kubrickian Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 There's something weird about Muslims. Even the people who seem progressive and open minded on the outside seem to have an undercurrent of radical ideology and fundamentalist tendencies. Its bizarre. randomGuy, Ironhide and mishra 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 4 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Yes, Ashoka killed a lot of indians and later repented it and became a monk. Timur killed 17 million people and then wrote about it in great sadistic detail. Yes, they are the same.Plus Right. combination of things actually - Ashok was Indian Not an outsider. - Later on repented as you mentioned - Plus Ashok is a word from an Indian language , Sanskrit. Ironhide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Irony is that Bollywood is rejoicing the arrival of Taimur...I am pretty sure last time Taimur arrived,all the naachne-gaane waale were peeing in their pants waiting to be executed. Ironhide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 2 hours ago, zen said: As I said, it is hard to judge deeds performed in very distant histroy through today's lens. By today's standards the likes of Alexander, Ceaser, Napolean, etc., would be tyrants More importantly, the British ruled Ind for over 200 years inflicting numerous atritocities And let's not forget the cruel aspect of slavery / slave trade Coming back to Mongols, they ruled China (through Qing dynasty iirc) and Ind (through Mughals). The Japanese occupiation of China and other parts was brutal. USA has probably killed more ppl than any other country / tyrant to fuel its military-industrial complex Also read up on what the Islamic Calipate did in Africa and Europe My point is more about looking at history through the norms of the respective time vs through today's lens First Point-Ashoka is more famous for his redemption story than his atrocities...He became almost saint like in his later years..That is why he is looked up to.....He regretted his actions and renounced violence-Did Taimur,Ghazni etc. ever do that? Infact weren't they known to kill their own brothers or imprison their own fathers etc.....I don't think Ashoka apart from being a conqueror is "popular" for any such acts. Alexander,Ceaser,Napolean were all conquerors....They were not known for racial/Ethnic cleansing or genocide-Yes War and War crimes,maybe. Hitler-Obviously no one names their kid Adolf for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) Come on, it's just a name. We don't have to give a single fcek about this. Edited December 21, 2016 by Detonator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 5 hours ago, vayuu1 said: Would you name your son Ashok? Had he not seen the error of his ways and turned a new leaf...he probably would be in the same category.He did repent and made amends. You won't find many people naming their kids Ravan, Duryodhan ,Kekayi or shrupnakha....... maniac, Ironhide and Muloghonto 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 1 minute ago, radhika said: Had he not seen the error of his ways and turned a new leaf...he probably would be in the same category.He did repent and made amends. You won't find many people naming their kids Ravan, Duryodhan ,Kekayi or shrupnakha....... This Ashok argument is so stupid....Ashoka is remembered for becoming a peace loving monk...one of the greatest inspirational and redemotion stories. Also Yes Ashoka's army killed soldiers not innocent civilians like Taimur etc...who looted civilians and ravaged cities. Ironhide, randomGuy and beetle 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 As for naming of the poor child....... What else can we expect from a guy coming from a family who believe in killing animals for sport.Saif and his father...both have a history. Pity they didn't live in the age when killing humans for sport was acceptable. They can always take solace in naming the child after a Barbarian who did that. As for Kareena.....she can be excused .Her two brain cells must be tired. Book_Worm, Ironhide, maniac and 6 others 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New guy Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Yes, those who want cheap publicity randomGuy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 1 hour ago, radhika said: As for naming of the poor child....... What else can we expect from a guy coming from a family who believe in killing animals for sport.Saif and his father...both have a history. Pity they didn't live in the age when killing humans for sport was acceptable. They can always take solace in naming the child after a Barbarian who did that. As for Kareena.....she can be excused .Her two brain cells must be tired. Wow. What a post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narenpande1 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, radhika said: As for naming of the poor child....... What else can we expect from a guy coming from a family who believe in killing animals for sport.Saif and his father...both have a history. Pity they didn't live in the age when killing humans for sport was acceptable. They can always take solace in naming the child after a Barbarian who did that. As for Kareena.....she can be excused .Her two brain cells must be tired. Top Post. Here is something I have never understood about subcontinental muslims. They all suffer from the disease of glorifying invaders of India, the ones who looted, plundered and did forced conversions. Sheer barbarians. I thought this disease was confined to Pakistanis. But it is seen even among blue blooded Indian muslims. Pitiful. But why blame them, when it took us 6 decades for us to rename some of our streets and alleys based on these barbarians. Does a certain Aurangazeb road in Delhi's most elite district ring a bell ? This mofu was a bigger barbarian than Taimur Edited December 21, 2016 by narenpande1 Ironhide and randomGuy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 3 hours ago, randomGuy said: Right. combination of things actually - Ashok was Indian Not an outsider. - Later on repented as you mentioned - Plus Ashok is a word from an Indian language , Sanskrit. What kind of an arguement is this? Ashok was an outsider to the people