If a certain community within your nation multiplies exponentially...

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I wonder about the premise of this thread...what gives a particular group a right to call it "their nation"? After all, being the majority does not give you a totaly and complete right to forever remain the majority, and history tends to show that these things shift from time to time. Believe it or not, at one time the "more cultured" Europeans in this country were agast at being displaced by later immigrant groups like the Irish and the Italians. And you know what, they were to some extent. We may speak English, but you'll have to look kind of hard to find an American with a British background any more. That's how things go, demographics shift, and then shift back. I'm not sure why it's worth getting worked into a lather over.

The key point here is integration, my addition to this is that muslims never manage or prefer to integrate into any nation.

And if you think that a people of a nation cannot call it their nation, then the Mexicans are fully entitled to illegally immigrate to the U.S and call it their home.

My fear here is not muslims immigrating to the U.S, but their destroying it.

And my point is that you are basing your view of the majority of Muslims based on the well publicized actions of a very small percentage. There are more than 5 million Muslims in the US currently, how many of them are "never managing or prefering to integrate"? You've fallen into the common trap, you watch the news are forget that it's the news because it covers rare events. Most Muslims aren't blowing anyone up, or rioting, or otherwise failing to get along with their non-Muslim peers. But since we don't see THEM on Fox News, everybody forgets.

As for Mexicans being entitled to illegally immigrate, clearly you didn't understand what I said. I'm saying that when a country has some form of diversity among citizens of that country, I don't think a particular group has a right to declare that it's THEIR country, and that the other groups are alright so long as they realize the order of things.

I'am not basing my views on a very small percentage or the news. Most muslims do not blow up stuff, but they manage to find excuses for those who do.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I wonder about the premise of this thread...what gives a particular group a right to call it "their nation"? After all, being the majority does not give you a totaly and complete right to forever remain the majority, and history tends to show that these things shift from time to time. Believe it or not, at one time the "more cultured" Europeans in this country were agast at being displaced by later immigrant groups like the Irish and the Italians. And you know what, they were to some extent. We may speak English, but you'll have to look kind of hard to find an American with a British background any more. That's how things go, demographics shift, and then shift back. I'm not sure why it's worth getting worked into a lather over.

The key point here is integration, my addition to this is that muslims never manage or prefer to integrate into any nation.

And if you think that a people of a nation cannot call it their nation, then the Mexicans are fully entitled to illegally immigrate to the U.S and call it their home.

My fear here is not muslims immigrating to the U.S, but their destroying it.

And my point is that you are basing your view of the majority of Muslims based on the well publicized actions of a very small percentage. There are more than 5 million Muslims in the US currently, how many of them are "never managing or prefering to integrate"? You've fallen into the common trap, you watch the news are forget that it's the news because it covers rare events. Most Muslims aren't blowing anyone up, or rioting, or otherwise failing to get along with their non-Muslim peers. But since we don't see THEM on Fox News, everybody forgets.

As for Mexicans being entitled to illegally immigrate, clearly you didn't understand what I said. I'm saying that when a country has some form of diversity among citizens of that country, I don't think a particular group has a right to declare that it's THEIR country, and that the other groups are alright so long as they realize the order of things.

I'am not basing my views on a very small percentage or the news. Most muslims do not blow up stuff, but they manage to find excuses for those who do.

Changing you're point already, I see. You just said that Muslims will destroy the US by not integrating...now it's that few Muslims are actually doing those things, but most of them "excuse" those that do. Again, this point is offered without any proof at all. Good work!

 

[raz3000]

After you were debunked on your "Hindu Kush" theory, which you defended so vehemently, I think it's fairly clear that the purpose of this topic is defamation and propaganda. You're just upset Pakistan was created, not recognizing it was best for both communities.

As for the high birth rate, you have to remember that Islam spreads rapidly among the third world, where it is birth rates are much higher than the developed world (partly because infant mortality rates are much higher as well). This pattern can be expected to follow when the populations migrate, such as we are seeing with the Mexicans.

You biggest falacy is that you think all Muslims think alike and share the same ideology, and if that were the case we would've seen a Muslim supernation by now. In reality, the Islamic community is culturally, politically, socially, and even religiously (see Iraq) divided. It is by brainwashing young disgruntled Muslims that Islamic unity is possible that radical political ideologies emerge. Also, I know India has the world's second highest Muslim population, but they seem to get along modestly well, if not perfectly. I suppose you would attribute that to Hindu control of all levels of political and economic activity instead of, say, an understanding by fellow countrymen that they need to just get along for the country to prosper?

