Raise a hand if you’ve heard statements like this on blogs, articles and various comment forums:
- India was the greatest power in the world for thousands of years
- Muslim invaders came and destroyed Indian culture
- Indian knowledge was far ahead of its time and was the envy of the world
- India had the greatest philosophers
- India had the wisest kings
- India had the best warriors
- The British stole India’s Kohinoor! etc etc.
You get the idea..
They are made with the utmost passion and are usually followed by a tirade of how India has fallen from greatness, has embraced “western imperialism” and needs to get back to its roots. Modern society is degenerating, homosexuals are roaming freely, and women are “losing their modesty”. Honestly, I’m astounded at how often I hear such nonsense.
Let’s assume it’s all true. Obviously there’s a good amount of idealization, glorification and whitewashing, but I’m going to ignore it for now. Pretend that India was the greatest jewel on the planet for thousands of years, that all the rulers were paragons of virtue, justice and wisdom. Give in to the belief that evil Muslims came and destroyed everything great about this paradise hundreds of years ago and imposed their barbaric rule, culture and laws upon it.
I may be asking for too much I know, but bear with me. Now that we’ve descended into self delusion and absorbed this nauseatingly glorified past, I have just one question.
So…bloody…what??
Indians living today share nothing but a few bits of DNA with our long dead ancestors. We didn’t know them. They certainly didn’t know us. We have no connection to them. But still we want to somehow claim greatness based on their (supposedly) lofty stature in the past. In effect, we want to bask in undeserved glory. The reality is that the deeds of those before don’t confer superiority on us today. Those who lived and died hundreds of years ago are strangers to us.
It means nothing. We have no business to feel proud.
I’ll tell you the kind of people who look to the past to find glory and feel better about themselves. Those who have no achievements of their own. People who think themselves so worthless and without anything to brag about that they have to dig up old glories of India – imagined or not – to elevate themselves and compensate for their current failings.
The atrocities committed hundreds or thousands of years ago have no bearing today. Those responsible have long since died and crumbled to dust, beyond the reach of our laws. Even those who suffered have been extinguished. The past is past. Let bygones by bygones.
Advocates of the past justify bringing up these old non-wounds by saying we must “learn from history” and trot out that famous saying “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This might have been valid if there was a danger today of Muslim hordes overrunning India today. If there was a risk of barbarians on horses frothing at the mouth waiting to convert every Hindu into a Muslim.
But there are no such barbarians today. There is no threat. We have far bigger problems than Islamic terrorism threatening us. Perhaps we’re afraid of tackling them and so find an easy target to blame everything on. It’s the evil Sonia Gandhi and her Christian pals in Rome! It’s the minority appeasing Congress that wants to convert every Hindu into a Muslim and impose Sharia law!
If only things were that simple and the enemy was so clearly outlined. But they’re not. Nothing is simple. We have far deeper and real systemic problems which we need to address. Finding an enemy to swing a sword at is just childish. We desperately need to grow up.
“Hate them in the abstract if you want. But they don’t even exist anymore…so it’s literally impossible for them to be saints or demons.”
But can we say they were saints or demons when they were alive?
“Just like you use the word “India” illogically, you’re also using the word “Muslims” and “Hindus” illogically. Unless you can show that every single Hindu or Muslim feels a certain way, you have no right to use either of those words.”
That doesn’t change the fact that there are indeed Muslims and Hindus who feel that way. Splitting hairs over generalizations doesn’t solve their problems. Further, you use these same kinds of generalizations in your post:
“We have far bigger problems than Islamic terrorism threatening us. Perhaps we’re afraid of tackling them and so find an easy target to blame everything on…We have far deeper and real systemic problems which we need to address. Finding an enemy to swing a sword at is just childish. We desperately need to grow up.”
Who is “we?” How dare you speak for other Indians? Using your line of thought, labels of any kind essentially become meaningless.
