babri majid - hindu terrorism

by truthbetold Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:29 am

Historical events such as babri majid must be understood in terms of total context. Similar event
s around the world help us understand what are some possible outcomes at future time.
What is useless in such discussion is the shrill voice of hate filled old idiots labeling a whole group of people as terrorists with out context.
Babri majid was a vehicle for bjp's power ambition and it is sponsored by rss a known anti muslim outfit. This event is similar to old dixie church burnings sponsored by organizations such as clan. Southern democrats of that era benefited from those flare ups. Majority groups disrupted lives of minority groups by citing real and imaginary fears.
No two events happening far apart in geography and time are likely to be the same. But core issues are the same. Some differences in magnitude exist.
However the good work of people believing equality prevailed over the tyranny of imaginary superiority. It is long struggle and it is difficult. It is still in process in USA.

by Rishi Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:12 am

Your statement that "Babri majid was a vehicle for bjp's power ambition and it is sponsored by rss a known anti muslim outfit" is absloutely correct.

However, the comparing the situation of Muslims in India with what blacks went through under white oppression in the south is incorrect.

Unlike the Muslims, blacks did not invade America and enslave the whites in America for 800 years.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:26 am

Rishi wrote:Unlike the Muslims, blacks did not invade America and enslave the whites in America for 800 years.

Bwahaha...amazing how the chaddi creed of victimhood draws cretins like s**t draws flies.

by Rishi Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:42 am

Victimhood?

I am just telling the original poster his analogy was wrong. I am not supporting historical revenge against Muslims.

What is this high expectation imposed on Hindus to set aside historical wrongs done to them and behave in a rational manner?

Catholics and Christians have been persecuting Jews for killing their messiah 2000 years ago.

Shia Muslims are still holding grudge and killing Sunnis for assassinating their imam 1000 years ago.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:12 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rishi wrote:Unlike the Muslims, blacks did not invade America and enslave the whites in America for 800 years.

Bwahaha...amazing how the chaddi creed of victimhood draws cretins like s**t draws flies.

or like the cevit cat's poop draws coffee pickers. i considered replying to the OP but didn't because i couldn't understand much of his post. MD since you seem to understand it, could you please translate his hinglish to english please?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:31 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rishi wrote:Unlike the Muslims, blacks did not invade America and enslave the whites in America for 800 years.

Bwahaha...amazing how the chaddi creed of victimhood draws cretins like s**t draws flies.

Great.... in other words you do agree....bcz you resort to Rashmnuesque personal attacks...whenever you are down.

Indian muslims and American Blacks...what next ? Indian muslims are like native americans...?

Tell me why the world world is hating Muslims ? If you dont believe ask any of the americans and most will tell you in a hush voice - all these moslems are terrorists.

India needs Mo Di.

Mo Di....Mo Di.....Mo Di...

by Guest Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:26 pm

Whatever muslim terrorists do around the world with their terror activities and how unfairly the muslim govt rule, ppl are don't seem to be too shocked. But one mob act by hindus 20 yrs ago (of just razing to ground an old, abandoned mosque) draws shock, dismay and severe criticism by many. This shows the high standards they set for hindus. Seems like hindus have been put on a high pedestal. Any out of the way behavior by them can't even be conceived. As for the muslims, their perception seems to be, 'they are like that only. Barbarians! Can't expect anything better from them. Don't even compare them to hindus'. They may not say it aloud, but that's how they seem to be perceiving. One should be proud to be a Hindu.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:13 pm

Rishi wrote:Victimhood?

I am just telling the original poster his analogy was wrong. I am not supporting historical revenge against Muslims.

What is this high expectation imposed on Hindus to set aside historical wrongs done to them and behave in a rational manner?

Catholics and Christians have been persecuting Jews for killing their messiah 2000 years ago.

Shia Muslims are still holding grudge and killing Sunnis for assassinating their imam 1000 years ago.

this is about an incident that happened in india -- a group of indians destroying the place of worship of another group of indians, thereby violating the agreed upon constitutional rights of, yes, indians. what do events outside of india involving jews, christians, and muslims have to do with it? why do you always focus on exactly the wrong thing?

by ashdoc Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:39 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

this is about an incident that happened in india -- a group of indians destroying the place of worship of another group of indians, thereby violating the agreed upon constitutional rights of, yes, indians. what do events outside of india involving jews, christians, and muslims have to do with it? why do you always focus on exactly the wrong thing?

yeah , a general of babar the indian ( at least according to secularists ) destroys a temple of another group of indians ( the long suffering hindus who else ) where their god ram was supposedly born and builds a mosque over the site . what about that ??