How do you feel about the Muslims in India? Should they be exterminated? And is their birthrate higher than the Hindus?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: raz3000
After you were debunked on your "Hindu Kush" theory, which you defended so vehemently, I think it's fairly clear that the purpose of this topic is defamation and propaganda. You're just upset Pakistan was created, not recognizing it was best for both communities.

As for the high birth rate, you have to remember that Islam spreads rapidly among the third world, where it is birth rates are much higher than the developed world (partly because infant mortality rates are much higher as well). This pattern can be expected to follow when the populations migrate, such as we are seeing with the Mexicans.

You biggest falacy is that you think all Muslims think alike and share the same ideology, and if that were the case we would've seen a Muslim supernation by now. In reality, the Islamic community is culturally, politically, socially, and even religiously (see Iraq) divided. It is by brainwashing young disgruntled Muslims that Islamic unity is possible that radical political ideologies emerge. Also, I know India has the world's second highest Muslim population, but they seem to get along modestly well, if not perfectly. I suppose you would attribute that to Hindu control of all levels of political and economic activity instead of, say, an understanding by fellow countrymen that they need to just get along for the country to prosper?

How do you feel about the Muslims in India? Should they be exterminated? And is their birthrate higher than the Hindus?

You can find all the excuses you want, the truth is that no communites other than Hindus and Jews have faced greater oppression throughout History. I do not know what it is with you people, but one thing clear is that you are not concerned for people other than your own. All your people's talk of human rights is just that, it applies only to you and those deemed fit by the liberals and leftists. I never even argued upon the Hindu Kush theory, just casually mentioning it as the record of Islamic atrocities. The issue is controversial and I'am entitled to hold my opinion.

Yes, the Islamic birth rate is much higher than the hindu birthrate. In fact a couple of years ago, the Indian census commissioner took flak for just mentioning this so. And regarding muslim relations with Hindus, let me say the less said the better.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I wonder about the premise of this thread...what gives a particular group a right to call it "their nation"? After all, being the majority does not give you a totaly and complete right to forever remain the majority, and history tends to show that these things shift from time to time. Believe it or not, at one time the "more cultured" Europeans in this country were agast at being displaced by later immigrant groups like the Irish and the Italians. And you know what, they were to some extent. We may speak English, but you'll have to look kind of hard to find an American with a British background any more. That's how things go, demographics shift, and then shift back. I'm not sure why it's worth getting worked into a lather over.

The key point here is integration, my addition to this is that muslims never manage or prefer to integrate into any nation.

And if you think that a people of a nation cannot call it their nation, then the Mexicans are fully entitled to illegally immigrate to the U.S and call it their home.

My fear here is not muslims immigrating to the U.S, but their destroying it.

And my point is that you are basing your view of the majority of Muslims based on the well publicized actions of a very small percentage. There are more than 5 million Muslims in the US currently, how many of them are "never managing or prefering to integrate"? You've fallen into the common trap, you watch the news are forget that it's the news because it covers rare events. Most Muslims aren't blowing anyone up, or rioting, or otherwise failing to get along with their non-Muslim peers. But since we don't see THEM on Fox News, everybody forgets.

As for Mexicans being entitled to illegally immigrate, clearly you didn't understand what I said. I'm saying that when a country has some form of diversity among citizens of that country, I don't think a particular group has a right to declare that it's THEIR country, and that the other groups are alright so long as they realize the order of things.

I'am not basing my views on a very small percentage or the news. Most muslims do not blow up stuff, but they manage to find excuses for those who do.

Changing you're point already, I see. You just said that Muslims will destroy the US by not integrating...now it's that few Muslims are actually doing those things, but most of them "excuse" those that do. Again, this point is offered without any proof at all. Good work!

I never changed my point. What is said was muslims always provide excuses and cover for those who go around killing people, only a very, very few of them actually dare to protest against this. If nothing works, then the standard excuse applies "These people are not muslims, Islam is a religion of peace" How much proof do you need to prove water is wet?

 

[Braznor]

Its funny to what you guy's arguements have descended to from your initial quasi-intelligent sounding statements.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Its funny to what you guy's arguements have descended to from your initial quasi-intelligent sounding statements.