“Google has a nice page with multiple definitions of empathy. All of them refer to “another person” or “another”. Since dead people cease to exist, they are neither “people” anymore nor are they “another”. This is patently obvious and I don’t know why you contest this.”
Wrong again. Dead people may no longer exist, but the once did, and during that time, they were people, and they had feelings. If you understand the fact that they had feelings at that time, and share them, then you feel empathy, something that Google’s definitions don’t dispute.
“I disagree that people can’t regulate their emotions. It’s called the “Emotional Quotient” or EQ. Anyone who can’t regulate their emotions is a child. I have more respect for people than to assume that they’re children. You might not be able to regulate your emotions, but I assure you that most humans – including myself – can and do on a regular basis.”
Really? So people can just choose to be angry or sad or happy? Can you choose to be devastated right now? Can you choose to fall in love? And if what you’re saying is right, why is anyone anything other than happy all the time? I think what you’re talking about and what I’m talking about are two slightly different things. You are talking about controlling expressions of anger, sadness, fear etc. when those emotions come about. I agree that anyone can do that. What I’m saying is that, though you can control your behavior once emotions arise, you can’t just summon emotion at will or keep yourself from feeling certain things. For instance, if you feel angry, you can prevent yourself from shouting or hitting someone, but that won’t change the fact that you’re angry. Or else no one would ever stop being happy. There would be no hate crimes, no suicides, no heartbroken people etc. Be realistic.
“Your concept of India need not be my concept of India. So I repeat that you have no right to say anything about “Indians” since you don’t speak for every single Indian in the country. It’s logically impossible.”
That doesn’t change the fact that concepts of Indian identity exist, and they must at least in some way all be compatible with each other, or else India would never have existed.
“I have greater respect for the people of Japan than you think – most of them are not idiots. That’s why you won’t easily find a Japanese who feels proud of their tsunamis.”
I’m pretty sure you won’t find a Japanese person regretting the fact that the Mongol invasions failed as a result of the tsunamis.
In reply to Sasank
But can we say they were saints or demons when they were alive?
Of course.
Who is “we?” How dare you speak for other Indians? Using your line of thought, labels of any kind essentially become meaningless.
I apologize.
Dead people may no longer exist, but they once did.
Good – so go ahead and feel empathy with them in the past. But they don’t exist in the present. It’s high time you understood that dead people are not “people” anymore.
You can’t just summon emotion at will or keep yourself from feeling certain things
Yes you can. By using reason and realizing facts, you change the basis of anger. You may stupidly feel anger against Muslims. But you can use your brain and realize that the past doesn’t matter. Your anger then dissipates.
Better example. You may feel jealous if you think your wife is having an affair. But once you do an analysis of the facts, you reach the conclusion that she’s not having an affair. Your anger vanishes because you now know something you didn’t know before.
Similarly, you can feel angry that the British took the Kohinoor. Once you realize that it’s an irrelevant issue, and that it’s just a rock and that no one cares anymore, your anger dissipates.
Many people feel anger/hate etc. because they’re either a) Stupid b) Ill informed c) Haven’t taken time to thing things through. Not all anger is irrational. But lots of times it is. Hate crimes are an example. You can change how you feel by thinking.
That doesn’t change the fact that concepts of Indian identity exist
It doesn’t exist in my mind…and lots of others who think like me.
I’m pretty sure you won’t find a Japanese person regretting the fact that the Mongol invasions failed as a result of the tsunamis.
Neither will they feel proud of it.
Maybe the obsession is because the vast majority of Indians are arts graduates. Its is all they know.
In reply to requiredname
Actually arts students have a better perspective. Most Indians are science graduates and are used to dealing in black and white.
“Good – so go ahead and feel empathy with them in the past. But they don’t exist in the present. It’s high time you understood that dead people are not “people” anymore.”
I never said they existed, and I never said that they were still people. And the people who you’re criticizing in this post don’t believe they exist now either, or that they are people.
“Yes you can. By using reason and realizing facts, you change the basis of anger. You may stupidly feel anger against Muslims. But you can use your brain and realize that the past doesn’t matter. Your anger then dissipates.”
You really should get out more. That doesn’t work for all people all the time. Anger doesn’t always dissipate, despite your best efforts to remain calm. Nor, indeed, does any other emotion for that matter. People get angry DESPITE “using reason and realizing facts.” With your usual elitism you act as if people are retards who are incapable of thinking logically and blow up at the slightest provocation. If choosing to dissipate anger was that simple, no one would ever get pissed off.
“Better example. You may feel jealous if you think your wife is having an affair. But once you do an analysis of the facts, you reach the conclusion that she’s not having an affair. Your anger vanishes because you now know something you didn’t know before.”
People who are angry about Muslim hate and fanaticism are angry precisely because they understand the facts surrounding it. Unlike you, they don’t selectively ignore things that don’t fit their self righteous globalist idealism.
“Similarly, you can feel angry that the British took the Kohinoor. Once you realize that it’s an irrelevant issue, and that it’s just a rock and that no one cares anymore, your anger dissipates.”
But it’s not just a rock, and it is a relevant issue and people really do care. What makes you think that your conclusions are somehow the only ones that people are capable of drawing from the situation? It’s precisely because people inevitable draw other conclusions that they think differently from you and why these “realizations” are not universal. Not everyone is capable of simply being apathetic and cold blooded like you are. This isn’t a choice they make. They just can’t NOT be angry about certain things. They attach symbolic value to the diamond because they can’t NOT care about it. This is human nature.
“Many people feel anger/hate etc. because they’re either a) Stupid b) Ill informed c) Haven’t taken time to thing things through. Not all anger is irrational. But lots of times it is. Hate crimes are an example. You can change how you feel by thinking.”
I grow weary of your condescending snobbery. Please act as though people are at least as intelligent as you are. Yes, stupid, ignorant people exist, but they are a minority. Most people feel angry because there is literally no other reaction possible; their life experience tells them that the stimulus that they are receiving is unpleasant, and they automatically respond in kind, and no amount of information or different ways of thinking makes it any better. As far as the Muslim invasions are concerned, more information generally involves knowing exactly how many people were slaughtered, the method by which they were slaughtered, and the contempt and bigotry shown by the invaders involved, or some similar information. The fact that the effects of this hate are still being felt, and show no signs of dying down only increase the amount of anger, because all of this information and different methods of thinking does is increase the amount of negative stimulus. It’s ALL bad. In essence, when you truly see how bad things are, you’re just going to get more pissed off.
“It doesn’t exist in my mind…and lots of others who think like me.”
I honestly forgot why we were arguing about this. So I went back through the post and found the we left off arguing about the relevance of the Kohinoor Diamond. The point is that even if we ignore you and your sepoy brethren, many people in India do indeed see it as a collective “Indian” humiliation, even though not everyone agrees with them. They see the theft of that “rock” as just as horrendous as everything else the British did to break the spirit of the “Indian” people, because that’s exactly why the British did what they did. What exactly is wrong with that? It certainly is relevant. It is because of this irrelevant past that “India” is starving, broke, corrupt, and a pushover on the international stage. It is anger at past injustice that motivates people to better themselves and others around them, because they feel an inevitable attachment to these things that are part of their identity. It is because people ignore and forget such injustice that India continues to be looted by the present day ideological descendants of the British. I really don’t see why this natural human act of building an identity based on one’s surroundings and feeling anger at injustice meted out to one’s ideological fore bearers deserves such opprobrium.
“Neither will they feel proud of it.”
Who is “they?” How can you speak for them? And how do you know they won’t?
In reply to Sasank
I didn’t say it works all the time. In only works for illogical anger.
But it’s not just a rock
It is. And once you realize that, you stop caring. Because it’s just a rock and my life won’t change in any way if it’s here or there.
As far as the Muslim invasions are concerned, more information generally involves knowing exactly how many people were slaughtered…
Better to spread the information that everyone concerned at that time is now dead and their descendants have no connection to them except for DNA.
many people in India do indeed see it as a collective “Indian” humiliation
And many don’t. So since we’re all Indians, stop calling it an “Indian sentiment”. You don’t speak for the rest of us. Call it “your” sentiments instead.
as horrendous as everything else the British did to break the spirit of the “Indian” people
But my spirit isn’t broken now and neither is yours. So why do you give a shit?
And how do you know they won’t?
Because I respect Japanese people too much to believe that they’re idiots.
“I didn’t say it works all the time. In only works for illogical anger.”
That’s not the kind we’re talking about.
“It is. And once you realize that, you stop caring. Because it’s just a rock and my life won’t change in any way if it’s here or there.”
What a sad, insipid, pathetic existence you must lead. At any rate, many people don’t think it’s just a rock. Many people think it’s much more than just a rock, and they can’t choose not to, any more than you can attach meaning to it and believe that it is indeed more than a rock. So why are they somehow inferior to you? Why do they deserve the scorn and contempt you mockingly shower them with? They’re just as incapable of detaching themselves from it as you are capable of attaching yourself to it. That it is just a rock without any symbolic value is just your personal opinion. Don’t treat it as though it’s anything more than that.
“Better to spread the information that everyone concerned at that time is now dead and their descendants have no connection to them except for DNA.”
…as well as their ideology of crude, irrational religious hatred that plagues innocent people to this day. You forgot that bit.
“And many don’t. So since we’re all Indians, stop calling it an “Indian sentiment”. You don’t speak for the rest of us. Call it “your” sentiments instead.”
I’m not saying that I do. I’m saying that THEY see it as an “Indian” humiliation. And that’s not a choice that they made. So why does that bother you so? What makes you so much better than them that you feel like you can give everyone else advice on this matter?
“But my spirit isn’t broken now ”
If only we could all be so cold blooded and listless.
“and neither is yours.”
What makes you say that? The very fact that to this day people ask the British government to return the diamond is evidence that it’s still a big deal, that the injustice still rankles.
“So why do you give a shit?”
Because, I, unlike you, believe in redressing wrongs.
In reply to Sasank
They can’t choose not to
Yes they can. People change their opinions all the time as they get wiser, or get more knowledge.
I’m saying that THEY see it as an “Indian” humiliation.”
“They” have no business seeing it as an Indian humiliation. Any more than “they” have no business saying that pubs etc are not “Indian culture” or that empowered women is not part of “Indian culture”. This whole nonsense of what is and isn’t Indian has been going on for some time now as if a set of people has the right to define “Indian” for the rest of us.
The very fact that to this day people ask the British government to return the diamond is evidence that it’s still a big deal, that the injustice still rankles.
No. It means that these guys need to get a life and focus on themselves. All this is just an excuse to make up for the deficiencies in their own lives.
“Yes they can. People change their opinions all the time as they get wiser, or get more knowledge.”
And yet, many convictions only strengthen as people get wiser or get more knowledge, while those same convictions weaken or disappear in other people when they get wiser or acquire more knowledge. Some people, for instance, believe in, say, a religion when they are younger, and realize its ridiculous when they gain more knowledge, while other people only gain more religious faith upon becoming more knowledgeable. That’s why there are plenty of scientists who are atheists, and plenty of others who are devoutly religious, yet all are experts in their various fields.
canThis, again, isn’t a conscious choice; people don’t gain knowledge with the pre conceived notion that they will keep or discard certain beliefs. That’s why religious conversions are so hard for some people, but so easy for others; the former don’t want to not believe any more, because it causes them emotional pain, but ‘t deny that religion no longer has the allure it once did as a result of the knowledge that they gained. I’m not sure why you insist that your line of thinking is somehow the epitome of wisdom and truth that everyone HAS to reach in order to be considered “mature.” That’s awfully egotistical and self centered.
““They” have no business seeing it as an Indian humiliation. Any more than “they” have no business saying that pubs etc are not “Indian culture” or that empowered women is not part of “Indian culture”. This whole nonsense of what is and isn’t Indian has been going on for some time now as if a set of people has the right to define “Indian” for the rest of us.”
It doesn’t matter whether it’s “their” business or not, because they can’t NOT see it as an Indian humiliation. The conclusion that they draw based on the amount of information that they have is that it is indeed an “Indian” humiliation, and more knowledge and wisdom only strengthens this conviction (for instance, when they understand the exact circumstances behind which the Kohinoor was stolen). That information has the exact opposite effect on someone like you, and that isn’t a choice you made either. So I’m not sure why you’re acting as though everyone else has “deficiencies” in their lives and you alone are “whole”. People aren’t insecure simply because they think about things differently than you.
“No. It means that these guys need to get a life and focus on themselves. All this is just an excuse to make up for the deficiencies in their own lives.”
What makes you think that they don’t have lives? What makes you think that they aren’t focusing on themselves? What makes you think that they have deficiencies in their own lives? Who are you to define what is or is not a deficiency, especially when these supposedly “irrational” convictions give people great emotional strength? You’re acting as though all of these people are weak, insecure losers with nothing else better to do, which is simply arrogant and hurtful, seeing as you don’t know anything about them.
In reply to Sasank
And yet, many convictions only strengthen as people get wiser
Not this one because it’s wrong. Generally people stop believing ridiculous thing when they get wiser. Certain things are correct, and something things are wrong. Like mathematics – you can’t have two opinions about it.
Similarly, your distant ancestors are strangers to you. You only share their DNA. Regardless of how you feel, this is a fact and not open to interpretation.
Because they can’t NOT see it as an Indian humiliation
This is like saying a murderer cannot NOT murder. Yes they can. If they can’t, they go to jail.
That information has the exact opposite effect on someone like you
No. It’s because I have more and better information. The information that they were strangers and that they’re dead and the perpetrators were dead. There is no more “wrong” to be correct since for a “wrong” there has to be a person who is wronged and a person who commits a wrong. Neither exists now, so the “wrong” is also wiped out.
You’re acting as though all of these people are weak, insecure losers with nothing else better to do
That’s actually pretty accurate :) . It’s logical isn’t it? If you’re emotionally obsessed with the past, you can’t have much of a productive life in the present.
“Not this one because it’s wrong.”
Whether it’s wrong or not doesn’t change the fact that people’s convictions strengthen in these things, and there’s nothing that they can do about that. The conclusions that they draw are just as inescapable as the ones you draw, and they see yours as just as ridiculous as you see theirs. They can’t NOT believe in what they believe them any more than you can somehow cease to believe that they are ridiculous, regardless of how good either of your information is or how much of it you have. Please act as though these people have intelligence and common sense.
“Generally people stop believing ridiculous thing when they get wiser.”
They see your beliefs as ridiculous and theirs as wise, just as you believe in the opposite. That they are ridiculous is a matter of opinion. YOUR opinion. Sorry, Bhagwad’s opinion’s aren’t facts of the universe.
“Certain things are correct, and something things are wrong. Like mathematics – you can’t have two opinions about it.”
This isn’t like a mathematical truth which is right or wrong; it’s about people reacting to their environment and drawing conclusions; the words “right” and “wrong” don’t apply here. You may think that their conclusions are “wrong” but who the hell are you?
“Similarly, your distant ancestors are strangers to you. You only share their DNA. Regardless of how you feel, this is a fact and not open to interpretation.”
This is obvious. The people who you are criticizing know this. Please, give them some credit.
“This is like saying a murderer cannot NOT murder. Yes they can. If they can’t, they go to jail.”
Nope. Murder is an act. You choose to actually pick up a weapon and kill someone. On the other hand, you couldn’t suddenly choose to see things the way they see things, right? No matter how hard you tried, you wouldn’t be able to see their beliefs as anything more than ridiculous. So why hold them to a different standard than that which you hold yourself to?
