surajmal Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 There is nothing 'anti north indian' rant in my post. It is a historical fact that not a SINGLE Indian mention of Rajputs existed before the immigration of the Gujjars from central Asia' date=' a fact that Xuanzeng noted, having visited India less than 150 years after the event. The suryavanshi Rajputs are nothing more than Indianized Mihirkula Iranics from central Asia.[/quote'] Start posting sources. Primary sources. Otherwise go suck on some muloghonto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 :hysterical: Yeah. And Hitler having only one testicle is a historical fact. Saala chewtiya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Given I have not quoted Wiki' date=' it is yet another evidence of hinduvta strawmen.[/quote'] You are right. You have not quoted anything. Crediting you for searching Wiki is giving you too much credit. Your source is your ass. Marxist Historian maane your bhai bandhu in the Indian "Academia". Dumbass lacks even comprehension skills. chalo, you dropped your AIT BS. Now to piss on your AMT BS: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929711004885/1-s2.0-S0002929711004885-main.pdf?_tid=efd6b604-f16c-11e2-a0bc-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1374346275_3c09ded2e4367fb2dbdd04598eafb416 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Wrong again .... last time I checked Jayanti Prasad Srivastav was never a judge :hysterical: Try again may be this time you will succeed in saving your face. :nice: You are quoting a court document. Not an archaeological document. Come back with the ASI report when you can find it, till then you have presented zero evidence. I dont care what JP Yadav said in a court document, it does not meet the standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Facts are facts. Our history does not even have an author's name attached to it till 11th century CE. That is how far behind we are in western history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Marxist Historian maane your bhai bandhu in the Indian "Academia". Dumbass lacks even comprehension skills. Indian academia, western Academia, eastern academia- they all accept AMT. They all accept the fact that Indo-Aryan language's roots are in central Asia. chalo, you dropped your AIT BS. Now to piss on your AMT BS: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929711004885/1-s2.0-S0002929711004885-main.pdf?_tid=efd6b604-f16c-11e2-a0bc-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1374346275_3c09ded2e4367fb2dbdd04598eafb416 Again, irrelevant. It does not change the fact that PIE broke up in central Asia and we have backflow from central Asia. Heck, even the Mahabharata records the Central Asian origins of Sanskrit speakers- the story of Arjuna or Karna going to the 'UttaraKuru' beyond the himalayas to the abode of the kuru ancestors, the story of Yayati's descendants coming from central Asia, etc. And the fact that Rajputs are Iranic descendants of the Gujjar ( in Central Asian languages, Gorgan/Gurgin people) is amply proven by Huen Tsang's records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Wrong Again. Its a ASI report presented to the court by *THE* ASI expert (who took part in the excavation) and under Oath . The court proceeded to issue its ruling based on this. As official as it gets. So cite the report. Where is the report ? But yeah I'am pretty sure your desperate need to Troll will prevail over all else. When there is no basic decency to be honest and reasonable this is the sort of "debates" that will take place where a moron such as you will claim that an extreemly high profile ruling on a very sensitive issue was based on some fake document and that the actual document said something else. Chewtyagiri is what this "debate" should be called. :hysterical: You wont quote the ASI paper and you accuse me of lacking basic honesty or decency ? :haha::haha: :haha: What i said is perfectly valid and you havnt refuted it: why should i take a COURT reference as archaeological evidence ? Just because there was a court case on it ? Well we dont cite court cases on what constitutes environmental degradation or not, we cite water & soil treatment research on it. You want to claim something, quote a peer reviewed article from the field in question. The question is archaeology. Post the ASI report. Not what derives from the Indian justice system. That is not quoting the primary source, period. Your type of agenda-driven people may call it 'chewtiyagiri', i call it being rigorous and doing it right.Something you dont seem to have a grasp of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 So cite the report. Where is the report ? You wont quote the ASI paper and you accuse me of lacking basic honesty or decency ? :haha::haha: :haha: What i said is perfectly valid and you havnt refuted it: why should i take a COURT reference as archaeological evidence ? Just because there was a court case on it ? Well we dont cite court cases on what constitutes environmental degradation or not, we cite water & soil treatment research on it. You want to claim something, quote a peer reviewed article from the field in question. The question is archaeology. Post the ASI report. Not what derives from the Indian justice system. That is not quoting the primary source, period. Your type of agenda-driven people may call it 'chewtiyagiri', i call it being rigorous and doing it right.Something you dont seem to have a grasp of. Are you born like this or u changed in the middle? :giggle: Do you think the COURT people like the judge, lawyer, clerks and divan went to the site and did the research? :haha: The judgement is based on ASI report and it's official. Now deal with it. Infact, many mosques in India were built after destroying temples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Are you born like this or u changed in the middle? :giggle: Do you think the COURT people like the judge, lawyer, clerks and divan went to the site and did the research? :haha: The judgement is based on ASI report and it's official. Now deal with it. Infact, many mosques in India were built after destroying temples. What was the idiom about behaving like a "degenerate on the Internet"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 What was the idiom about behaving like a "degenerate on the Internet"? What is the meaning of that line I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Are you born like this or u changed in the middle? :giggle: Do you think the COURT people like the judge, lawyer, clerks and divan went to the site and did the research? :haha: The judgement is based on ASI report and it's official. Now deal with it. Infact, many mosques in India were built after destroying temples. 1. I have no problem with the fact that the legal verdict stands. But it does not solve the archaeological question. Nomatter how many times you hinduvtas would like to feed the 'court decieded, therefore it counts as archaeological evidence' garbage, it wont change the fact that nowhere on the ASI report does it state that the structure was exclusively and categorically a temple. The court ruling is constrained by legal discourse on what is tangiable evidence and not, not by archaeological discourse. 2. Yes, lots of mosques built on hindu shrines. Lots of hindu shrines were built on or stolen from the Buddhists & Jains. What goes around, comes around. Bunch of central Asian Iranic fire-worshipping nomads(ancestors of the Jats, Rajputs,etc) and Tamil zealots murdered our Buddhist & Jain ancestors, imposed archaic hinduism all over again ( revivial of a nearly dead religion, similar to revival of christianity in Spain during reconquesta) and then in turn got whacked by Islamic central asian nomads. Thats your medeival Indian history in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Already did ... TWICE :haha: Your chewthyagiri is not my problem. Where ? In which post did you post the reference to the ASI report ? which link leads to the ASI report ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 What is the meaning of that line I posted? Tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 life is too short yaar. the other guy tht you are cursing , did he open your buffalo.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Tell us. So you didn't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 So you didn't understand? You posted an ad hominem - please enlighten us on what you thought because once I write your standard answer would "don't comment on what you don't know". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 ^ Are you born with this kind of knowledge or u got enlighted in the middle? So, don't comment on things you don't understand, trying to be smart. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaFanatic Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2500537&postcount=101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Not in the scary place known as your melon. But lets leave that aside. You still haven't explained how having a name attached to a piece of "historical" document adds credibility? More Importantly, how does it make the West better than India(itihaas)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Not in the scary place known as your melon. But lets leave that aside. You still haven't explained how having a name attached to a piece of "historical" document adds credibility? More Importantly, how does it make the West better than India? East or West India is the Best. B-> :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts