batman. Brave. Good fighters. Completely brainless and complete failures at the big picture. Atleast some of the other people- like Bongs, Kannadingas, Telegus- they formed stable, successful empires without being a continuous fracture of bunch of tiny,petty chiefs continuously squabbling amongst themselves and occasionally electing an 'overall leader' amongst them.
  22. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    No, his question was : You are yet to answer the question, so you are dodging the question.
  23. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Nitpicking here. Not Safavids. Safavids never harmed India or historic India, except Kandahar- the limit of historic India. The Saffarids were standard genocidal islamists. Saffarids were around 800-900AD period, Safavids were around 1400s period.
  24. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Depends where. Kerala, peaceful converts. Ganges valley - forced to convert and coerced to convert. Because you did not answer his question. That is dodging. This is not a private conversation, this is a public conversation. So anyone can butt-in. Now, stop dodging the question and answer his question.
  25. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Pakistani non-mohajir muslims, particularly the Punjabis and the Pashtuns. Pashtuns adopted Islam after being genocided the heck out of them by Yacoub-As-laith-Al-Saffar. The founder of the Saffarid dynasty. Most Punjabi muslims are muslims, because of force conversion by the muslims. The Pakistani muslims who converted without genocide, were the Baloch and Sindhis- even though Sindhis were coerced to convert by jaziya. This is not a hindu claim, this is a muslim claim itself. Timur for e.g., left back categoric statement that when he genocided his way through Punjab, he force converted many hindus into Islam.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×