“No. It’s because I have more and better information. The information that they were strangers and that they’re dead and the perpetrators were dead.”
They know this too.
“There is no more “wrong” to be correct since for a “wrong” there has to be a person who is wronged and a person who commits a wrong. Neither exists now, so the “wrong” is also wiped out.”
Nope. The EFFECTS of an act outlast the perpetrators who committed the wrong act as well as those they made suffer. Mohammad bin Qasim is dead, and so are his victims, but his poisonous ideology of Islam still exists in India. Jinnah is dead, but the failed state he created still exists. These are wrongs that can indeed be wiped out. Islam can indeed be eradicated from India and those Indians whose minds have been poisoned by it can be returned to the national fold, their failed, hate based state of Pakistan dismantled. The mosques they built atop temples to proclaim the superiority of Islam can be torn down and the temples replaced. Those textbooks that whitewash their atrocities can be re written. India’s sharia courts can be closed, and the Hajj subsidy can be stopped etc.
The difference between you and them is that you don’t give a damn if India turns into Greater Pakistan, and you’re deaf and blind to all evidence to the suggests that Islam is a predatory ideology that seeks to expand across the planet. Now THIS is a fact akin to the mathematical truths you mentioned earlier, a fact you refuse to get.
“That’s actually pretty accurate :) . It’s logical isn’t it? If you’re emotionally obsessed with the past, you can’t have much of a productive life in the present.”
But they do have productive lives in the present. This obsession is what gives them emotional fuel to do whatever it is that they do. Even if you don’t like what they do, that doesn’t change the fact that they are productive as a result of this, and that it’s what gives their life purpose.
In reply to Sasank
Whether it’s wrong or not doesn’t change the fact that people’s convictions strengthen in these things
Not if they become wiser.
The conclusions that they draw are just as inescapable as the ones you draw
Not if they use logic.
They see your beliefs as ridiculous and theirs as wise
They’re welcome to a debate.
This isn’t like a mathematical truth which is right or wrong
This one is.
You wouldn’t be able to see their beliefs as anything more than ridiculous
I can actually see their point of view if I dumb myself down and go with blind easy emotion.
The EFFECTS of an act outlast the perpetrators who committed the wrong act as well as those they made suffer
Yes. But the “rightness” or “wrongness” of it end since “right” and “wrong” only apply to living creatures.
but his poisonous ideology of Islam still exists in India
It’s not “his” anymore. It now belongs to living people in whose head it lies. Forget him now and instead focus on the living.
The mosques they built atop temples to proclaim the superiority of Islam can be torn down
Only if you have the legal right. You don’t.
But they do have productive lives in the present.
Then our definitions of “productive” differ. I never considered the Nazis to be productive.
“Not if they become wiser.”
They say they are. And who are you to determine who is wise and who is not?
“Not if they use logic.”
They are. Just because you disagree with their conclusions doesn’t change that.
“They’re welcome to a debate.”
Irrelevant. We were talking about their inability to see things the way you do, even if they tried, and vice versa.
“This one is.”
That’s your opinion and nothing more than that. It’s truly hypocritical that you whine about people defining what is or is not “Indian” but see yourself as the only person with the authority to judge what is or is not “wise.”
“I can actually see their point of view if I dumb myself down and go with blind easy emotion.”
But you couldn’t actually BELIEVE as they do no matter how hard you tried, no matter how much of their logic you used. The same goes for them. You’re no better than they are, regardless of your delusions of grandeur.
“Yes. But the “rightness” or “wrongness” of it end since “right” and “wrong” only apply to living creatures.”
So? The injustices of the past make themselves felt today, and they still rankle because the effects of the past refuse to leave us alone. Even if we say that we cannot consider this right or wrong, that doesn’t change the fact that it hurts, and that people don’t like pain.
“It’s not “his” anymore. It now belongs to living people in whose head it lies. Forget him now and instead focus on the living.”
Indeed it does. But in order to focus upon the living, you have to understand what makes them the way that they are. In the case of living Muslims, we must understand the roots of their hateful ideology, which means, like it or not, understanding the acts of Mohammad bin Qasim, Jinnah, etc.
“Only if you have the legal right. You don’t.”
Irrelevant again. You said that there “was no more wrong to correct” and I said that there were indeed several wrongs, and it was indeed physically possible to correct them. It is indeed POSSIBLE to physically tear down mosques and rebuilt temples, ban sharia courts, destroy Pakistan, etc. law or no law. Whether it SHOULD be done is another matter entirely. But even if it SHOULD not be done, that doesn’t change the fact that the effects of past wrongs are still with us, and CAN be fixed.
“Then our definitions of “productive” differ. I never considered the Nazis to be productive.”
I’m talking about beneficial patriotism, and you’re talking about fascism, which are two extremely different things. You don’t seem to have much of a grasp on subtleties. At any rate, it is a simple fact that the Nazis were productive. They virtually eliminated unemployment, built one of the most powerful armies of their time, and drastically improved the health and welfare of the German people. They were also racist, genocidal murderers. But that doesn’t change the fact that they were productive. We can point to dozens of patriotic people throughout history who were productive precisely because of their nationalistic fervor, and did virtually nothing evil, unlike the Nazis. I really don’t see how you can dismiss nationalists as losers when in fact it has been nationalists, not apathetic individuals like yourself, that have almost always been the ones who’ve gotten things done.
In reply to Sasank
They say they are. And who are you to determine who is wise and who is not?
1. Logic is logic. Someone is right. Someone is wrong. Period.
They are. Just because you disagree with their conclusions doesn’t change that.
See point 1.
That’s your opinion and nothing more than that
See point 1.
In the case of living Muslims, we must understand the roots of their hateful ideology
There you go again talking about “Muslims”. Can we stop this nonsense please?
The effects of past wrongs are still with us
Live with it and stop whining.
At any rate, it is a simple fact that the Nazis were productive.
Thanks for clearing that up.
“Logic is logic. Someone is right. Someone is wrong. Period.”
I agree. And they are logical. Period. The fact that you think they aren’t doesn’t change that. You don’t get to decide that they aren’t wise, either. Simply saying “They’re wrong” or “They’re illogical” or “They’re unwise” is, and always will be, your own opinion, regardless of how many times you parrot it. Again, it’s truly hypocritical that you whine about me using the word“Muslim” but see yourself as the only person with the authority to judge what is or is not “wise.”
“There you go again talking about “Muslims”. Can we stop this nonsense please?”
Ok then “some Muslims.”
“Live with it and stop whining.”
Who exactly is whining? I’m not, and the people who you’re criticizing in this post aren’t either; they demand action. I can’t live with people who want to kill me and destroy my way of life, and neither can the people who you’re criticizing in this post. Maybe you can, but you can’t expect everyone else to want to commit suicide.
“Thanks for clearing that up.”
Well, they DID fit the dictionary definition of productive. It’s not my fault you can’t differentiate between fanaticism and patriotism, or that you seem to think that being hateful automatically makes you lazy.
In reply to Sasank
And they are logical. Period
They’re welcome to a debate based on logic.
I can’t live with people who want to kill me
Who is trying to kill you? Give me their names and then we’ll talk. Otherwise it’s just fear mongering.
“Who is trying to kill you? Give me their names and then we’ll talk. Otherwise it’s just fear mongering.”
