<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Dec 23 2008, 12:18 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Dec 23 2008, 12:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A few posts from BRF x-posted here...
The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.
Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.[right][snapback]92108[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What is this about Hindus not having morals but only Jainas and Bauddhas having it? Hindu code of warfare was very ethical.
And where in Kshatriya Dharma was anyone allowed to do any sadistic torture of enemies let alone enjoy it? They vanquished their enemies and that's it.
Even the later Mahabharata code of war is rather straightforward and has laws against attacking people in unequal combat (foot soldier can't be attacked by mounted person, that sort of thing), and from what I recall has laws against attacking non-war animals as well (that is, war elephants were enemy, but not chariot horses).
Christoislamania's total war is different, but there's no cause to behave like Total Losers. Of course, terrorists of the christoislamaniac persuasion deserve no ethical treatment. But against islamic terrorists or christo NLFT/Orissan christo-maoist terrorists, I see no reason for prolonging their life by torturing them. Indian forces just need to shoot them/blow them up and be done with it.
Are they that important to make a monster of oneself by inflicting unnecessary extra pain? Besides, it is against Hindu traditions. They deserve death, merely need to give it to them. This is not that 60s(?) Batman show where the villains go on and on about the elaborate methods they've devised for how they're going to do in the dynamic duo.
Psychological warfare against christoislamaniacs is easy: after they're dead, cremate them. The others of their terrorist intent will flip if they hear there's no chance of them getting to heaven (need a body for christoislamics to get up on judgement day; that's why cremation is so <i>banned</i> and feared in christianism) and the same is kinda true for islamaniacs. And then can do Hindu death rites on the bodies before cremation. Islamaniacs will consider such bodies kaffirised forever <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Or, if we're going to give extra consideration for the islamaniac terrorists, then - instead of the pig fat suggested (which would require poor pigs to be dead first) - can have piggies dump their manure on islamic terrorists' dead bodies. Then cremate them.
Probably good for the environment too.
<b>ADDED:</b>
And christoislamaniacs want to play martyr and shaheed. Being tortured is their second greatest wish (torturing heathens is their number one). It makes their glory and the glory of their non-existent gawd appear greater to them, as if they are the ones suffering for their 'faith' - when in reality they are tormenting everyone else. Terrorists are a civilian and national threat, need to let the armed forces neutralise them - not play to their expectations and wishes. Christoislamism is an ideology focussed on blood and gore - only blood and gore makes them happy. If one gives them shaheeds and martyrs, more of them will join up and come forward to play dead martyr.
Do what Julian did - don't ignore them, but never give them the chance to take the role of drama queen. Law and order should ensure death for the terrorists, but christoislamism *itself* is the real problem. When the ideology is defeated, then there will be no terrorists. Real success in the war - the way people can win totally and humiliate and defeat christoislamism completely - is when we deconvert its sheepish ummah, and universally expose the ideology itself as the most undesirable deformity ever to have marred the earth.
The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.
Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.[right][snapback]92108[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What is this about Hindus not having morals but only Jainas and Bauddhas having it? Hindu code of warfare was very ethical.
And where in Kshatriya Dharma was anyone allowed to do any sadistic torture of enemies let alone enjoy it? They vanquished their enemies and that's it.
Even the later Mahabharata code of war is rather straightforward and has laws against attacking people in unequal combat (foot soldier can't be attacked by mounted person, that sort of thing), and from what I recall has laws against attacking non-war animals as well (that is, war elephants were enemy, but not chariot horses).
Christoislamania's total war is different, but there's no cause to behave like Total Losers. Of course, terrorists of the christoislamaniac persuasion deserve no ethical treatment. But against islamic terrorists or christo NLFT/Orissan christo-maoist terrorists, I see no reason for prolonging their life by torturing them. Indian forces just need to shoot them/blow them up and be done with it.
Are they that important to make a monster of oneself by inflicting unnecessary extra pain? Besides, it is against Hindu traditions. They deserve death, merely need to give it to them. This is not that 60s(?) Batman show where the villains go on and on about the elaborate methods they've devised for how they're going to do in the dynamic duo.
Psychological warfare against christoislamaniacs is easy: after they're dead, cremate them. The others of their terrorist intent will flip if they hear there's no chance of them getting to heaven (need a body for christoislamics to get up on judgement day; that's why cremation is so <i>banned</i> and feared in christianism) and the same is kinda true for islamaniacs. And then can do Hindu death rites on the bodies before cremation. Islamaniacs will consider such bodies kaffirised forever <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Or, if we're going to give extra consideration for the islamaniac terrorists, then - instead of the pig fat suggested (which would require poor pigs to be dead first) - can have piggies dump their manure on islamic terrorists' dead bodies. Then cremate them.
Probably good for the environment too.
<b>ADDED:</b>
And christoislamaniacs want to play martyr and shaheed. Being tortured is their second greatest wish (torturing heathens is their number one). It makes their glory and the glory of their non-existent gawd appear greater to them, as if they are the ones suffering for their 'faith' - when in reality they are tormenting everyone else. Terrorists are a civilian and national threat, need to let the armed forces neutralise them - not play to their expectations and wishes. Christoislamism is an ideology focussed on blood and gore - only blood and gore makes them happy. If one gives them shaheeds and martyrs, more of them will join up and come forward to play dead martyr.
Do what Julian did - don't ignore them, but never give them the chance to take the role of drama queen. Law and order should ensure death for the terrorists, but christoislamism *itself* is the real problem. When the ideology is defeated, then there will be no terrorists. Real success in the war - the way people can win totally and humiliate and defeat christoislamism completely - is when we deconvert its sheepish ummah, and universally expose the ideology itself as the most undesirable deformity ever to have marred the earth.