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:46 pm

ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

this is about an incident that happened in india -- a group of indians destroying the place of worship of another group of indians, thereby violating the agreed upon constitutional rights of, yes, indians. what do events outside of india involving jews, christians, and muslims have to do with it? why do you always focus on exactly the wrong thing?

yeah , a general of babar the indian ( at least according to secularists ) destroys a temple of another group of indians ( the long suffering hindus who else ) . what about that ??

when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:08 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

Good questions...Great questions.....If only the Indian muslims ask and realize the same questions, there would be no riots, no demolitions, and no prayers in Kashmir for Kasab.

until they realize Mo...di is the right answer to the koranists.

by FluteHolder Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:23 pm

on a related/unrelated note, I was watching a film (Drew films mostly taken from biographic account on Nehru) on IndiraGandhi yesterday on Documentary channel. It was interesting to watch Indira/Nehru/(Rajiv/Sonia/Rahul/priyanka/varun all looking young). What I caught my attention was during one of the interviews Indira was saying 'Those who fought for Independence stayed in India after 1947 and those who didnot fight, chose to move to Pakistan'. Was this true by and large or the fight before/during partition made it worse and hindus in Pak/muslims in India had to choose a place to live or forced to move hoping that they would be better off in a hindu/muslim poulated country?

Ofcourse south didnot face much of these issues except north/west/east and probably (Nizam /Hyd/Deccan)?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:31 pm

FluteHolder wrote:.... What I caught my attention was during one of the interviews Indira was saying 'Those who fought for Independence stayed in India after 1947 and those who didnot fight, chose to move to Pakistan'. ..

This is a typical CON-style distorsion of history. It was the overwhelming poor muslims of Bihar, UP, Hyderabad, punjab and Bengal who fought for the division, but the rich muslims who already resided in W and E pakistan (who were more in favor of unity due to business/trade advantages), closed the door on these poor, dirty, low class, dalit muslim converts to get into W and E pakistan. West pakistan kept official free migration policy open till 1967 (like Israel has for jews worldwide).

This is the root cause of the 5th column syndrome among the Indian muslims - who dont mingle with hindus and still dream about the distant land of the Pure.

by ashdoc Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:07 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

are we supposed to forget all the rape and massacre just because it is convenient for muslims and their supporters to forget it ??

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:36 am

Rishi,
India - hindu majority nation, muslims are a minority.

Usa - white majority, black minority
in usa it is racial intolerance that led to church burnings and lynchings and roits.
In india it is religious intolerance that led to babri majid.

However in both cases vast percentages of majority groups did not participate in those acts. There could tacit approval of majority for peroids of time but over the long term sensible people prevailed to overcome the prejudices of aggressive goons of majority.

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:45 am

ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

are we supposed to forget all the rape and massacre just because it is convenient for muslims and their supporters to forget it ??

So you're going to take revenge on the next generation! Bollywood style verdict I guess

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:47 am

Rishi,
Muslims invaded india, plundered its wealth, forcefully converted people to islam etc were all facts. But does that give hindus of 20th century the right mistreat, kill and vandalize indian muslims?
In us some people use urban voilence as an indicator of the need to segregate blacks. It is another method to deny civil rights.
Indian hindus have to be mature in dealing with minorities since they are the majority and they run the country.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:59 am

truthbetold wrote:Rishi,
Muslims invaded india, plundered its wealth, forcefully converted people to islam etc were all facts. But does that give hindus of 20th century the right mistreat, kill and vandalize indian muslims?
In us some people use urban voilence as an indicator of the need to segregate blacks. It is another method to deny civil rights.
Indian hindus have to be mature in dealing with minorities since they are the majority and they run the country.

Tell us which hindu group indulges on riots and violence after friday temple visits?

Tell us which Christian groups go on a rampage after they come out of Sunday masses?

Pray tell us why it is solely the responsibility of the hindus?

It is the such armchair secular-sermons that embolden the iSalamic terrorists into attacking/initiating hindus - knowing full well the muslims will be supported by the secularists and their government.

Of course, I blame the hindus for giving such forces other power. People get what they deserve and rewarded "appropriately" for their actions.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:02 am

Couple of people suggested that some how the advent of indian constitution created a new nation. While it is a decent document, did it ask every indian for acceptance? If one is opposedto indian constitution, what were his options? One could argue people who lived in india forever have rights beyond a book.
Formation of india and assumption of state powers by indian govt does not mean indian history will be forgotten or it should be ignored.
The constitutional argument is valid in many spheres but not in all spheres.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:10 am

Uppili garu,
If a muslim group indulges in voilence after friday prayers they should be dealt with firmly. If incompetent congress govts at center, in mumbai and in hyderabad fail to do it, it is for people to act and throw out these bums.
Such incidents are irritants but you cannot consolidate them to create a rational for majority killing spree.
indian muslims exploit the divisions within indian society. But sadly the benefit is limited to leaders like MIM and mulayam.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:22 am

ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

are we supposed to forget all the rape and massacre just because it is convenient for muslims and their supporters to forget it ??

medievalists of all creed and color raped and pillaged when the opportunity afforded itself. the question for you is whether you are willing to live by the constitution that your immediate ancestors were signatories to in 1950 or not. you are a citizen of a free democratic country. are you going to act like one, or are you going to go down the path of medieval rape, pillage, retribution, rinse and repeat?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:23 am

truthbetold wrote:Couple of people suggested that some how the advent of indian constitution created a new nation. While it is a decent document, did it ask every indian for acceptance? If one is opposedto indian constitution, what were his options? One could argue people who lived in india forever have rights beyond a book.
Formation of india and assumption of state powers by indian govt does not mean indian history will be forgotten or it should be ignored.
The constitutional argument is valid in many spheres but not in all spheres.

there is a democratic process to make changes to the constitution. if you are unhappy with it, kindly undertake the process to get it changed.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:08 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
The constitutional argument is valid in many spheres but not in all spheres.

there is a democratic process to make changes to the constitution. if you are unhappy with it, kindly undertake the process to get it changed.

That democratic process is a majority process and is an imposition by itself. Vast tribal belts of India were left to their fate for most of India's independence. Now government wants to use its constitutional powers to exploit mineral riches disrupting tribal life. They use magic words of development.
Why are these tribals required to abide by a constitution they have no part?

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:19 am

The rath yatra and the babri masjid thing flared up after the shah bano case. Supreme court 's ruling was opposed by many muslims and rajiv gandhi tried to overturn it in order to please the muslims. Vote bank politics! Advani wanted to start his own politics and set upon his rath yatra. His argument: if the constitution and the supreme court verdict are grossly disrespected by the muslims and the cong govt, where is the guarantee that they are going to uphold it if the court verdit on the babri masjid favors the hindus? So time to take things in our own hands. Another vote bank politics again!

Anyway, the fact remains that the babri masjid case had been in the courts for decades. No judge had/would've had the guts to give a verdict to relocate the mosque and hand over the land/part of land to the hindus. An out of court settlement was suggested. A brick by brick relocation of the mosque to a different location was put forth. but the muslim clerics and leaders didn't want to give in. They wanted to play their own politics. It was an old and abandoned mosque anyway. A little magnanimity on their part and understanding of the sentiments of the hindus would've helped avert all the bad blood between the two communities. But that didn't happen.

Now that the structure isn't there, the courts finally had the guts to give the verdict of dividing the land among three parties. best possible solution! It wouldn't have been possible if the structure were there. But looks like the court verdict didn't help either. I heard that the army is still guarding that area 24/7 and no one is allowed to go near it. Sad situation!

