Radicalism in the US and Europe

[kumble_rocks]

Even Turkey is secular in name only. The pro-secular demos that took place in Turkey recently are nice but even they are highly nationalistic in nature. Plus those demos don't demonstrate the views of majority of the Turks. If they did then the current ruling party would not have been in power in the first place. Let's see who wins the next election and with what numbers. P.S- The excuse made by the Islamic apologist are sad. The same apologists stop making similar excuses when it comes to religious extremists from Hinduism (who I must say I don't like either but are not on the same level and % as the muslim ones).

Turkey is as secular as India . I know a lot about Turkey.You ,DR and others need to realize that they treat their minority Jew /Christian population much better than the way treat ethnic Kurds (around 15 million)who happen to be muslims.

[kumble_rocks]

“ The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. ” "Explain to me how Kashmir which was fully Hindu Brahimin became almost completely muslim? Your low cast high cast theory fails there mate. In KP folklore it is said that only 11 KP families were left in the valley and Hindu religious threads had piled up very high as a result of the forced conversions. When fear spreads people convert. No one likes their head chopped off or worse."

Then why don't you, Bheem or Anakin answer my post here.

Originally Posted by kumble_rocks Jesus, I can't believe that Indians were such wimpy characters (barring few) between 1200 to 1800. Few invaders walked in from Central Asia or Persia and ruled us for over 800 years

[kumble_rocks]

KR ... Iam quite surprised that you are so unawares of the history .... this is a question that cannot be answered on a forum unless you want to get into a million post thread ... but however I can refer you to some links which will take you days to go through ... the link that I posted in my previous post would be just one of them. And with a little bit of googling you can easily find a lot of material to answer your questions. But here are some that you might find interesting. http://voi.org/books/hhrmi/ ---- On hindu resistance http://voiceofdharma.org/books/jihad/ --- The Doctrine of Permanent War http://voi.org/books/jtsi/index.htm --- On Jigzya the Islamic Tax on Hindus http://voi.org/books/muslimsep/ -- Muslim Seperatism http://voi.org/books.html --- the whole deal ...

Jesus , Bheem , I know my history reasonable well. I want your thoughts on my post as briefly as possible. Come on , is it that difficult to answer.

[Gaurav]

Then why don't you' date=' Bheem or Anakin answer my post here.[/quote'] KR for every brave person who will stand up and fight there are 10 CC jaise Hindustani. So when invaders come people like CC either pack their bags and move on, convert OR become shoe shine boys :hysterical: CC don't sweat just pulling your leg (no not the middle one):haha:

[Anakin]

Don't go gaga over Turkey, it's mostly their military which has been keeping it in order. There are many reasons why India was invaded successfully. One of them was just what is the problem now, being too nice. Many times the invaders/attackers were beaten and caught, just to be let go being so nice. Unfortunately they didn't quite extend the same courtesy (BB already made that point, just saw it now). Then you have infighting. And also the aversion of hindus to fight and kill which seems very natural for many invaders, mostly because of the misinterpretation of the ahimsa ideology.

[CC1981]

KR for every brave person who will stand up and fight there are 10 CC jaise Hindustani. So when invaders come people like CC either pack their bags and move on, convert OR become shoe shine boys :hysterical: CC don't sweat just pulling your leg (no not the middle one):haha:

I don't take offence when someone speaks the truth. I've said many times- i am not interested in war. If i see an army marching towards vancouver, first and last thing i'd do is grab my guns and bullets and head into the wilderness. Between the choice of fighting a war and shooting animals, i'd take shooting animals. :wink_smile:

[CC1981]

Is it soo hard to understand that this evil ideology thrives on our "Live and Let live" philosophy ? What else needs to happen for us to get to ... "ooops" ?

The point that you are missing, is that our 'live and let live' philosophy CANNOT be changed because if we do so, we are no better than them ! Yes, they take advantage of our benevolence but if we were to tyaag benevolence because of that, then we've just 'islamicizied' our philosophy. Clearly, that cannot be allowed.

[CC1981]

The same apologists stop making similar excuses when it comes to religious extremists from Hinduism

I don't quite see what you are complaining about. That Hinduism is held to a higher standard by many here than Islam is ? Well duh- if you want to credibly claim that your way is the better way, your standards must be higher. This is the reason i don't run in with 'but but but this is what muslims are doing, compared to them, hindu extremists are angels' line of reasoning because then we are lowering our own standards by using the most violent faith known to mankind as the benchmark to measure ourselves !