Just adapting to the tone of the thread...it's not like we're working with A+ material here.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I wonder about the premise of this thread...what gives a particular group a right to call it "their nation"? After all, being the majority does not give you a totaly and complete right to forever remain the majority, and history tends to show that these things shift from time to time. Believe it or not, at one time the "more cultured" Europeans in this country were agast at being displaced by later immigrant groups like the Irish and the Italians. And you know what, they were to some extent. We may speak English, but you'll have to look kind of hard to find an American with a British background any more. That's how things go, demographics shift, and then shift back. I'm not sure why it's worth getting worked into a lather over.

The key point here is integration, my addition to this is that muslims never manage or prefer to integrate into any nation.

And if you think that a people of a nation cannot call it their nation, then the Mexicans are fully entitled to illegally immigrate to the U.S and call it their home.

My fear here is not muslims immigrating to the U.S, but their destroying it.

And my point is that you are basing your view of the majority of Muslims based on the well publicized actions of a very small percentage. There are more than 5 million Muslims in the US currently, how many of them are "never managing or prefering to integrate"? You've fallen into the common trap, you watch the news are forget that it's the news because it covers rare events. Most Muslims aren't blowing anyone up, or rioting, or otherwise failing to get along with their non-Muslim peers. But since we don't see THEM on Fox News, everybody forgets.

As for Mexicans being entitled to illegally immigrate, clearly you didn't understand what I said. I'm saying that when a country has some form of diversity among citizens of that country, I don't think a particular group has a right to declare that it's THEIR country, and that the other groups are alright so long as they realize the order of things.

I'am not basing my views on a very small percentage or the news. Most muslims do not blow up stuff, but they manage to find excuses for those who do.

Changing you're point already, I see. You just said that Muslims will destroy the US by not integrating...now it's that few Muslims are actually doing those things, but most of them "excuse" those that do. Again, this point is offered without any proof at all. Good work!

I never changed my point. What is said was muslims always provide excuses and cover for those who go around killing people, only a very, very few of them actually dare to protest against this. If nothing works, then the standard excuse applies "These people are not muslims, Islam is a religion of peace" How much proof do you need to prove water is wet?

Do they? You keep saying "Muslims", yet I see very little to suggest what you are saying applies to all (or even most) Muslims. In any case, what you're saying can certainly be applied to Christians and that idiot Phelps. Yeah, if you ask a Christian directly they probably won't have a lot of nice things to say about him...but if you didn't know any Christians personally, how would you know how they feel about Phelps?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: magomago
Wooo lot of mis information.

Some Muslim rulers in India were absolutely horrible, to the point where they even killed Muslims who didn't share their EXACT view. I've read about Muslims in India and some extremely sad things were done by rulers CLAIMING to be Muslims. Others were MUCH more tolerant. I don't see how that is the religion itself: rather it is called a "mixed bag of rulers outside the bounds of religion. IF it was the religion you would see that the rulers all would be one side or another, and I said you get a mixed bag.

Also your "examples" are a sad case....Thailand? IT is the Buddhist government ACTIVELY oppressing the Muslims. The government back in the 1800s annexed the land these guys lived on, and since then they have been systematically discriminated against by the government. Anyone with the right mind would be actively resisting. Chechnya is an extremely complex issue on its own, and to boil it down to "Muslims attacking teh infidels" is a simplistic view of the situation. Almost EVERY instance where "Muslims" or a group of people fights back is because an outside force is fvcking with their own business.

And LumbergTech put it right:

eriously.what in the world is this? this reminds me of a hitler propoganda thread..

oh no they will out-reproduce us..

that is the most paranoid and delusional concern i have ever seen..

Have fun dreaming that Muslims want to take over the world. You sound very similar to people down here who think the USA's "whiteness" is threatened by "Mexicans popping out six kids per family".

