Wonderful to see the crowd supporting Pakistan

[BH-BAIB]

6 hours ago, Mesky99 said:

That Bradley joker wants India to maintain peace with Pakistan even after tolerating four wars where Pak was the aggressor only because he has one moderate pakistani friend whose family loves India lol. Surgical strike needed on this app.

I think he also went from

 

It was happening for both teams

TO

Yes , some people might be doing it

That also is some sort of eye opener for him hopefully

                  

 

 

[singhvivek141]

6 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Thank you for acknowledging that Hindus also participated in significant invasions. However, Hinduvta and it’s supported desperately need these lessons as they seem to think they were victims of invasions only. 

As you rightly pointed out, invaders of muslim faith also killed other Muslim invaders. The bloodbath was non-exclusive at any particular religion. 

More so, it’s impossible to determine the nature of Hindu/Sanatan invasions and whether they focused only on militaristic targets. It’s all based on verbal traditions. We all know that historians and civilizations tend to glorify their own invasions. Don’t fall for it. Invasion/war is bad, regardless of who does it. 

It is actually a recorded history, Chinese traveller's like Huen Tsang & Fa-Hein have written at length about these. James Todd has also mentioned the same in his book on Rajasthan's history.

 

Forced attack on the civilization just changes the overall social fabric of entire society, taxes like Jaziya are a prime example of that.

[rollingstoned]

7 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Complex interplay of politics, religion, and economic dynamics.

The feudal lords in the Muslim league wanted to retain power and using the Islam card was the best way to get it.

on the other hand, the lack of Muslim representation in Congress didn’t help either. 

 

Again, you are obsessed with the past. It’s time to move on. 

Not the case, we have recorded history to prove it conclusively from less than a century ago. There was no Marxist bourgeois/proletariat angle to it other than what one wishes to imagine.

you are obsessed with seeing the past through revisionist lens and distorting it so think others who don't do that are 'obsessed' with history, time to deal with it.

[rollingstoned]

8 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Again, I don’t discriminate in violence. All extremist and violent ideas are bad.

I am not going to sit and rank them. 
The discrimination and politicization of violence is what strengthens the movement of violence. The moment all humans condemn all violence, transformation begins. 

Wrong, if the fundamentals at the core are not the same it's simplistic generalization and a flawed heuristic to equate every kind of extreme as being equally condemnable in the absence of anything else. Someone acting in self defence is not the same as someone who is a perpetrator regardless of any gymanstics that occur to make it look like the former is the latter. We see this inversion playing out routinely. All this wishy washy humanism and pseudo pacifism does is ensure the aggressor preserves their gains and puts it in lock.

[diga]

11 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

 

I think you'll find that it's your bias due to being a Muslim which is why you keep focusing and seething about Islamic barbarism being rightfully exposed for what it was - and is - which is why you think others get given a free pass even when that's patently not the case. A lot of material exists on them too and by people you would consider 'BJP/RSS' ideologues so if you're really on a truth discovery mission you should find it without much trouble. it's only your own imagination and bias which leads you to think there is only a bias against Islamic invaders when that's not the case, the offence is pretty non discriminatory and equal opportunity in nature. 

Applies to a lot of muslims on this forum (may not be everyone)

[diga]

8 hours ago, BanningHindu said:

 

Even after that the HIndu population in West Pak and Bangladesh has reduced. Why is not that happening in India.

 

How many of you remember that Lebanon in 1980s was a christian majority country ? ( They used to win beauty pageants too)

 

[rollingstoned]

8 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

The stats usually quoted are propaganda. For example, the propaganda stat that says Hindu population decreased from 11% to 1% in west Pakistan was due to the change in mix after Bangladesh split in 1971. 
The Hindu population in what is now west Pakistan has actually slightly decreased.

 

There is a generational hate in our communities and countries. We should be very skeptical about the ideas being proliferated and do our own research. 