I already have. Several times. Whether it’s some of the people on the Indian government backed sharia courts, some fanatical Islamists in Lashkar e Taiba who want to turn India into an Islamic state, some members of Pakisan’s ISI who want to bleed India by a thousand cuts, members of the Indian Mujaheddin who want to turn India into an Islamic state from the inside, whether it’s some Bangladeshi illegal immigrants who are already changing the demographics of Bengal and Assam and spreading hatred and causing destruction, India is under serious threat from Islam. Even if we accept your assertion that terror and fanaticism are down for the moment, that only means that “Indian” security forces and intelligence are doing their jobs. Islam has been waging a war against infidels for 1400 years, as Muhammad himself told them to do. This isn’t “hijacked” Islam or “a distorted version” of Islam but pure and unadulterated Islam, as even a cursory glimpse at Muhammad’s life can tell us.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm
And we haven’t even threats from outside India, from members of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, etc. This isn’t scaremongering, it’s reality that these organizations are dedicated to bringing the entire planet under Islamic rule. This has even spread to democratic countries like the UK, where fanatics like Anjem Choudary are calling for sharia in the UK (which incidentally already has established Islamic courts.) He may be a minority now, but recall that Muhammad’s original Islamic cult was in and of itself a harmless minority before his bloody conquest of Arabia. Britain has even banned piggy banks because they offend Muslims. Radical madrassas have already sprung up in the UK, brainwashing kids to hate infidels. It’s why Norway is having a rape epidemic caused by some Muslim immigrants, due to Islam’s denigration of women. It’s why you have people like Siraj Wahaj calling for an “Islamic States of America” by 2050, and has called for the overthrow of the US government and the establishment of a caliphate there. It’s why the Maldives constitution requires that all its citizens be Muslim, and flogs women who are accused of having pre-marital sex. It’s why Saudi Arabia is little more than a desert prison, especially for women, who can’t even take off their burqas in the stifling heat. It’s why Hamas’ childrens’ TV features a perverted Mickey Mouse calling for suicide bombing. It’s why Pakistani textbooks brainwash children into thinking that Hindus are all cunning and evil, explaining the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan since its independence. It’s why Christians in the Middle East are currently being massacred now that the Arab Spring has overthrown dictators and allowed some jihadi fanatics free reign. It’s why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights” only grants people whatever rights are permissible under sharia law. The Quranimals who do these things are motivated by the same ideology that motivated the Islamic invaders, which is why understanding Islam’s violent past in India is important. Jihad has no expiration date.
This isn’t because of Western support for Israel, or Western military bases in the Middle East, or Indian troops in Kashmir, or Western support for dictators, or any of the excuses that are often given to rationalize this and hide it behind a political veneer. The reason we know this is that the jihadi hate predates all this, and India is a case in point.
In reply to Sasank
No, you haven’t given me any names. What are they?
I’ve already written about how Islamic terrorism in India is more or less a myth. I don’t waste time tackling trivial problems.
I’m not giving you names because I don’t know the names of every rank and file terrorist. Does that mean they aren’t a threat? Why are you imposing these arbitrary conditions? I’m sure no one knows all the names of rank and file Naxalites or Nazis either.
As far as your post is concerned, I refuted it in the comments; the fact that Islamic terror is down doesn’t change the fact that Islam is a threat to India and the planet; it only means that Indian security forces are doing their jobs and keeping people safe. If the numbers are down, it’s DESPITE the efforts of jihadi fanatics, not because they somehow became less threatening. Do you want MORE people to die before you consider it a threat? You judge by numbers alone and don’t talk about the ideology that motivates them, which is extremely important. Not only that, but you only analyzes one year of jihadi hate, and that too, only in India. It isn’t a trivial problem at all, especially when you consider the fact that these individuals are supported by their ideological brethren abroad, and when we take THOSE killings into account, the number far exceeds anything done by Naxalites, or Hindus, or Christians etc.
In reply to Sasank
If you don’t know any specific names, you can’t say you’re in danger since “terrorist” is a very vague term unlike “Naxals” who have a charter in writing and formal membership.
In fact, Naxals are a far more dangerous threat than so called “Terrorists” as I mentioned in my post a year ago.
Terrorism is an insignificant problem. Hardly anyone is killed compared to real threats like Naxalism.