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:32 am

truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
The constitutional argument is valid in many spheres but not in all spheres.

there is a democratic process to make changes to the constitution. if you are unhappy with it, kindly undertake the process to get it changed.
That democratic process is a majority process and is an imposition by itself. Vast tribal belts of India were left to their fate for most of India's independence. Now government wants to use its constitutional powers to exploit mineral riches disrupting tribal life. They use magic words of development.
Why are these tribals required to abide by a constitution they have no part?

democracies work that way. you have a constitution and you accept it even if you don't like parts of it. for example, i don't like the second amendment of the united states. but i'm sure you have a silver bullet solution that makes everybody happy that obviates the need for a constitution. we're all agog to hear it.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:53 am

[quote
Why are these tribals required to abide by a constitution they have no part? [/quote]

democracies work that way. you have a constitution and you accept it even if you don't like parts of it. for example, i don't like the second amendment of the united states. but i'm sure you have a silver bullet solution that makes everybody happy that obviates the need for a constitution. we're all agog to hear it. [/quote]

You took an oath to follow us constitution. Like it or not you got a package. That is not what happened in India. It is more like Native American relationship with us constitution. When native people's worship locations are found in areas to be developed, they are out of reach for development. That area is cordoned off and protected. Native land requires native consent for development.
In India elite groups completely ignore historical realities and use their temporary state power to trample local people's natural rights.

by Rishi Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:28 am

There is an American co-worker of mine who regularly reads the Economist magazine. He commented about how the Hindus discriminate the Muslims in India and so on.

I told him that the number of Muslims killed by Hindus in the last 1000 years is nothing compared to the number of innocent Muslim women and children killed by Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 10 years.

That shut him up.

I should have pointed out him the humiliation and abuse heaped upon innocent Muslim men of Iraq held in the Abu Ghraib prison by the 'human rights' loving American Christians.

Compare what happened in Abu Ghraib with how Indians treated the Pakistani POWs in 1971 war.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:59 am

Rishi,
The people who mistreat Indian Muslims and the people who tortured Abu garib prisoners are ideological brothers or stupid relatives. One cannot be the justification of other. Both are wrong. You cannot derive moral authority from others gory acts.
Historical atrocities of Indian Muslims donot give rss any right to hurt or diminish their current status as a free and equal Indian citizen.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:28 pm

ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

are we supposed to forget all the rape and massacre just because it is convenient for muslims and their supporters to forget it ??

Doc, by that token, Maharashtrians of today should be made to pay for their forefathers' rape and pillage all across North, Central and South India.

by ashdoc Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:18 pm

it was lesser than what the muslims were doing . and it was marathis who saved the hindus of gujarat rajasthan madhya pradesh north karnataka haryana orissa chattisgarh from muslim rape and pillage

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:46 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

are we supposed to forget all the rape and massacre just because it is convenient for muslims and their supporters to forget it ??

Doc, by that token, Maharashtrians of today should be made to pay for their forefathers' rape and pillage all across North, Central and South India.

Oh dear Muslim Apologist:

Please list the major Muslim emperors and their misdeeds and the hindu Kings and their misdeeds. To make this assignment easier list only FIVE from each side in the last 1000 years.

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:48 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

when was the indian constitution framed? when did babur live?

are we supposed to forget all the rape and massacre just because it is convenient for muslims and their supporters to forget it ??

Doc, by that token, Maharashtrians of today should be made to pay for their forefathers' rape and pillage all across North, Central and South India.

Oh dear Muslim Apologist:

Please list the major Muslim emperors and their misdeeds and the hindu Kings and their misdeeds. To make this assignment easier list only FIVE from each side in the last 1000 years.

Is it fair to compare raja raja chola's plunder of Sri Lanka with the plunder of mahmood of ghazni in north west India ?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:16 pm

Rishi wrote:There is an American co-worker of mine who regularly reads the Economist magazine. He commented about how the Hindus discriminate the Muslims in India and so on.

I told him that the number of Muslims killed by Hindus in the last 1000 years is nothing compared to the number of innocent Muslim women and children killed by Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 10 years.

That shut him up.

I should have pointed out him the humiliation and abuse heaped upon innocent Muslim men of Iraq held in the Abu Ghraib prison by the 'human rights' loving American Christians.

Compare what happened in Abu Ghraib with how Indians treated the Pakistani POWs in 1971 war.

so in your worldview i take it that there is no difference between a collection of regions as they existed 500 to 1000 years ago that eventually became the country called india, and a modern democracy that was forged in 1950? the events of the last hundred and fifty or so years leading up to the formation of a modern democracy mean nothing to you?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:33 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:There is an American co-worker of mine who regularly reads the Economist magazine. He commented about how the Hindus discriminate the Muslims in India and so on.