Lol, 7 million + non-Muslims were forcibly migrated to India from your part of the land to India after partition which was bound to affect it. No such demand was made on the Indian side yet according to you mentioning only infinitesmal increases in population % each census because you have not managed to completely genocide/convert the non-Muslims in your country has to be seen as some benevolent and merciful action and not peak cope.

 

No the generational hate in your community and country is from birth and childhood, you're just too indoctrinated to see it all while having no skepticism or desire to do your own research which would nail your misconceptions. It is not the same as the hate which will rightfully, come as a reaction. It's as Newtonian as it gets. 

[Vilander]

23 hours ago, Mariyam said:

What hatred?

 

The guy is wearing an Indian jersey, in case you didn’t notice. This is a neutral game. Most people will cheer whoever played better.  Didn’t see the game, but heard that SL was well cheered too.
 

He is also not waving a Pakistani flag. Waving that flag has had repercussions on people’s job prospects and in certain conditions can amount to sedition. 
 

I’m afraid the only one who has exposed his hatred here is YOU. Make a distinction, if a person waves a Pakistani flag and goes on to chant religious slurs demeaning the nation/ other faiths, it is an example of hatred. 
 

If one supports a mediocre Pakistani team against a third side, it is odd but not hateful. 

 

wow I have never seen you defend India with this much vigor. Why so much passion defending love for Pakistan ? lol. When a country makes it their primary objective to hate kill , behead unborn infant , rpe under age Hindus. Then some Hindus will probably develop some level of dislike for them, ;) it’s natural similar to your specific love of umma and umma ka chumma Pakistan..  how you doing Mariyam ? 

[Vilander]

On topic hope Indian agencies keep track of these flag bearers and probe them for terror financing ;) 

[Mesky99]

10 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Like I said, census show that Hindus as a proportion of Pakistan have increased since 1951. 
 

As for living together, I believe Muslims and Hindus can not only live together, they can thrive together. But this can only happen, if folks drop the past and focus on present and future. 

Nope we kaffirs can't live with momins, you got your big share in 47 and later Bangladesh, leave us alone, blasting Azan five times a day everyday is something which we don't enjoy, India is the land of Hindu civilization, it will remain so.

[Sharjah-Harjah]

2 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

If what 'Hindutva/RSS' asserts is consonant with both recorded and empirical history then it should not be a problem for the Marxists, secularists, Islamists, pseudo progressives, etc. who propagate a complete chimera replete with distortions and call it history all for purely ideological reasons, which is why they need to poison the well in the first place by constantly referring to 'sanki' history. The Chola 'invasions' - if you can even call it that since it was a part of their sphere of influence - were relatively benign and gladly accepted by the populace even till date since it actually civilized them - can still see in Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore -  not based on animus for a religion or race or a philosophical/ethical code so centred on wiping it out which only became a thing since Abrahamic cults took root in this world. 

Yes it's a fact that there were other invaders, but even ignoring the matter of a sense of proportion when comparing it with Paedophile worshipping desert cults, they also either subsumed into the host culture completely or were not bent on impoverishing/plundering the host nation which we see in the Kushan and Scythian case because of their own ethical codes. You're going to seriously compare this with Muslim barbarians? lol. Internal invasions being 'equated' with the kind of religiously sanctified holy war is not even in the same ballpark without seeing what underpinned them, just because these happen anywhere does not mean invasions bent upon genocide from abroad become kosher. But then again when you're an ignoramus desperate to engage in false equivalences, straw men and whataboutery  this will obviously escape you and you will strain to give irrelevant examples that even by themselves are too paltry and only reinforce my point since even a period of 5K years is incomparable in number with what was witnessed over a few 100 years, never mind the astronomical body count which Will Durant has mentioned in his work. 

 

Why should we move past history - especially when it shapes the present conspicuously - at some times and keep harking back to it at others? It seems a suggestion more out of convenience to hide one's own biases than rooted in a genuine desire to actually do it if some facts threaten certainly cherished delusions. Not to mention that it's both ahistoric and pure denialism to think nation-states, polities and cultures exist in some eternal now which is a blank slate with no link to the past at all, a notion that is absurd and clearly not the case.

