fineleg Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 what explain - i have already said - punishing the innocent along with the guilty who commit violent crimes is not the right thing to do - you ofcourse want to punish everyone just coz they belong to some religion. Now thats about actual crimes. == Regarding voting - while we can criticize voting for a particular choice, how the hell can that be "punishable"? You mean we can punish ppl for voting for one of the options they were presented with (this was a legal voting system). Criticism is diff, punishment is different. **cue same old dates**
fineleg Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 The legal voting system had another option also i.e to stick with India and show the Bigot jionnah his right place. Why didnt they vote for that option ? Are you trying to tell me that voting for bifurcating your own country is just as sane a option as the other ? . No, I dont support them voting for bifurcating. But, that does not mean they need to be converted to Hindus/christians/whatever other religions, their religion is evil etc.
graphic23 Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 The struggle for rebuilding this temple has been going on for many centuries .... and is a fundamental right of a Hindu to demand the undoing of this. They have been more than civil in pursuing this through negotiations and such for a long long time. It is not like one fine day Advani decided Iam going to start Ayodhya andolan. But when the other community simply does not have the conscience to see that they are doggedly standing in support of a structure that is proven to be a act of a Barbarian then it was going to head in a showdown and thats what happened. Not one single Muslim worth his salt acknowledges that the original act was wrong and hence the shrine cannot be a holy place of worship. Nobody was asking for a apology from muslim community. People were only appealing to the good senses of this supposedly community that we keep getting told are comprised of "normal people like you and me". Truth is something else. This is the crux of the matter. What is the point in applying civil rules to such rogues ? Hrmm. I see where you're coming from. I think here's (I apologize for the lame analogy) the problem is like the one with walking in cricket (obviously, thats much more trivial). I know I edged this (i.e. I recognize that Babar built this immorally) but the laws never say that I have to walk (it is not required of me to say, I apologize for the mistake that Babar made and so please build a masjid somewhere and rebuild your temple here). There's also the extra role of human sentiment. For a group of people who have worshipped at the place might be superstitious about it -maybe they prayed for something and it had happened, etc. You know how we are. For example, my mom always does a particular vratha in the same manner at the temple because in the past it had brought her results, etc. It would be devastating to one day hear from the other people, "you know what, this mosque here was built on top of the same land that Rama's temple was on. We've tried to diplomatically deal with you for the several years/decades now. If you don't agree to our demands to move your spiritual centre somewhere, we'll demolish it and then on top of that, build our original temple." I think even if we were in that place (i.e. as humans and not as Hindus, we would've objected as well). I mean, so much of Indian land has been occupied by other nations surrounding us which have been very important to us in our history [religiously and otherwise] - I figure that this has more importance because of Ayodhya but still - it doesn't for me, somehow explain, that we had to go and demolish it. It must've meant a lot to those who've grown up with it, etc. Because this reasoning is similar to what I offered in my previous post, perhaps I've misunderstood you but I'll wait for you to say that. And I'm a bit surprised at your statement when you say that these rogues don't need civil rules. When we're letting murderers, rapists, goondas, etc. have protection from police [because they're Indian citizens], why shouldn't the policemen protect the muslims who were killed in the riots. I know you will disagree with me here but India has been a secular nation and it is not the hindus that define India but the entire population - the Indians and when these guys are Indians, it is the duty of the IPS to protect them from other enraged rioters. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.