I told him that the number of Muslims killed by Hindus in the last 1000 years is nothing compared to the number of innocent Muslim women and children killed by Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 10 years.

That shut him up.

I should have pointed out him the humiliation and abuse heaped upon innocent Muslim men of Iraq held in the Abu Ghraib prison by the 'human rights' loving American Christians.

Compare what happened in Abu Ghraib with how Indians treated the Pakistani POWs in 1971 war.

so in your worldview i take it that there is no difference between a collection of regions as they existed 500 to 1000 years ago that eventually became the country called india, and a modern democracy that was forged in 1950? the events of the last hundred and fifty or so years leading up to the formation of a modern democracy mean nothing to you?

Rite O rite...bcz the "other side" seems bent on their own Ummah and things that happened since 570 AD. So it is only natural to look at the period when the barbarians entered the Indian Subcontinent - around 1100 AD. Remember one needs to compare apples to apples.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:44 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:There is an American co-worker of mine who regularly reads the Economist magazine. He commented about how the Hindus discriminate the Muslims in India and so on.

I told him that the number of Muslims killed by Hindus in the last 1000 years is nothing compared to the number of innocent Muslim women and children killed by Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 10 years.

That shut him up.

I should have pointed out him the humiliation and abuse heaped upon innocent Muslim men of Iraq held in the Abu Ghraib prison by the 'human rights' loving American Christians.

Compare what happened in Abu Ghraib with how Indians treated the Pakistani POWs in 1971 war.

so in your worldview i take it that there is no difference between a collection of regions as they existed 500 to 1000 years ago that eventually became the country called india, and a modern democracy that was forged in 1950? the events of the last hundred and fifty or so years leading up to the formation of a modern democracy mean nothing to you?

Rite O rite...bcz the "other side" seems bent on their own Ummah and things that happened since 570 AD. So it is only natural to look at the period when the barbarians entered the Indian Subcontinent - around 1100 AD. Remember one needs to compare apples to apples.

no barbarians entered your space. you don't have to borrow the insecurities and rages of your northindian neighbors. your ancestors were free of all this psychological baggage.

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:48 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:There is an American co-worker of mine who regularly reads the Economist magazine. He commented about how the Hindus discriminate the Muslims in India and so on.

I told him that the number of Muslims killed by Hindus in the last 1000 years is nothing compared to the number of innocent Muslim women and children killed by Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 10 years.

That shut him up.

I should have pointed out him the humiliation and abuse heaped upon innocent Muslim men of Iraq held in the Abu Ghraib prison by the 'human rights' loving American Christians.

Compare what happened in Abu Ghraib with how Indians treated the Pakistani POWs in 1971 war.

so in your worldview i take it that there is no difference between a collection of regions as they existed 500 to 1000 years ago that eventually became the country called india, and a modern democracy that was forged in 1950? the events of the last hundred and fifty or so years leading up to the formation of a modern democracy mean nothing to you?

Rite O rite...bcz the "other side" seems bent on their own Ummah and things that happened since 570 AD. So it is only natural to look at the period when the barbarians entered the Indian Subcontinent - around 1100 AD. Remember one needs to compare apples to apples.

no barbarians entered your space. you don't have to borrow the insecurities and rages of your northindian neighbors. your ancestors were free of all this psychological baggage.

There are those who continue to have hatred for the benevolent Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:There is an American co-worker of mine who regularly reads the Economist magazine. He commented about how the Hindus discriminate the Muslims in India and so on.

I told him that the number of Muslims killed by Hindus in the last 1000 years is nothing compared to the number of innocent Muslim women and children killed by Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 10 years.

That shut him up.

I should have pointed out him the humiliation and abuse heaped upon innocent Muslim men of Iraq held in the Abu Ghraib prison by the 'human rights' loving American Christians.

Compare what happened in Abu Ghraib with how Indians treated the Pakistani POWs in 1971 war.

so in your worldview i take it that there is no difference between a collection of regions as they existed 500 to 1000 years ago that eventually became the country called india, and a modern democracy that was forged in 1950? the events of the last hundred and fifty or so years leading up to the formation of a modern democracy mean nothing to you?

Rite O rite...bcz the "other side" seems bent on their own Ummah and things that happened since 570 AD. So it is only natural to look at the period when the barbarians entered the Indian Subcontinent - around 1100 AD. Remember one needs to compare apples to apples.

no barbarians entered your space. you don't have to borrow the insecurities and rages of your northindian neighbors. your ancestors were free of all this psychological baggage.

There are those who continue to have hatred for the benevolent Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot.

indifference is more like it.

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:51 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

so in your worldview i take it that there is no difference between a collection of regions as they existed 500 to 1000 years ago that eventually became the country called india, and a modern democracy that was forged in 1950? the events of the last hundred and fifty or so years leading up to the formation of a modern democracy mean nothing to you?

Rite O rite...bcz the "other side" seems bent on their own Ummah and things that happened since 570 AD. So it is only natural to look at the period when the barbarians entered the Indian Subcontinent - around 1100 AD. Remember one needs to compare apples to apples.

no barbarians entered your space. you don't have to borrow the insecurities and rages of your northindian neighbors. your ancestors were free of all this psychological baggage.

There are those who continue to have hatred for the benevolent Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot.

indifference is more like it.

Had it been indifference PP would not have reacted like a maniac to the Nizam thread.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:53 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:There is an American co-worker of mine who regularly reads the Economist magazine. He commented about how the Hindus discriminate the Muslims in India and so on.

I told him that the number of Muslims killed by Hindus in the last 1000 years is nothing compared to the number of innocent Muslim women and children killed by Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 10 years.

That shut him up.

I should have pointed out him the humiliation and abuse heaped upon innocent Muslim men of Iraq held in the Abu Ghraib prison by the 'human rights' loving American Christians.

Compare what happened in Abu Ghraib with how Indians treated the Pakistani POWs in 1971 war.

so in your worldview i take it that there is no difference between a collection of regions as they existed 500 to 1000 years ago that eventually became the country called india, and a modern democracy that was forged in 1950? the events of the last hundred and fifty or so years leading up to the formation of a modern democracy mean nothing to you?

Rite O rite...bcz the "other side" seems bent on their own Ummah and things that happened since 570 AD. So it is only natural to look at the period when the barbarians entered the Indian Subcontinent - around 1100 AD. Remember one needs to compare apples to apples.

no barbarians entered your space. you don't have to borrow the insecurities and rages of your northindian neighbors. your ancestors were free of all this psychological baggage.

Wait on the one hand you look at India as a whole and Indian constitution etc..etc.. and then revert back to your space and naarthie and Southie...

Even taking 1947 (or 1950), Pakis entered India many times and abused and misused Indians and Indian soil. There is not a single day when Paki-based terror groups - aided actively and passively - issueing anti-hindu and anti-India statements with threats of bombs. Same goes for Bangla illegals into Assam and NE. Their Ummah brothers maintain silence - except for a cursory condolence whenever 100s of hindus are killed in established terror acts, that too, with a caveat.

So it is perfectly natural - pre or post 1847 - to compare the atrocities of iSlamis with that of Hindu atrocities on the islamis.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
There are those who continue to have hatred for the benevolent Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot.

..There again...

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:00 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait on the one hand you look at India as a whole and Indian constitution etc..etc.. and then revert back to your space and naarthie and Southie...

i prefer indians, hindus and muslims, to live by the constitution they signed in 1950. however, it is also my opinion that regardless of my desire, it is the long and ugly history between the two communities, much of which transpired in the north, that forms the basis for their mutual behavior; in particular, the psychological scars of ancestral northindian hindus passed on to generations of their descendants. i am therefore noting that the space you grew up in is largely free of such scars and memories and you have no reason to bear such ill will. i also therefore conclude that your impulses are largely from borrowed hatred.

ashdoc, gyanputra et al. -- perfectly understandable. you and ponniyin selvan -- not.

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:01 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
There are those who continue to have hatred for the benevolent Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot.

..There again...

Uppili the Poopili
We know you are the champion pooper.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait on the one hand you look at India as a whole and Indian constitution etc..etc.. and then revert back to your space and naarthie and Southie...

i prefer indians, hindus and muslims, to live by the constitution they signed in 1950. however, it is also my opinion that regardless of my desire, it is the long and ugly history between the two communities, much of which transpired in the north, that forms the basis for their mutual behavior; in particular, the psychological scars of ancestral northindian hindus passed on to generations of their descendants. i am therefore noting that the space you grew up in is largely free of such scars and memories and you have no reason to bear such ill will. i also therefore conclude that your impulses are largely from borrowed hatred.