 

I think you'll find that it's your bias due to being a Muslim which is why you keep focusing and seething about Islamic barbarism being rightfully exposed for what it was - and is - which is why you think others get given a free pass even when that's patently not the case. A lot of material exists on them too and by people you would consider 'BJP/RSS' ideologues so if you're really on a truth discovery mission you should find it without much trouble. it's only your own imagination and bias which leads you to think there is only a bias against Islamic invaders when that's not the case, the offence is pretty non discriminatory and equal opportunity in nature. 

The main point of this post is super unclear.

It seems many naive Indians have been indoctrinated to believe that Hindu conquerors and invaders were cute peacemakers. The people in the conquered lands gladly accepted the invaders and handed over the keys because they were being civilized. Elaborate propaganda is then imagined to manage the minds.  Do you really believe what you write? 
 

While Hindu invaders were cute and loving, the barbarians was reserved for the “desert cult”. 
 

And then anyone who logically disagrees and debates with you, is a Muslim or a Muslim apologist. Well, I am neither, as much as it surprises you. 

[bharathh]

2 minutes ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

The main point of this post is super unclear.

It seems many naive Indians have been indoctrinated to believe that Hindu conquerors and invaders were cute peacemakers. The people in the conquered lands gladly accepted the invaders and handed over the keys because they were being civilized. Elaborate propaganda is then imagined to manage the minds.  Do you really believe what you write? 
 

While Hindu invaders were cute and loving, the barbarians was reserved for the “desert cult”. 
 

And then anyone who logically disagrees and debates with you, is a Muslim or a Muslim apologist. Well, I am neither, as much as it surprises you. 

 

Any equivalents in your mind to even minor muslim tyrants like Bhatiyar Khilji or Sikandar Shah Miri? Forget the major ones like Aurangazeb

[Sharjah-Harjah]

2 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

Lol, 7 million + non-Muslims were forcibly migrated to India from your part of the land to India after partition which was bound to affect it. No such demand was made on the Indian side yet according to you mentioning only infinitesmal increases in population % each census because you have not managed to completely genocide/convert the non-Muslims in your country has to be seen as some benevolent and merciful action and not peak cope.

 

No the generational hate in your community and country is from birth and childhood, you're just too indoctrinated to see it all while having no skepticism or desire to do your own research which would nail your misconceptions. It is not the same as the hate which will rightfully, come as a reaction. It's as Newtonian as it gets. 

Again, you’ve fallen to a one sided indoctrination that aims to paint Muslims as Draculas and Hindus as cute victims.

That said, I do give it to you that you’re 1 of the few Indians who rightly pointed out that the decrease in Hindu population was driven by the migration in the 1-3 year period immediately following the partition. But after 1951, the Hindu proportions actually started increasing, not by much and you’re right about that. Many Indians have fallen to the propaganda that  the decrease happened due to “genocide” and forced conversations. While forced conversation is sadly and ugly reality, it’s sporadic and impacts a few hundred people a year.

 

What you failed to mention was an equal number of 7.2 Million muslims were also forced to migrate from India. My family and grand parents were also forced to migrate from UP to Karachi. I know the atrocities they faced. In Pakistan, we refer to ourselves as “Mujahirs”, which translate to migrants. The community is 30 million strong today (so nothing to sniff at) and Mujahir Quami movement MQM represent their rights in the center.  So again, Hindus are not the “victims” alone and the partition impacted all communities negatively. 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

45 minutes ago, bharathh said:

 

Any equivalents in your mind to even minor muslim tyrants like Bhatiyar Khilji or Sikandar Shah Miri? Forget the major ones like Aurangazeb

Look history is a dark alley and it’s impossible to ascertain what really happened, specially those that happened 2 or 3 thousand years ago. What’s common sense is that war/invasions cause atrocities and violence. 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

1 hour ago, Mesky99 said:

Nope we kaffirs can't live with momins, you got your big share in 47 and later Bangladesh, leave us alone, blasting Azan five times a day everyday is something which we don't enjoy, India is the land of Hindu civilization, it will remain so.