punjabi_khota Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Hrmm. I see where you're coming from. I think here's (I apologize for the lame analogy) the problem is like the one with walking in cricket (obviously, thats much more trivial). I know I edged this (i.e. I recognize that Babar built this immorally) but the laws never say that I have to walk (it is not required of me to say, I apologize for the mistake that Babar made and so please build a masjid somewhere and rebuild your temple here). There's also the extra role of human sentiment. For a group of people who have worshipped at the place might be superstitious about it -maybe they prayed for something and it had happened, etc. You know how we are. For example, my mom always does a particular vratha in the same manner at the temple because in the past it had brought her results, etc. It would be devastating to one day hear from the other people, "you know what, this mosque here was built on top of the same land that Rama's temple was on. We've tried to diplomatically deal with you for the several years/decades now. If you don't agree to our demands to move your spiritual centre somewhere, we'll demolish it and then on top of that, build our original temple." I think even if we were in that place (i.e. as humans and not as Hindus, we would've objected as well). I mean, so much of Indian land has been occupied by other nations surrounding us which have been very important to us in our history [religiously and otherwise] - I figure that this has more importance because of Ayodhya but still - it doesn't for me, somehow explain, that we had to go and demolish it. It must've meant a lot to those who've grown up with it, etc. Because this reasoning is similar to what I offered in my previous post, perhaps I've misunderstood you but I'll wait for you to say that. And I'm a bit surprised at your statement when you say that these rogues don't need civil rules. When we're letting murderers, rapists, goondas, etc. have protection from police [because they're Indian citizens], why shouldn't the policemen protect the muslims who were killed in the riots. I know you will disagree with me here but India has been a secular nation and it is not the hindus that define India but the entire population - the Indians and when these guys are Indians, it is the duty of the IPS to protect them from other enraged rioters. Unfortunately, it didn't happen. I really think this debate is not meaningful, since Babri is just an excuse for the terrorist masterminds.
graphic23 Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 The irony here is that for the last 40 yrs of its existence the Masjid was not used at all for worship. I had not known this. I was under the impression that it was under use at the time. But anyhow heres what this is all about .... This never has been a case of legal occupation (although the courts have decided to go that route by ordering a ASI excavation) It has always been that of ethical and conscience. BMAC's contention since day one has been that there existed no temple ( so no demolition was done ). Even after the archeological survey report they have not changed their tune. This is the sort of people we are dealing with. When a community has such contempt for the feelings of a community that is in majority and is also nice enough to have accorded them various other latitudes in other matters then its a serious breach of faith. Also keep in mind that we are not demanding restoration of all the 8000 odd temples that have been destroyed and mosques built on top of them. This is about just the 4 holiest of shrines. (Mathura,Benaras,Ayodhya and Somnath ) . So please tell me why we need to tolerate structures that stand for nothing but barbarity ? That is simply not acceptable. Forget the structure whats more worrying is that we now know that there are millions who have a twisted sense of what is right and wrong and as usual we will go about fixing that by bending over backwards. Recipe for more disaster . History is proof. I guess sentiment here plays a huge role in both the sides' actions/reactions. I was simply talking about the structure not the law and order situation that arose immediately after the demolition. Ah. At anycase, my entire argument fell to pieces because it was made under the assumption that the mosque was under regular case. But you know, the passivist in me would still say it was an extreme reaction. It doesn't excuse the police on duty. We'll agree to disagree on this one.
EnterTheVoid Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Just slightly off topic, has anybody noticed just how HOT those israeli women in defense are? GOD damn, they are like real life maxim models In any case, i didn't think it was worthwhile to create another thread just to oogle at them, so i thought i would get it off my chest here Anyway, kudos to Israel, dont stop. For a pip squeak like Hamas / Hezbollah to take on the might of Israel is a death wish. But hey, if they want to kill themselves, I am sure Israel would oblige Israel pounded Lebanon into oblivion yet those idiots still want to fight Israel oh well, whatever turns them on The way I see it, its just self defense
The Outsider Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 I really think this debate is not meaningful' date=' since Babri is just an excuse for the terrorist masterminds.[/quote'] P_K writes a one liner in response to a 3 paragraph argument and lives in the delusion that he is having a debate!!