of Kalinga. The very country he invaded and the soldiers he butchered. There wasn't a concept of India back then. tweaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 3 hours ago, maniac said: First Point-Ashoka is more famous for his redemption story than his atrocities...He became almost saint like in his later years..That is why he is looked up to.....He regretted his actions and renounced violence-Did Taimur,Ghazni etc. ever do that? Infact weren't they known to kill their own brothers or imprison their own fathers etc.....I don't think Ashoka apart from being a conqueror is "popular" for any such acts. Alexander,Ceaser,Napolean were all conquerors....They were not known for racial/Ethnic cleansing or genocide-Yes War and War crimes,maybe. Hitler-Obviously no one names their kid Adolf for obvious reasons. I have not made any comments on Ashoka so I guess you are replying to someone else My point is that it is hard to judge very distant history through today's lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, radhika said: As for naming of the poor child....... What else can we expect from a guy coming from a family who believe in killing animals for sport.Saif and his father...both have a history. Pity they didn't live in the age when killing humans for sport was acceptable. They can always take solace in naming the child after a Barbarian who did that. As for Kareena.....she can be excused .Her two brain cells must be tired. This is Saif Ali Khan's second son. If we were to go by your line of thinking, he should have named his first son after a blood thirsty barbarian too. His first son is called Ibrahim, incidentally the last emperor of the Delhi Sultanate was a certain Ibrahim Lodhi. The guy who tried to defend India ( at least his empire) against the foreigner Babur. Maybe Saif the historian named his son after him. Why so harsh towards Kareena? I agree she shouldn't have done Refugee and Main Prem Ki Diwani hoon. But everyone picks rubbish movies once in a while. Edited December 21, 2016 by Mariyam Ironhide and tweaker 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) ROFL. So much outrage. Saif is sitting back laughing. Unlike Aamir and SRKs of the world, Saif is the definition of "wealthy". Born with a silverspoon. He lives on a different plane. What I would like to know is, how the * did Pataudis survive the land reform purge? Edited December 21, 2016 by surajmal Mariyam and tweaker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalebi_bhai Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Mariyam said: This is Saif Ali Khan's second son. If we were to go by your line of thinking, he should have named his first son after a blood thirsty barbarian too. His first son is called Ibrahim, incidentally the last emperor of the Delhi Sultanate was a certain Ibrahim Lodhi. Maybe Saif the historian named his son after him. What is it that is really bothering you about people's reaction? The criticism of Saif-Kareena's decision or the criticism of imperialists who used Islam as their political-military doctrine or both? Edited December 21, 2016 by jalebi_bhai Ironhide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Just now, zen said: I have not made any comments on Ashoka so I guess you are replying to someone else My point is that it is hard to judge very distant history through today's lens Sure but the difference being is that Taimur never ruled in India...so his invasion stops at looting and taking back riches from India..it wasn't like he was a friendly visitor who got a lot of goodies from the local king. There are plenty of arguments for Akbar,Humayun,Babar,Jahangir/Salim etc etc being tyrants too but at the end of the day they were emperors of India which is a fact and no one cares if someone named their kid that because it is what it is. Similarly with Taimur only known thing is he was a invader and bandit who killed innocent civilians Big difference. Even Ravana was supposed to be a noble Brahmin king who made 1 blunder in his life and even more that is just mythology but obviously no one names their kid that....Sure any parent can name their kid Ravan if they want but the kid will surely be bullied and 2)clearly if the parents are not ignorant they are trying to make a diss statement by naming their kid that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 10 minutes ago, Mariyam said: This is Saif Ali Khan's second son. If we were to go by your line of thinking, he should have named his first son after a blood thirsty barbarian too. His first son is called Ibrahim, incidentally the last emperor of the Delhi Sultanate was a certain Ibrahim Lodhi. Maybe Saif the historian named his son after him. So quick question Is Ibrahim Lodhi the only popular Ibrahim out there-Not accounting for Dawood Ibrahim...I am pretty sure there are plenty of well known Ibrahims in history....so maybe that was given a pass but Taimur the Lame really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 16 minutes ago, Mariyam said: What kind of an arguement is this? Ashok was an outsider to the people of Kalinga. The very country he invaded and the soldiers he butchered. There wasn't a concept of India back then. Ofcourse there was a concept of India. We called it Bharatvarsha/Aryavarta. Which we see in Panini's writings around 500 BC When the Greeks came to India, they called the whole place India. At first it was just Pakistan (coz thats how far Alexander went and Alexander's arrival was the first recorded meeting of Greeks & Indians) but shortly thereafter, when Megasthenes went to Chandragupta Maurya's court as the Seleucid ambassador, he called the entire land 'India'. India didnt mean a country back then, it meant a region- corresponding to what would be eastern Afghanistan, Pakistan, India,Nepal & Bangladesh. The same way they used the word 'Europa' to describe the continent/subcontinent of Europe. Ironhide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 From Wold War 2-Why does the name "Adolf" stick out when every free nation fought the war and all had leaders/generals and lot of soldiers were killed by every country...Answer this question and you will know what the problem with the name Taimur is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts