Who names their kid knowing that the name is that of a tyrant?

[New guy]

Love jihad is a concept started by some virgin Indian boys to explain why they are not getting the girls. as simple as that

[KeyboardWarrior]

13 hours ago, New guy said:

Love jihad is a concept started by some virgin Indian boys to explain why they are not getting the girls. as simple as that

[punjabi_khota]

3 hours ago, Ranvir said:

Raj Kapoor would be furious if Kareena Kapoor married Saif Ali Khan.

True. Tharki-e-azam raj Kapoor with decades long affair with fatima rashid would be furious..

Edited December 25, 2016 by punjabi_khota

[Singh bling]

3 hours ago, New guy said:

Love jihad is a concept started by some virgin Indian boys to explain why they are not getting the girls. as simple as that

Love Jihad in India was popularised By communist Kerala CM before that it was  popular concept in UK 

Quote

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kerala-CM-reignites-love-jihad-theory/articleshow/6216779.cms

 

[Cricketics]

8 hours ago, rkt.india said:

No. You are wrong. She isn't turk. Her mother is Ayesha Shroff. She was born to a Bengali father. Her mother was a Belgian.

Dude that is a huge mix up.

 

Jackie Baba has been married to Ayesha Dutt from ever since I started watching Indian movies. 

 

 

 

 

[mishra]

On 23/12/2016 at 9:46 PM, zen said:

As I explained that is how the Mongols behaved. If one surrenders, they show mercy. If one doesn't, punishment is imparted

 

Because Tughlaq chose to fight and later ran away from the battlefield, Delhi paid the price. Though ppl of Delhi were already suffering and getting macassared under Tughlaq dynasty (as elobrated in the post you quoted)

 

Timur has killed more Muslims than ppl of other religions. Delhi fig is estimated at 100k, while the number in Persia is much higher 

Absilute bullshit orignoeant post

[rkt.india]

13 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Ayesha Shroff is Jackie Shroff's wife. Not his mother.

 

Who is the 'her' in the highlighted part?

my bad, huge mixup, i meant Tiger's mother.

Edited December 26, 2016 by rkt.india

[Muloghonto]

On 12/23/2016 at 2:58 PM, zen said:

Appears as if you missed the Mongal way that I quoted. Mongal conquests are known to be brutal 

 

Do you expect a follower of Mongal way to act differently because he is invading Ind or Persia or whatever? 

 

As I said, apart from the usual suspects, not many kings in Ind have experience (or may be ambition) of global expansion (like the Mongols do)

 

Without going much into your list, below is the genocide said to be done by Caesar  

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.ibtimes.co.uk/roman-genocide-battlefield-where-julius-caesar-slaughtered-150000-tribespeople-discovered-1533067?

 

 

 

 

 

I don't care if ALL Mongol rulers were genocidal maniacs. It still doesnt make Timur or any other Mongol ruler any-more acceptable.

 

As for genocide, you seem to be confused by the definition. Genocide is NOT killing tens of thousands of people. Its killing tens of thousands of INNOCENT civilians. You sign up for war/show up to battlefield and you are fair game. That is the choice you made, to engage in combat and it doesnt matter if you are a man, woman, child or elderly- you show up to battlefield and fight, killing you is not genocide. If entire Gujratis one day up and went to battlefield, to the last man & child, all 60 million of them and the Indian army killed them all, down to the last child, its not genocide. Why ? Because they went to battle. 

 

 

As for experience in 'global expansion'- there are good reasons as to why we haven't engaged in global expansionism in the past but that doesn't change the fact that many Indian rulers engaged in never-ending war with each other and still didnt resort to genocide.

 

[Muloghonto]

PS: For so-called Indians never engaging in global expansionism, we were the first (The Cholas) to make trans-oceanic empire.

[MechEng]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

PS: For so-called Indians never engaging in global expansionism, we were the first (The Cholas) to make trans-oceanic empire.

Angkor Wat temple is an architectural masterpiece. Would love to visit Cambodia some day.

Edited December 26, 2016 by MechEng

[jalebi_bhai]

A very important aspect of genocide is state approval for the killing of innocent civlians. Taimur meets that condition. 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Angkor Wat temple is an architectural masterpiece. Would love to visit Cambodia some day.

Yep. Though Angkor wasn't built by Indians. 
Cholas under Rajendra Chola, raided and were overlords to Malaysia, Southern Thailand & Eastern Indonesia for almost a 100 years.

 

[zen]

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I don't care if ALL Mongol rulers were genocidal maniacs. It still doesnt make Timur or any other Mongol ruler any-more acceptable.

 

As for genocide, you seem to be confused by the definition. Genocide is NOT killing tens of thousands of people. Its killing tens of thousands of INNOCENT civilians. You sign up for war/show up to battlefield and you are fair game. That is the choice you made, to engage in combat and it doesnt matter if you are a man, woman, child or elderly- you show up to battlefield and fight, killing you is not genocide. If entire Gujratis one day up and went to battlefield, to the last man & child, all 60 million of them and the Indian army killed them all, down to the last child, its not genocide. Why ? Because they went to battle. 

 

 

As for experience in 'global expansion'- there are good reasons as to why we haven't engaged in global expansionism in the past but that doesn't change the fact that many Indian rulers engaged in never-ending war with each other and still didnt resort to genocide.

 

Be advised that writing similar things in different ways is not going to add weight to your points

 

First of all, no one is saying that genocide is acceptable but that it is hard to judge very distant history through today's lenses. Note that the term genocide was itself coined in 1944. As conveyed in my last post, and contrary to your information, Caesar too is said to have participated in genocide as well. In fact, usually judging those who went for global expansion is like a case of glass being half full as for some they may be great, while for some they may be murderers 

 

Next point is to understand (note that knowing history and understanding history are two different things) why cities / towns were wiped out by the invaders. You can see how hard it is to control mobs even today despite the benefits of relatively advanced technology and "learning from best practices"

 

By saying that Ind rulers waged never ending wars with each other w/o resorting to genocide,  ironically, you appear to have missed the dynamics of global expansion where an invading army faces various challenges including lack of manpower ( For e.g. an army of 10k could be fighting an army of 100k + local population),  inadequate equipment, unknown challenges such as facing elephants, insufficient knowledge of local terrain  (relatively speaking), etc. Which is why I had talked about not evaluating things mainly from an "Ind PoV" and wrote about the Mongol way and their ambitions for global expansion

 

By just reading history, you may have felt bad about ppl in the region (note not country) being butchered by the invader. But another point that I implied was that by just living in a territory ruled by the likes of Taghlaq could be as good as being dead. There are reasons why the likes of Shivaji and Maha Rana Pratap are considered as heroes for fighting those who ruled from Delhi. And there are also reasons as to why the region was frequently ruled by outsiders .... Note the Delhi army and its Sultan are said to have cowardly abandoned its citizens. While we know what Poras did after losing to Alexander 

 

I will conclude with the timely reminder of what the "fat man" and "little boy" did to those who had not necessarily signed up to kill enemy soldiers in the battlefield and were "innocent". This is relatively recent history where the players had the benefit of learning from the past.  The man who gave the green flag to drop those is ironically considered by many as one of the greatest Presidents of United States 

 

 

PS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

 

If a war has to be waged against those who persecuted people in the region, it has to be more inclusive and comprehensive. Timur was an outsider, unfortunately the region has suffered at the hands of its own ppl including those who contrived with the outsiders for fringe benefits

Edited December 26, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, zen said:

Be advised that writing similar things in different ways is not going to add weight to your points

 

First of all, no one is saying that genocide is acceptable but that it is hard to judge very distant history through today's lenses. Note that the term genocide was itself coined in 1944. As conveyed in my last post, and contrary to your information, Caesar too is said to have participated in genocide as well. In fact, usually judging those who went for global expansion is like a case of glass being half full as for some they may be great, while for some they may be murderers 

It doesnt matter if the term genocide was coined in 1944. Mass killing of civilians and innocents were frowned even 2000 years ago. As i said, check the response of Roman Senate 2200 years ago when Carthage was genocided. The records exist

 

Also, what Caesar did was not genocide. I already explained that. Just because a random internet article calls it genocide doesn't make it so.

Quote

 

Next point is to understand (note that knowing history and understanding history are two different things) why cities / towns were wiped out by the invaders. You can see how hard it is to control mobs even today despite the benefits of relatively advanced technology and "learning from best practices"

We know why it was done. It still never was, never is condoned. Thats the point you are missing.