EnterTheVoid Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Israel should not stop. Why, you ask? This is why: Outcome of Gaza conflict will echo in Iran Tehran stands to lose influence if Israel beats Hamas outright By Liz Sly | Tribune correspondent January 11, 2009 BEIRUT — Looming over the Gaza conflict is the long shadow of Iran, which has much to win or lose from the outcome of the battles raging nearly two weeks after Israel launched its devastating onslaught to stop Hamas rocket attacks. For Iran, which provides funding and training to Hamas, the crisis represents an almost existential battle in its quest to become a regional superpower, in which Hamas plays a key role as an extension of Shiite Iranian influence. "Iran stands to gain more influence if Hamas survives, because Hamas is a direct auxiliary for Iran—an Iranian foothold on the Mediterranean," said Oussama Safa, a Mideast analyst who heads the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies. "Crushing Hamas in Gaza means chasing out the influence of the Iranians from this part of the region." With the current fighting representing a battle in a wider struggle for regional dominance, Iran's intentions will be key in determining whether the conflict remains confined to Gaza or escalates into a wider war that would almost certainly embroil its other chief ally, Lebanon's militant Hezbollah movement, analysts say. So far, Iran has not indicated any desire to see an escalation. Noisy displays of outrage on the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities may have offered a useful diversion from the country's economic woes, which is to the benefit of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is up for re-election this year. At the international level, Iranian leaders have confined their fiery anti-Israel rhetoric to efforts to pressure Arab and world leaders to push Israel to accept a cease-fire, one that would enable Hamas to survive. After claims by hard-line student groups in Iran that 70,000 young men had volunteered to carry out suicide missions against Israel, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, forbade them from traveling. Iran also dispatched to Beirut its top national security adviser, Saeed Jalili, who met with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on Jan. 3. Though the substance of their talks has not been disclosed, the Arab daily Al-Hayat said they focused on "ways to stop the aggression"— but not on an escalation. Hamas is no puppet of Iran's—it came into being without Iranian support and its goal of retrieving territory for a future Palestine would continue without Iran, said Hilal Khashan, a political scientist at the American University of Beirut. It would also not serve Hamas' interests to be supported by Iran too publicly, at a time when many in the mostly Sunni Arab world view Shiite Iran with deep suspicion, he said. That's another reason Hamas, a Sunni fundamentalist movement, is important to Iran—because it helps give Iran credibility among Arabs, said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, of the Lebanese American University. "Playing the Palestinian card is a way of winning Arab hearts and minds. Hamas is a bridge for Iran to the Arab Sunni world," she said. She does not rule out the possibility that Iran would open a second front in the Gaza conflict, by encouraging its well-armed Hezbollah ally to take action along Israel's northern border if Hamas appeared to be in danger of collapse. "If Hamas were to be defeated, it would be a grave blow for Iran," she said. Analyst Safa thinks it unlikely that Hezbollah would intervene: The Shiite movement is participating in June elections, which it hopes to win, and its chances could be jeopardized if it precipitates another war with Israel like the one that killed over 1,000 people in 2006, he said. "Iran is very cool-headed. Iran doesn't get angry, it gets even," Safa said. But with Iran still defiantly pursuing a nuclear program that the West alleges is intended to build weapons, many wonder how long it will be before there is a full-scale showdown with Israel. As Israel's chief ally, and with over 170,000 troops stationed on Iran's borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. would almost certainly risk becoming involved. President-elect Barack Obama reiterated on Friday his intention to seek a negotiated solution to the standoff with Iran. "I have said in the past, during the course of the [election] campaign, that Iran is a genuine threat to U.S. national security," Obama told reporters in Washington. "But I have also said that we should be willing to initiate diplomacy as a mechanism to achieve our national security goals." At a forum organized last week by the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, however, former Defense Secretary William Perry warned that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons appears unstoppable and will likely present Obama with his first major foreign policy crisis. "It seems clear that Israel will not sit by idly while Iran takes defiant steps toward becoming a nuclear power," said Perry, who served under Bill Clinton. "As a result President Obama will almost certainly face a serious crisis with Iran. Indeed, I believe that crisis point will be reached in his first year in office."
punjabi_khota Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 P_K writes a one liner in response to a 3 paragraph argument and lives in the delusion that he is having a debate!! Thats because there have been so many debates on similar topics. If not for Babri, they would rake up something else. Kashmir or Palestine or anything else. The point is that if the religion itself is so supportive of jehad, you just cannot run out of excuses to motivate people to kill the kafirs.
kumble_rocks Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 The struggle for rebuilding this temple has been going on for many centuries .... and is a fundamental right of a Hindu to demand the undoing of this. They have been more than civil in pursuing this through negotiations and such for a long long time. It is not like one fine day Advani decided Iam going to start Ayodhya andolan. But when the other community simply does not have the conscience to see that they are doggedly standing in support of a structure that is proven to be a act of a Barbarian then it was going to head in a showdown and thats what happened. Not one single Muslim worth his salt acknowledges that the original act was wrong and hence the shrine cannot be a holy place of worship. Nobody was asking for a apology from muslim community. People were only appealing to the good senses of this supposedly community that we keep getting told are comprised of "normal people like you and me". Truth is something else. This is the crux of the matter. What is the point in applying civil rules to such rogues ? Kar Sevaks along with the tacit support of BJP did not take any permission of the ruling government or followed the law in the destruction of Babri Masjid. Then help me explain what prevented the BJP government of Vajpayee from building a temple during their term. Are you suggesting that they need permission for the construction but not destruction ? And as regards to the struggle to build a temple for many centuries , where did you get that information from ? Are you suggesting that we hindus were such weaklings that few muslim invaders marched in and ruled over us and destroyed our most sacred temple and we did nothing ? Wait , we did something ... we actually aligned with them . Kindly acknowledge the cowardice of the Rajput and other hindu vassal rulers who not only helped Babur , but also other other Mughal rulers to rule India. They preferred to support these barbaric Islamists in their fight against other hindu rulers. After all , these muslim invaders were a minority.
kumble_rocks Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 fear of pseudo secularists section who are sadly in great numbers. and ofcourse majority in the parliament. I don't buy that. It is in BJP's interest as a poltical entity to keep this issue alive . Keep in mind that BJP moved up from 2 lok sabha seat to 86 after the destruction of the masjid. Like I said , they did not care about pseudo secularists or anybody else for that matter , when the masjid was brought down. So why should they care in building a temple especially when they were in power. I dont dispute the fact that we had one too many Jaichands amongst us. There is nothing that we can do about history. But what stops the current lot of pseudo secularists from learning from our past mistakes? infact arent the current lot even more dangerous than the Jaichands of past ? One too many is correct. I hope you realize that Babur originally came with 12,000 soldiers and fought and defeated every major Hindu ruler. Also, re-writing pasts like these such as building a temple in disputed site serves no purpose whatsoever. Instead , BJP would be well served if it picks up causes like preventing conversion to Islam , closing down hateful madrassas , Uniform civil code , increasing dalit participation etc...
kumble_rocks Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 This is a question you must put towards all the current Jiachands ? What stops you from uniting and supporting BJP unless ofcourse you consider that the Babri masjid stood as beacon of the free and secular world like the statue of liberty is in the USA ? Is it so hard to acknowledge that it stood for barbarity and nothing else ? Ofcourse the BJP can take the lead but there is only so much they can do when the entire psec media and psec political party consortium goes gung-ho after them. Who is going to knock sense into them ? Tell me one good reason why Dalits should even embrace Hinduism or BJP for that matters. Babur was a barbarian . It is not hard to acknowledge that. Again I don't buy this theory that BJP needs no permission for the destruction but it needs one for construction. BJP should have built the temple when it was in power. Anyways , I am heading for some golf now .Take care..
kumble_rocks Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Every major political party other than BJP is supporting BMAC tooth and nail. and we all know what BMAC's position is in matters concerning history. So who is going to tell the Congress party they are wrong ? Congress needs the muslim votes . They will do anything to appease muslims and dalits. It would have been kicked out the moment it started building it. So you agree then that BJP is just like any other political party looking out for self interest or your or national interest ?
