06-19-2008, 01:53 PM
Post 80:
Ramana, I think it's fair to state that we suffered two terrifyingly gruesome barbarisms. It may be the case that lightning doesn't often fry someone twice. But it's what happened to Dharmics of historical India. I see no need to downplay one tyrant in favour of the other, even if it is done in a direction opposite from the usual (where the usual/common position is that the 'christoBritish were better than islamaniacs'). The fact is, both were possessed by murderous terrorist ideologies, hence they each claimed several tens of millions of lives of the Dharmic population in the subcontinent:
- Islamis claimed anywhere from 80-90 million (with lots of evidence from islamic records on their 'achievements' in decimating Hindu population), some estimates set it higher than that
- The christoBrits' stand at least at:
25million in famine (as per their own records)
+ estimated 'suddenly missing' 10 million in aftermath of Mutiny (going by the article posted on IF on the number of missing persons with mail waiting for them)
+ ? number of Indians murdered by all kinds of skirmishes and local christoterrorisms caused by British.
There's no need - and no <i>way</i> - to make either of them come off looking good in the comparison.
I suppose one could argue whether between them, Muhammed Ghori or Aurangzeb was the better - but the heathen wouldn't have lived to find out anyway... In like manner, from the Hindu experience of them, there's really no difference between the two sects of christoislamibarbarism. Now if the two cults had fought each other to the end and one of them had won, we could really have said which one was the 'better'...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This will take away the raison d'etre of the Islamists in Indian sub-contient.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->One can't change the islamism of the believers. Islam (and christianism) simply doesn't work that way. Islam's been in the subcontinent a thousand years, and - except for the respite thanks to Shivaji and others' efforts - the islamic jihad and pushing others into dhimmitude is back.
Where's all their nationalism (for something other than moogalistan, I mean) after all this time spent in our company?
The real raison d'etre of islamists in Indian subcontinent is that of islam and its theology on territory: if land has ever been under islamic dominion, they claim it forever as their own. Jewish people realise this. Even some Europeans know this (islamis are biding their time before acting - but it's known that they still claim Granada, all of Andalusia as theirs. And these claims stand until islam is no more).
Christianism also has similar claims. But it's slightly different: a land need never have really been under christian influence for the christodelusionists to claim it as their own: if land/continent is assigned to christianism by the pope or biblical faux-history, they see it forever as theirs. The way the pope split the unconverted world into E and W and gave these different directions to Portugal and Spain. Of course, the fables about apostles also have powerful say in christian theology. India having been alleged to have been apostled/evangelised by non-existing Thomas is therefore viewed as being christian land.
Note how kaffiri heathens are never allowed their own land. Christoislamicommunists view heatheny lands as "emtpy" - free to enforce their terrorist ideologies on, unbelievers be damned.
Ramana, I think it's fair to state that we suffered two terrifyingly gruesome barbarisms. It may be the case that lightning doesn't often fry someone twice. But it's what happened to Dharmics of historical India. I see no need to downplay one tyrant in favour of the other, even if it is done in a direction opposite from the usual (where the usual/common position is that the 'christoBritish were better than islamaniacs'). The fact is, both were possessed by murderous terrorist ideologies, hence they each claimed several tens of millions of lives of the Dharmic population in the subcontinent:
- Islamis claimed anywhere from 80-90 million (with lots of evidence from islamic records on their 'achievements' in decimating Hindu population), some estimates set it higher than that
- The christoBrits' stand at least at:
25million in famine (as per their own records)
+ estimated 'suddenly missing' 10 million in aftermath of Mutiny (going by the article posted on IF on the number of missing persons with mail waiting for them)
+ ? number of Indians murdered by all kinds of skirmishes and local christoterrorisms caused by British.
There's no need - and no <i>way</i> - to make either of them come off looking good in the comparison.
I suppose one could argue whether between them, Muhammed Ghori or Aurangzeb was the better - but the heathen wouldn't have lived to find out anyway... In like manner, from the Hindu experience of them, there's really no difference between the two sects of christoislamibarbarism. Now if the two cults had fought each other to the end and one of them had won, we could really have said which one was the 'better'...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This will take away the raison d'etre of the Islamists in Indian sub-contient.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->One can't change the islamism of the believers. Islam (and christianism) simply doesn't work that way. Islam's been in the subcontinent a thousand years, and - except for the respite thanks to Shivaji and others' efforts - the islamic jihad and pushing others into dhimmitude is back.
Where's all their nationalism (for something other than moogalistan, I mean) after all this time spent in our company?
The real raison d'etre of islamists in Indian subcontinent is that of islam and its theology on territory: if land has ever been under islamic dominion, they claim it forever as their own. Jewish people realise this. Even some Europeans know this (islamis are biding their time before acting - but it's known that they still claim Granada, all of Andalusia as theirs. And these claims stand until islam is no more).
Christianism also has similar claims. But it's slightly different: a land need never have really been under christian influence for the christodelusionists to claim it as their own: if land/continent is assigned to christianism by the pope or biblical faux-history, they see it forever as theirs. The way the pope split the unconverted world into E and W and gave these different directions to Portugal and Spain. Of course, the fables about apostles also have powerful say in christian theology. India having been alleged to have been apostled/evangelised by non-existing Thomas is therefore viewed as being christian land.
Note how kaffiri heathens are never allowed their own land. Christoislamicommunists view heatheny lands as "emtpy" - free to enforce their terrorist ideologies on, unbelievers be damned.