Max,
by your version of indian history the deccan was part of north, razakars of telangana were north and definetly those who decimated vijaynagar kingdom in tallakota did it in north.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:17 pm

Max,
Where is your dividing line between south and north? Is it kaveri river? Is it tanjavur? Is it north of your ancestral home in tanjavur?
mindlessly parroting thst old fools perverted history is not likely to sell your logic.

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:19 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait on the one hand you look at India as a whole and Indian constitution etc..etc.. and then revert back to your space and naarthie and Southie...

i prefer indians, hindus and muslims, to live by the constitution they signed in 1950. however, it is also my opinion that regardless of my desire, it is the long and ugly history between the two communities, much of which transpired in the north, that forms the basis for their mutual behavior; in particular, the psychological scars of ancestral northindian hindus passed on to generations of their descendants. i am therefore noting that the space you grew up in is largely free of such scars and memories and you have no reason to bear such ill will. i also therefore conclude that your impulses are largely from borrowed hatred.

ashdoc, gyanputra et al. -- perfectly understandable. you and ponniyin selvan -- not.

Oh...so ur love for the muslims has the north-south angle to it. Don't know why u had to parrot the upholding the constitution, etc crap all the while. Simple equation of yours: enemy of enemy= my friend.

btw, be grateful to Krishnadevaraya, the kannada/telugu king, for preventing the muslim invaders from going south. Else, the south would've been plundered like the north.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:19 pm

truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait on the one hand you look at India as a whole and Indian constitution etc..etc.. and then revert back to your space and naarthie and Southie...

i prefer indians, hindus and muslims, to live by the constitution they signed in 1950. however, it is also my opinion that regardless of my desire, it is the long and ugly history between the two communities, much of which transpired in the north, that forms the basis for their mutual behavior; in particular, the psychological scars of ancestral northindian hindus passed on to generations of their descendants. i am therefore noting that the space you grew up in is largely free of such scars and memories and you have no reason to bear such ill will. i also therefore conclude that your impulses are largely from borrowed hatred.

Max,
by your version of indian history the deccan was part of north, razakars of telangana were north and definetly those who decimated vijaynagar kingdom in tallakota did it in north.

i chose my words carefully. i said "much" of what transpired was in the north. even so, i am quite sure the telengana razakars are not part of uppili's family lore. in fact it is likely uppili had never heard of the telengana razakars prior to hearing about them from panini press and rashmun.

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:21 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait on the one hand you look at India as a whole and Indian constitution etc..etc.. and then revert back to your space and naarthie and Southie...

i prefer indians, hindus and muslims, to live by the constitution they signed in 1950. however, it is also my opinion that regardless of my desire, it is the long and ugly history between the two communities, much of which transpired in the north, that forms the basis for their mutual behavior; in particular, the psychological scars of ancestral northindian hindus passed on to generations of their descendants. i am therefore noting that the space you grew up in is largely free of such scars and memories and you have no reason to bear such ill will. i also therefore conclude that your impulses are largely from borrowed hatred.

Max,
by your version of indian history the deccan was part of north, razakars of telangana were north and definetly those who decimated vijaynagar kingdom in tallakota did it in north.

i chose my words carefully. i said "much" of what transpired was in the north. even so, i am quite sure the telengana razakars are not part of uppili's family lore.

Max are you familiar with the destruction of the Vijayanagar kingdom by the Bahamani rulers?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:21 pm

kinnera wrote: Simple equation of yours: enemy of enemy= my friend.

not really. the equation is that people who have done me no harm do not deserve my hatred.

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:25 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera wrote: Simple equation of yours: enemy of enemy= my friend.

not really. the equation is that people who have done me no harm do not deserve my hatred.

what harm did north indians do to you? Don't deny it, your hatred for them has been quite obvious.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:26 pm

kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera wrote: Simple equation of yours: enemy of enemy= my friend.

not really. the equation is that people who have done me no harm do not deserve my hatred.

what harm did north indians do to you? Don't deny it, your hatred for them has been quite obvious.

i'll just have to repeat the truth -- i have no hatred for them. in fact i thoroughly enjoy their classical music.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com