kumble_rocks Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 And what stops us from calling that bluff? and why are these people and their supporters supposedly more secular than anyone ? we can take a stock of that after BJP has had a chance to rule india for 50yrs most of it with un-assailable majority in Parliament. Again , if you think that Congress is the only party which plays politics , then I am afraid that you are living in la la land . BJP has the support of only upper caste hindus. That's the reason why , it cannot win majority not withstanding the muslim vote against them. Dalits should start supporting BJP for it to become majority. So again , I ask with due respect , tell me one good reason why Dalit should embrace Hinduism and BJP in particular ?
sandtest Posted January 11, 2009 Author Posted January 11, 2009 One too many is correct. I hope you realize that Babur originally came with 12,000 soldiers and fought and defeated every major Hindu ruler. Also, re-writing pasts like these such as building a temple in disputed site serves no purpose whatsoever. Instead , BJP would be well served if it picks up causes like preventing conversion to Islam , closing down hateful madrassas , Uniform civil code , increasing dalit participation etc... I disagree!! Not just Babri Masjid, Mosques in Mathura and Kashi stand as a symbol of GENOCIDAL ARROGANCE. It's amazing tha when Archeological Survey of India (ASI) and Supreme court have confirmed after digging the site that there did exist Temple at the site, how our chilren are still forced to believe thaqt these exist as symbol of "secularism". I am all for TRUE secularism, but not at the cost of distortion of history. First we (Including Indian Muslims if they are willing) have to develop courage to accept that Mosques in Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi are indeed symbols of Genocidal Arrogance. Then we can take forward from there on. But important querstion is -- will our JNU jholawala commie historians ever allow us to correct India's history without labelling others as right wing Hindutva revisionist??
punjabi_khota Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Again , if you think that Congress is the only party which plays politics , then I am afraid that you are living in la la land . BJP has the support of only upper caste hindus. That's the reason why , it cannot win majority not withstanding the muslim vote against them. Dalits should start supporting BJP for it to become majority. So again , I ask with due respect , tell me one good reason why Dalit should embrace Hinduism and BJP in particular ? A side note: Can anyone tell me why the hell are Brahmins joining BSP ? What the **** is that joke ?
kumble_rocks Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Playing politics is one thing but divisive politics to screw your own country and then proclaim that they are the torch bearers of secularism is quite another .. this even puts the past Jaichand's to shame. While the Jaichands enabled marauders to loot and rule Hindus the current congress Jaichands are carrying on that tradition of the marauders openly which is why the majority feels like they are still living under Mughal rule. Are you kidding me , Why did BJP endorse Shiv Sena which is notorious for playing divisive politics along linguistic lines. I have no problem admitting that Congress tries to appease muslim and dalits. Either you are being naive or intellectually dishonest in not accepting the fact that BJP does play divisive politics although I would concede that the degree is relatively much lower. That's the reason why I have maintained that BJP is the lesser evil between the two. Modi is not a Brahmin and most of BJP's candidates are not Brahmins. But Advani , Vajpayee , Murali Manohar Joshi etc are and upper caste does not equate to Brahmin alone. If I were to take a educated guess .. BJP would be 80% upper caste. Am I wrong ?
Lurker Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 While the Jaichands enabled marauders to loot and rule Hindus the current congress Jaichands are carrying on that tradition of the marauders openly which is why the majority feels like they are still living under Mughal rule. The majority doesnt have time, or mentality, to live in that nonsense. Only folks like you, or across the border demented mindset like that TV "expert", have this tendency to keep yapping about Mughals, 1000 year old history, Jaichand etc etc. Truth be told 90% of modern Indian youngsters wouldnt know about Jaichand. xxx
kumble_rocks Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 It doesnt appear so going by your past posts :winky: Not my problem if you perceive otherwise.:winky: I dont think so ... I dont have facts right now. Numbers aside , tell me why lower caste Hindus should support BJP ? Are you suggesting that their grievances with Hinduism is exaggerated ?
Lurker Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Lurker Mian , Forget about others khud aapke vichaar ko dekho bhai. Bhai saheb, main to hamesha apne vichar, apni hi baat karta hoon. Woh to aap hain jo bahumat ki raajniti shuru kar dete hain. :winky:
Recommended Posts