Lol, do you like headphones :p 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

3 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

Wrong, if the fundamentals at the core are not the same it's simplistic generalization and a flawed heuristic to equate every kind of extreme as being equally condemnable in the absence of anything else. Someone acting in self defence is not the same as someone who is a perpetrator regardless of any gymanstics that occur to make it look like the former is the latter. We see this inversion playing out routinely. All this wishy washy humanism and pseudo pacifism does is ensure the aggressor preserves their gains and puts it in lock.

Have you ever found a violent person or movement that doesn’t claim “self defense”? Russia claims self defense, Pakistan claims self defense, China claims self defense, US claims self defense, heck even terrorists claim the argument of “self defense”. 

Then, the question of extreme? How is “extreme” defined? Is it the number of people? What is the rationale and how do we agree on a definition.

[rollingstoned]

1 hour ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

The main point of this post is super unclear.

It seems many naive Indians have been indoctrinated to believe that Hindu conquerors and invaders were cute peacemakers. The people in the conquered lands gladly accepted the invaders and handed over the keys because they were being civilized. Elaborate propaganda is then imagined to manage the minds.  Do you really believe what you write? 
 

While Hindu invaders were cute and loving, the barbarians was reserved for the “desert cult”. 
 

And then anyone who logically disagrees and debates with you, is a Muslim or a Muslim apologist. Well, I am neither, as much as it surprises you. 

It's quite clear if you have the wherewithal to understand the nuance behind it instead of reflexively applying whataboutery to offer some weak justification for what is being criticized. 

 

It is not indoctrination if the evidence bears out the observations and nails the straw men, it is otoh perfect indoctrination to call the truth indoctrination because it doesn't suit your world view. Never mind that you don't even have the facts right because you are more interested in giving a pass to genocidal bigoted barbarians rather than actually engage in a fact finding mission which is why we keep seeing constant false equivalences and whataboutery. No 'hindu invader' ever did anything this so it doesn't matter whether they were 'cute peacemakers' or not when the point is about the subhuman barbarity that desert cult indoctrinated megalomaniacs were capable of and kept repeatedly showing over centuries. Something that you seem unwilling/incapable of seeing instead of trying to give a birdbrained rationalization that all invasions are somehow the same just by virtue of having occured. 

https://twitter.com/HerrBains/status/1504311391515136003?s=20

 

You haven't 'logically disagreed or debated' anything, you've just pretended to engage in fallacy after fallacy and falsehood after falsehood to hide your own biases and prejudices in some desperate attempt to be reasonable. I am not the least bit surprised about that, jehadi mental gymnastics and arguments are quite predictable.

 

[rollingstoned]

57 minutes ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Again, you’ve fallen to a one sided indoctrination that aims to paint Muslims as Draculas and Hindus as cute victims.

That said, I do give it to you that you’re 1 of the few Indians who rightly pointed out that the decrease in Hindu population was driven by the migration in the 1-3 year period immediately following the partition. But after 1951, the Hindu proportions actually started increasing, not by much and you’re right about that. Many Indians have fallen to the propaganda that  the decrease happened due to “genocide” and forced conversations. While forced conversation is sadly and ugly reality, it’s sporadic and impacts a few hundred people a year.

 

What you failed to mention was an equal number of 7.2 Million muslims were also forced to migrate from India. My family and grand parents were also forced to migrate from UP to Karachi. I know the atrocities they faced. In Pakistan, we refer to ourselves as “Mujahirs”, which translate to migrants. The community is 30 million strong today (so nothing to sniff at) and Mujahir Quami movement MQM represent their rights in the center.  So again, Hindus are not the “victims” alone and the partition impacted all communities negatively. 

Again, not indoctrination if it can easily be borne out so try again. And yes, on the balance of it despite all the shucking and jiving the Hindus were the overwhelming victims regardless of however you want to spin it or slice& dice it since they were the original inhabitants of these lands and had to leave places that they called homes for generations because of M who saw it as their religious duty to drive them out. You should address your own indoctrination which trots out the same stale pseudo-progressive, secular tropes.

That is common knowledge what happened without needing to point it out. Increase in H population is minuscule compared to the overall rise in population in absolute numbers throught the country so while the percentage seems to be there or thereabouts it has a hard limit due to Islamic laws that prohibit H from marrying anyone other than other Hindus or non-M while M are allowed to convert anyone they please and are encouraged to do so by the state and so is negligible enough so as not to matter. So in that sense the fact that Hindu population as a % isn't 0 yet is not some great achievement and does nothing to gainsay the fact that genocides, cleansing and forced conversions did and do still happen which you would admit to if you had not already succumbed to Islamist propaganda yourself so sought to whitewash it with wishy washy rationalizations like you are doing here. 

 

The landmass that Hindus & Sikhs were forcefully evicted from is only a fraction of the landmass that Muslims occupied throught Independent India and so is not comparable to the Muslims who mostly 'voluntarily' undertook a Hijrat to a dar ul islam which they saw as religiously binding so it's not a valid comparison which is why they're called Mohajirs. lol. The ones who were thrown out forcefully mainly came from the border areas in jammu and East Punjab as a reaction which is quite justified. So no, just because Mohajirs were stupid enough to not think it through back then and are suffering now doesn't mean that the Hindus, SIkhs didn't overwhelmingly see the short end of the stick. All communities might have been impacted but not equally unless you're gullible enough or brainwashed enough to believe that by ignoring everything else.

Edited October 12, 2023 by rollingstoned

[rollingstoned]

34 minutes ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Have you ever found a violent person or movement that doesn’t claim “self defense”? Russia claims self defense, Pakistan claims self defense, China claims self defense, US claims self defense, heck even terrorists claim the argument of “self defense”. 

Then, the question of extreme? How is “extreme” defined? Is it the number of people? What is the rationale and how do we agree on a definition.

The fact that self defence and freedom fighter claims are made by those who (mis)use it as a pretext for nefarious and violent purposes doesn't mean that objectively self defence and freedom movements don't ever have valid justifications or that terrorist and expansionist movements also don't exist. It's a nuance that is not hard to grasp if you can apply context and are not a halfwit who tries to weasel his way out by using flawed heuristics.

 

How extreme a movement is can be gleaned by the movement's fundamentals ,it's world view and also what it's historical patterns have generally been, which is also not that hard if one is willing to actually do it and not give in to equivocation. Saying all of them are somehow the same is just an inaccurate cop out. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by rollingstoned

[bharathh]

2 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Look history is a dark alley and it’s impossible to ascertain what really happened, specially those that happened 2 or 3 thousand years ago. What’s common sense is that war/invasions cause atrocities and violence. 

 

No answers? These rulers and their court appointed writers wrote with glee about how they terrorized the helpless natives of India who were Hindu and Buddhist at the time. In fact, Bhaktiyar Khilji was offended when a pandit from Nalanda was able to find a cure for his malady and was able to deliver it to him despite him refusing Kafir medicine. This led to the destruction of Nalanda and other world renowned institutes and repositories of knowledge of that time.

 

During Sikandar's time he not only destroyed all of Kashmir's most famous temples out of hatred for the kafir, he also used to tie Kashmiri Hindus together and drown them or slaughter them enmasse. There were six mounds of janeus or sacred threads that were burnt - so many people were killed. 

 

So surely there must be some Hindu ruler as cruel as some of these minor tyrants who did immense damage to their domains. Let's have some names. Otherwise wtf are you talking about? It is not even that Muslims/Islam denounce these tyrants. Instead ppl in Pakistan name missiles after them and consider them heroes. Please name one Hindu tyrant ruler that has been glorified in India the way Timur/Mughals etc. are revered.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by bharathh