 

Quote

By saying that Ind rulers waged never ending wars with each other w/o resorting to genocide,  ironically, you appear to have missed the dynamics of global expansion where an invading army faces various challenges including lack of manpower ( For e.g. an army of 10k could be fighting an army of 100k + local population),  inadequate equipment, unknown challenges such as facing elephants, insufficient knowledge of local terrain  (relatively speaking), etc. Which is why I had talked about not evaluating things mainly from an "Ind PoV" and wrote about the Mongol way and their ambitions for global expansion

It is not just India POV. As i said, even the Romans, Greeks - they all frowned on genocide. And none of the reasons you gave are good enough for genocide, neither is it mandatory for globalist expansion. The Seljuk Empire for example, didnt commit genocide in its expansion spree and it was almost half the size of the Mongol empire.

I can point out to plenty of global expansionist empires who did not resort to genocide.

You make it sound like a criteria or necessary evil of global expansionism, it isn't.

 

 

[zen]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It doesnt matter if the term genocide was coined in 1944. Mass killing of civilians and innocents were frowned even 2000 years ago. As i said, check the response of Roman Senate 2200 years ago when Carthage was genocided. The records exist

 

Also, what Caesar did was not genocide. I already explained that. Just because a random internet article calls it genocide doesn't make it so.

We know why it was done. It still never was, never is condoned. Thats the point you are missing.

 

It is not just India POV. As i said, even the Romans, Greeks - they all frowned on genocide. And none of the reasons you gave are good enough for genocide, neither is it mandatory for globalist expansion. The Seljuk Empire for example, didnt commit genocide in its expansion spree and it was almost half the size of the Mongol empire.

I can point out to plenty of global expansionist empires who did not resort to genocide.

You make it sound like a criteria or necessary evil of global expansionism, it isn't.

 

And who said that it matters when the term was invented? The point is that world was not flat to have a "standardized" version of what constitutes as what. I am not even sure if Mongals read Latin. You appear to be responding to points that are made and writing as if Google Translate was available in the 14th century and the world was flat. And yes, it is possible that someone in Mongolia understood Latin but I am talking relatively with respect to how communication and common standards are today vs in 14th century 

 

I have already said that I do not judge ancient history with today's lenses which includes not judging the Mongal way too so see no point in repeating myself

 

Well, you can point out whatever you want. But first, I would encourage you to "read" the whole post(s) as many times the answers / positions taken are already present in the parts that you omit.

 

"By just reading history, you may have felt bad about ppl in the region (note not country) being butchered by the invader. But another point that I implied was that by just living in a territory ruled by the likes of Taghlaq could be as good as being dead. There are reasons why the likes of Shivaji and Maha Rana Pratap are considered as heroes for fighting those who ruled from Delhi. And there are also reasons as to why the region was frequently ruled by outsiders .... Note the Delhi army and its Sultan are said to have cowardly abandoned its citizens. While we know what Poras did after losing to Alexander 

 

I will conclude with the timely reminder of what the "fat man" and "little boy" did to those who had not necessarily signed up to kill enemy soldiers in the battlefield and were "innocent". This is relatively recent history where the players had the benefit of learning from the past.  The man who gave the green flag to drop those is ironically considered by many as one of the greatest Presidents of United States 

 

 

PS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

 

If a war has to be waged against those who persecuted people in the region, it has to be more inclusive and comprehensive. Timur was an outsider, unfortunately the region has suffered at the hands of its own ppl including those who contrived with the outsiders for fringe benefits"

 

 

To save you the time on repeating yourself, I will summarize your key points below: 

• Genocide is genocide. In ancient world too, people understood what genocide is. Roman, Buddhist, xyz books, etc say this or that (appears as if everyone read Roman and Buddhist books in ancient times)
• Kingdoms expanded w/o resorting to genocide. ABC did that without even lifting his sword, while DEF danced in the rain (So may be Timur could have expanded and built his empire too by dancing in the rain) 
• Timur participated in genocide and was an Islamic fanatic (if that is the case, it is unlikely that he would refer to Roman and Buddhist books / PoVs)
• But what really matters is that he killed "Indians" (and those Indians probably joined armies or paid taxes to the likes of the evil Delhi Sultanate that persecuted millions of Indians) 
• And therefore naming Indian kids Timur is not appropriate (May be name them after the one many consider a hero - Harry Truman) 

 

I have responded to the above already in a variety of posts so if you have anything different / in-depth to add, let me know! 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

40 minutes ago, zen said:

 

And who said that it matters when the term was invented? The point is that world was not flat to have a "standardized" version of what constitutes as what. I am not even sure if Mongals read Latin. You appear to be responding to points that are made and writing as if Google Translate was available in the 14th century and the world was flat. And yes, it is possible that someone in Mongolia understood Latin but I am talking relatively with respect to how communication and common standards are today vs in 14th century 

 

I have already said that I do not judge ancient history with today's lenses which includes not judging the Mongal way too so see no point in repeating myself

 

Well, you can point out whatever you want. But first, I would encourage you to "read" the whole post(s) as many times the answers / positions taken are already present in the parts that you omit.

 

"By just reading history, you may have felt bad about ppl in the region (note not country) being butchered by the invader. But another point that I implied was that by just living in a territory ruled by the likes of Taghlaq could be as good as being dead. There are reasons why the likes of Shivaji and Maha Rana Pratap are considered as heroes for fighting those who ruled from Delhi. And there are also reasons as to why the region was frequently ruled by outsiders .... Note the Delhi army and its Sultan are said to have cowardly abandoned its citizens. While we know what Poras did after losing to Alexander 

 

I will conclude with the timely reminder of what the "fat man" and "little boy" did to those who had not necessarily signed up to kill enemy soldiers in the battlefield and were "innocent". This is relatively recent history where the players had the benefit of learning from the past.  The man who gave the green flag to drop those is ironically considered by many as one of the greatest Presidents of United States 

 

 

PS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

 

If a war has to be waged against those who persecuted people in the region, it has to be more inclusive and comprehensive. Timur was an outsider, unfortunately the region has suffered at the hands of its own ppl including those who contrived with the outsiders for fringe benefits"

 

 

To save you the time on repeating yourself, I will summarize your key points below: 

• Genocide is genocide. In ancient world too, people understood what genocide is. Roman, Buddhist, xyz books, etc say this or that (appears as if everyone read Roman and Buddhist books in ancient times)
• Kingdoms expanded w/o resorting to genocide. ABC did that without even lifting his sword, while DEF danced in the rain (So may be Timur could have expanded and built his empire too by dancing in the rain) 
• Timur participated in genocide and was an Islamic fanatic (if that is the case, it is unlikely that he would refer to Roman and Buddhist books / PoVs)
• But what really matters is that he killed "Indians" (and those Indians probably joined armies or paid taxes to the likes of the evil Delhi Sultanate that persecuted millions of Indians) 
• And therefore naming Indian kids Timur is not appropriate (May be name them after the one many consider a hero - Harry Truman) 

 

I have responded to the above already in a variety of posts so if you have anything different / in-depth to add, let me know! 

 

 

I don't see the point of what you are saying. You say you don't judge history. Well great. Thats YOUR personal opinion, that is by no means grounded in reality of today or the-then standards. As i said, killing of innocent civilians en-masse was frowned upon in our culture long before Tamerlane. So it was in almost all civilized places- China, Rome, Greece- they all considered wanton killing of civilians as abhorrable conduct.

That my ruler is a jackass and wants to kill me, instead i got killed by a foreign invading jackass, doesnt make it any better for me or anyone else for that matter, so i just don't see the basis of your acceptance of genocide as 'i don't judge history'. When it is clear that by both modern and medieval standards of the land (where the genocide occurred), this was considered abhorrable behaviour.

 

Its not like we are 'revising history' by modern ethical standards. Its not like Tamerlane was universally popular in his era coz what he did was so normal & commonplace & accepted. Except for in Uzbekistan region, nowhere in the past did we see admiration for Timur, even in his lifetime. The Persians hated him, the Indians hated him, the Azeris hated him, the Assyrian Nestorians hated him, all because he was a genocider. So no, you can't hide behind 'i don't judge history by today's standards' for Timur. Even in his own day and age, he was considered a monster by vast majority of people he came in c0ntact with. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Muloghonto

[gattaca]

@zen still don't understand how you are defending genocide. Timur only plundered India if he didn't care about expansion they could get the * out. He was thirsty killer hopefully got punishment for his sins.

[zen]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I don't see the point of what you are saying. You say you don't judge history. Well great. Thats YOUR personal opinion, that is by no means grounded in reality of today or the-then standards. As i said, killing of innocent civilians en-masse was frowned upon in our culture long before Tamerlane. So it was in almost all civilized places- China, Rome, Greece- they all considered wanton killing of civilians as abhorrable conduct.

That my ruler is a jackass and wants to kill me, instead i got killed by a foreign invading jackass, doesnt make it any better for me or anyone else for that matter, so i just don't see the basis of your acceptance of genocide as 'i don't judge history'. When it is clear that by both modern and medieval standards of the land (where the genocide occurred), this was considered abhorrable behaviour.

 

Its not like we are 'revising history' by modern ethical standards. Its not like Tamerlane was universally popular in his era coz what he did was so normal & commonplace & accepted. Except for in Uzbekistan region, nowhere in the past did we see admiration for Timur, even in his lifetime. The Persians hated him, the Indians hated him, the Azeris hated him, the Assyrian Nestorians hated him, all because he was a genocider. So no, you can't hide behind 'i don't judge history by today's standards' for Timur. Even in his own day and age, he was considered a monster by vast majority of people he came in c0ntact with. 

First, let's be clear that we are all discussing our opinions. 2nd, if everyone did what was "universally" popular, there would have been no wars for example as the universally popular thing to do is to seek and make "peace"

 

On one hand you say that in civilized places such as Rome and Greece, people considered wanton killing of civilians as abhorrable conduct and, on the other hand,  still there are instances such as the ones listed for Julius Caesar, Roman destruction of Carthage, Athenian massacre at Melos, etc.

 

Alexander the great would be tried for criminal conduct if judged by today's standards. There are discussions if Alexander is a hero or a genocidal conqueror when it is hard to reduce a character such as Alexander in to what is black and what is white  

 

Despite "learning" from best practices and history, there are instances such as the dropping of the "fat boy" and the "little man". Was this an universally popular thing to do? .... Talking about China, we know about the acts of Mao. Tibet is another example where China has not done the universally popular thing to do 

 

If the above is not universally popular, what's the point in basing your opinion on statements such as:

Quote

"Its not like Tamerlane was universally popular in his era coz what he did was so normal & commonplace & accepted"

 

Tomorrow, you will say that the universally popular thing to do is to have Sundays off. But people working in malls do not necessarily get Sundays off. In many Islamic countries, Friday is a holiday 

 

Talking about Mongols, Genghis Khan is considered as great by many. While others esp. in Persia see / saw him as a genocidal conqueror. 

 

 

Before we move forward, please clarify your position on how you see the likes of Alexander, Genghis Khan, Harry Truman, Sultans of Delhi, etc. 

 

 

PS below USA killing of "innocent" in Vietnam (other places include Korea, Japan, etc.)

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by zen

[zen]

7 hours ago, gattaca said:

@zen still don't understand how you are defending genocide. Timur only plundered India if he didn't care about expansion they could get the * out. He was thirsty killer hopefully got punishment for his sins.

Not defending genocide, but making a larger point and discussing the criteria used to pass judgments on events in ancient history 

[Vilander]

On 12/23/2016 at 4:59 PM, Muloghonto said:

It still doesn't justify genocide or make crimes against genocide any lesser.

Also, Timur was not a mongol. He was a Turk from the Barlas tribe who billed himself as a mongol descendant but he wasn't. He was technically  under the Chagatai Khans who were his titular but powerless overlords.

 

Timur didnt just kill people in Delhi, he also razed Lahore to the ground and carved a trail of genocide through northern Pakistan getting there.

The fact that he killed more muslims than hindus doesnt make up for the fact that he genocided Indians.

 

lahore at that time did not have muslims, he basically killed lots of Indians and before that persians and afgans. But yeah kiling muslims does not obsolve him of genocide, what you are saying is he was not partial to Hindus when it came to genociding he did that to all that he could. Very impartial and just genocider, the best terrorist that there was Taimur.