Most Muslims in Islam controlled India were genocidal brutes. Their genocidal actions were motivated by the Koran, their desire to be a ghzi (slayer of kafirs) If they slayed muslims too for not been islamic enough, then the blame can be placed solely at the altar of Islam. One ruler, Akbar who was least intolerant of the lot was known to slaugther atleast 30000 Hindu Rajputs in one stroke. Bahmanid Sultans had an agenda of slaughtering a hundred thousand hindus (their own subjects) every year to pay homage to Islam's concept of Jihad. The record of these genocides comes from the muslims themselves, paying proud homage to the jihad of the muslim kings. Those who left the hindu live did so by the imposition of Jagizya (infidel tax)

And stop hiding behind the standard excuse saying "these people were not muslims or claiming to be muslims" This excuse of yours is old as Islam itself. Accept them and move on, do not provide excuses. It was Islam which was the primary movtiation for their evil deeds. And yes, it was a clear case of black and white then. Unable to bear these atrocities, Hindus rebelled and gave rise to Kings like Shivaji who always treated their muslim subjects and mosques with benevolence.

And it is funny how you claim the incidents in places like Thailand as a case of muslim oppression. It is funnier considering other communities learn to live in peace while only muslims percive oppression and resume Jihad, thanks to the cover provided by people like the leftists and liberals in this forum.

As for your third point, Jihad is a primary duty within Islam. You would once again claim that the Jihad is 'internal' All the evidence in the world proves this is not the case and the primary goal of Jihad is the Islamification of the world, the establishment of the caliphate and establishment of Dar-ul-Islam.

Do you beleive in conspiracy theories at all? Especially those of which are completely made up?

You have the most twisted view of Jihad.

Jihad is a violent struggle intended for your defense when you become threatened both physically and spiritually (ie: prevention of practicing your religion) to neutralize the threat.

Again. Jihand is a defensive act where you protect yourself by fighting back. An "internal struggle" represents only 1/2 of Jihad, and it is VERY clear that it is violent, and there is no backing down from that. Any Muslim who argues it is PURELY an internal struggly and does not contain violence needs to review some of the Quran.

The goal of Jihad is to PROTECT yourself and YOUR COMMUNITY and YOUR RELIGION. There is no PURELY OFFENSIVE BELIGERENT ASPECT OF JIHAD.

It is NOT to go out and kill people wantonly as you CLAIM it is. It is NOT to go kill the infidel to show your piety. This is NOT Jihad, rather this is your own desire to attach events and actions to a word based on how you see fit. The definition of Jihad has clearly existed for hundreds of years - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it isn't a cow! For you to claim otherwise is ludicrous!
If you disagree, SHOW to me the "real definition" of Jihad. Because apparantly I cannot find anything that shows of Jihad as a "war to turn the world into muslims through violence" and put it under a single "caliphate" in the Quran or the Hadith.
Furthemore, Every religion has aspirations for the world to hold their views: Christianity is clear with this and they do a GREAT deal of prostelyizing(sp?). Jews even wait for the day where the World will come under a single Jewish King IIRC. Are you going to start screaming about how they have secret Agendas? Of course Islam has this as well, but the difference is there is no existance of what you claim to be called "Jihad".
Furthermore to talk about a Caliphate is like talking about secret Chinese organizations aimed at bringing back the Chinese Emporer --> The Caliphate died out 900 years ago; and there was a period when it turned from a position passed down by the close companions of the Prophet Muhammed to a political authority that was only loosely linked to religion. Hard to bring the world under a single caliph when the position simply doesn't exist

I brought up those situations NOT as a justifacation of their actions, but to point out that you twist what is going on, and claim that "THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND NOTHING ELSE. IT IS THIS WAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY. ACCEPT IT!".

Muslims pay Zakat and Non Muslims pay Jizayah. Don't act as if Muslims do not pay tax. Do you want your tax dollars to fund Muslim activities or do you want it seperated so that it will not directly support Muslim causes? If you want to, feel free to pay Zakat.

The rest of your post is inflammatory, and shows that is is difficult to take ANY opinion from yourself on Islam as serious serious because you have such a hatred and venomous attitude towards it.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Do they? You keep saying "Muslims", yet I see very little to suggest what you are saying applies to all (or even most) Muslims. In any case, what you're saying can certainly be applied to Christians and that idiot Phelps. Yeah, if you ask a Christian directly they probably won't have a lot of nice things to say about him...but if you didn't know any Christians personally, how would you know how they feel about Phelps?

Yes, it also applies to Christians. But they do not fly planes into buildings or go around chanting DEATH TO XXXXXX

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Do they? You keep saying "Muslims", yet I see very little to suggest what you are saying applies to all (or even most) Muslims. In any case, what you're saying can certainly be applied to Christians and that idiot Phelps. Yeah, if you ask a Christian directly they probably won't have a lot of nice things to say about him...but if you didn't know any Christians personally, how would you know how they feel about Phelps?