[Guest dada_rocks]

I don't take offence when someone speaks the truth. I've said many times- i am not interested in war. If i see an army marching towards vancouver, first and last thing i'd do is grab my guns and bullets and head into the wilderness. Between the choice of fighting a war and shooting animals, i'd take shooting animals. :wink_smile:

I can't even say i am surprised..... :haha:

[kumble_rocks]

Don't go gaga over Turkey' date=' it's mostly their military which has been keeping it in order. [/quote'] Apparently you missed some of my earlier posts on Turkey in previous threads. Agreed that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk initiated the process , but by and large Turkey is as secular as India. Heck , you will hardy find a Turkish women wearing a burqa. Does this look like a Sharia country for you - http://www.missuniverse.com/delegates/2006/files/TR-interview.html

And also the aversion of hindus to fight and kill which seems very natural for many invaders, mostly because of the misinterpretation of the ahimsa ideology.

Would you agree with my assessments that Indians were wimpy during the time frame 1200 to 1800 AD barring few . Also , can you give me some other name other than Prithvi Raj for your chivalry example.

[kumble_rocks]

KR for every brave person who will stand up and fight there are 10 CC jaise Hindustani. So when invaders come people like CC either pack their bags and move on, convert OR become shoe shine boys :hysterical: CC don't sweat just pulling your leg (no not the middle one):haha:

So , you agree with my position that we were wimps ? If so , why blame muslims. After all , "Might is right" during medieval times.

[kumble_rocks]

unfortunately there is no short and simple answer to your question on why a few invaders were able to just walk in and rule. But it wasnt as trivial as you make it out. There was quite a bit of resistance offered by the Rajputs , Marathas and many southern dynasties. But one aspect of Hinduism i.e Chivalry (or a misguided misplaced notion of Chivalry) was a primary cause for the demise of many Hindu rulers. They simply did not understand how these invaders had no ethics(to put it mildly) be it during wartime or peace. This was the main reason why Prithvi Raj let go Ghori. And by the time Shivaji understood the folly and tried to rectify it... it was too little too late. And as I said if you need details (as in events/wars/dates/who/etc..) you will have to look into those links. But a different version of this "Chivalry" still exists amidst almost every Hindu even today ..... which is why despite the agonizing and well documented history there is absolutely no shortage of people who try to defend the undefendable.

The time frame between Prithviraj Chauhan and Shivaji is easily more than 500 years. Agreed, he showed Chivalry and mercy , but can you name some other hindu rulers who showed mercy on his captor. I will greatly appreciate this info. Now are you telling me that for this 500 years period , because we hindus kept showing chivalry we lost to few invaders. Then why blame Islam. Something is definitely screwed up in our religion. Start blaming our religion for being so passive and mild for starters.

[kumble_rocks]

Why is there so much beating around the bush? The jiziya tax was from sharia' date=' so it was implemented in india for a long time. Then there were destructions of temples and forced conversion. And still some one says NEVER. His never and facts are quite the opposite of the real meaning.[/quote'] Sweet Jesus, you seem to suffer from selective amnesia. We have gone thru' this before in earlier threads. Do you know who collected the Jizya for the Mughals. It was the hindu rajputs for the most part. So , start blaming them and our religion.

[Anakin]

Would you agree with my assessments that Indians were wimpy during the time frame 1200 to 1800 AD barring few . Also , can you give me some other name other than Prithvi Raj for your chivalry example.

Some Mughal emperor and rajputs, it was actually posted here or at the earlier place before. And what's the fascination with the word wimpy. If that were true Alexander wouldn't have been beaten in India. Also Europe (part of it at least) fell earlier than India. There is a difference between aversion to killing and showing chivarly and being wimps unless of course you think like those retards and confuse barbarism and lack of character with bravery.

Sweet Jesus, you seem to suffer from selective amnesia. We have gone thru' this before in earlier threads. Do you know who collected the Jizya for the Mughals. It was the hindu rajputs for the most part. So , start blaming them and our religion.

Again, I'm sure rajputs didn't implement those taxes, probably worked for the mughals. Actually that's how it worked, it was not the emperors directly who extorted other taxes from people, rather the smaller kings and land owners who did it to pay the emperor and themselves. And no, although I don't have a great memory, I didn't read through some other thread on this. As I said, Turkey has been straight because of military, even now they have very strict control. Iran was just as progressive, and even though Iranians are thousand times better than arabs, but look how easily this all can change if you don't have that kind of control and left it to the people.

[Gaurav]

If your murgi goes to the neighbours house and lays an egg then you can't blame the neighbour for stealing BUT if the neighbour comes to your house and steals the egg then it's your neighbours fault irrespective of how wimp like your murgi was acting. KR you can't have it both ways. If Hindus don't act wimp like then you play the Hindu fundamentalist card. If they act peaceful then you play the murgi ka anda walla card :hysterical:

If so , why blame muslims. After all , "Might is right" during medieval times.

Bollocks mate. "Might is right" still applies just like it did in medieval times. Absolutely nothing has changed as far as human behaviour towards each other is concerned. So why are all the apologists and muslims blaming US, Israel, Hindu fundus etc for using their might? Is might only right when muslims exercise it?

[CC1981]

I can't even say i am surprised..... :haha:

And what ? You'd do different ? Pfft. Sala Canada me rahne waala bewe baccho wala researcher peet raha hai ki woh jayega yuddh karne...ek number ka bakwaas !

[CC1981]

Bollocks mate. "Might is right" still applies just like it did in medieval times. Absolutely nothing has changed as far as human behaviour towards each other is concerned. So why are all the apologists and muslims blaming US, Israel, Hindu fundus etc for using their might? Is might only right when muslims exercise it?

no, point is might is never right. If we are not to criticise fundie hindus for using might to get their point across, we shouldnt criticise the fundie muslims for using might to get their point across either.

[kumble_rocks]

Some Mughal emperor and rajputs, it was actually posted here or at the earlier place before. And what's the fascination with the word wimpy. If that were true Alexander wouldn't have been beaten in India. Also Europe (part of it at least) fell earlier than India. There is a difference between aversion to killing and showing chivarly and being wimps unless of course you think like those retards and confuse barbarism and lack of character with bravery.

Don't get cute, mate. That's CC's stye of debating which involves indirect abuse and quite frankly it's unnecessary. Do you even read my posts. Isn't it obvious that I am talking about medieval India between 1200 and 1800. So why bring Alexander. So , let me get this straight , according to you , we hindus failed to defend our land because of aversion to killing and chivalry. Remember the fact that we outnumbered the muslim invader many times over. Yet we lost and for centuries. If this is not a sign of weakness , I don't know what else is ! BTW, still haven't given me example of chivalry other than Prithviraj wherein they set their captors free.

Again, I'm sure rajputs didn't implement those taxes, probably worked for the mughals.

What does that make of those Rajputs ? Pray tell me . Apparently you guys don't know much about Iran and Turkey. I will post in detail later.

[Anakin]

Apparently you have little idea how the emperor and king worked. Doesn't make rajputs heroes, but that's the way it worked. And again, as I already gave you more than enough reasons for the losses, now if you think indians were wimps, it's your right to do so, doesn't mean you're right. And if anyone's trying to be cute, it's you, might is right. I'll remember that.

[kumble_rocks]

actually if you want to get an answer to this unique behaviour pattern ... try finding out why soo many folks here are soo convinced beyond any doubt that there are no or little problems with Islam and that in India we inherit a different brand of Muslims compared to the rest and that life was good during the Mughals etc etc etc ...

Heck , even CC has acknowledged that Islam has a problem , so I don't know where you are coming from.

You yourselves were out defending the Khiljis and Lodis .... How does one do that despite the facts being something totally opposite ?

I never talked about Khilji. And what about the facts that Rajputs collected Jizya. Why the eerie silence from you and others here. And as regards to Sharia , I answered your poignant questions . So , my position very clear. I hate Sharia . I don't think Mughals barring Auragazeb and Babur were fanatics. They did enjoy only local support because of that. Otherwise , even you will have to agree that we Hindus are even more facked up. Heck , if Hindus (Rajputs) collect tax from hinuds on behalf of muslims, surely both of them should be blamed.