Yes, it also applies to Christians. But they do not fly planes into buildings or go around chanting DEATH TO XXXXXX

Neither do most Muslims.

Edit: And you seem to have missed what I was trying to say...I was pointing out that complaing that you don't hear more condemnation from Muslims is kind of silly, if you didn't know as many Christians as you almost certainly do, I doubt you'd know how Christians feel about Phelps either.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: magomago

Do you beleive in conspiracy theories at all? Especially those of which are completely made up?

You have the most twisted view of Jihad.

Jihad is a violent struggle intended for your defense when you become threatened both physically and spiritually (ie: prevention of practicing your religion) to neutralize the threat.

Again. Jihand is a defensive act where you protect yourself by fighting back. An "internal struggle" represents only 1/2 of Jihad, and it is VERY clear that it is violent, and there is no backing down from that. Any Muslim who argues it is PURELY an internal struggly and does not contain violence needs to review some of the Quran.

The goal of Jihad is to PROTECT yourself and YOUR COMMUNITY and YOUR RELIGION. There is no PURELY OFFENSIVE BELIGERENT ASPECT OF JIHAD.

It is NOT to go out and kill people wantonly as you CLAIM it is. It is NOT to go kill the infidel to show your piety. This is NOT Jihad, rather this is your own desire to attach events and actions to a word based on how you see fit. The definition of Jihad has clearly existed for hundreds of years - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it isn't a cow! For you to claim otherwise is ludicrous!
If you disagree, SHOW to me the "real definition" of Jihad. Because apparantly I cannot find anything that shows of Jihad as a "war to turn the world into muslims through violence" and put it under a single "caliphate" in the Quran or the Hadith.
Furthemore, Every religion has aspirations for the world to hold their views: Christianity is clear with this and they do a GREAT deal of prostelyizing(sp?). Jews even wait for the day where the World will come under a single Jewish King IIRC. Are you going to start screaming about how they have secret Agendas? Of course Islam has this as well, but the difference is there is no existance of what you claim to be called "Jihad".
Furthermore to talk about a Caliphate is like talking about secret Chinese organizations aimed at bringing back the Chinese Emporer --> The Caliphate died out 900 years ago; and there was a period when it turned from a position passed down by the close companions of the Prophet Muhammed to a political authority that was only loosely linked to religion. Hard to bring the world under a single caliph when the position simply doesn't exist

I brought up those situations NOT as a justifacation of their actions, but to point out that you twist what is going on, and claim that "THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND NOTHING ELSE. IT IS THIS WAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY. ACCEPT IT!".

Muslims pay Zakat and Non Muslims pay Jizayah. Don't act as if Muslims do not pay tax. Do you want your tax dollars to fund Muslim activities or do you want it seperated so that it will not directly support Muslim causes? If you want to, feel free to pay Zakat.

The rest of your post is inflammatory, and shows that is is difficult to take ANY opinion from yourself on Islam as serious serious because you have such a hatred and venomous attitude towards it.

Gee, you got to hand it to these Muslims.

They ended up defending Arabia so well, they ended up in India. I guess this is the same way they apply the excuse "muslims getting oppressed" whenever they engage in terrorism whenever they are a significant minority.

And Magomago, if you claim that the atrocities in India did not take place, you are denying history. Its a pity it is not considered the same as holocaust denial. Did you get your inspiration from the Iranian Prez who claims the Jews were not murdered by the Nazi's?

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Also the interesting thing is that it was Pakistan which instigated Sikh separatism from India.

That is the standard Indian excuse. Pakistan this, Pakistan that. Grow out of it. It's fanatics like you who are a real threat to the region. Do you have any other thing to do than cry rivers over India's failures and blame it on Pakistan? Grow out of your Hindu-Muslim hate. Every thread you have posted in, the argument is the same. You, sir, are a propagandist!

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Braznor
You can find all the excuses you want, the truth is that no communites other than Hindus and Jews have faced greater oppression throughout History.

I didn't knew history was limited to just a few decades. :roll:

<sarcasm>10/10 for 'I am the center of the world' thinking. </sarcasm>

You do realize that your beloved leader Gandhi was against Zionism? Do you even know of his stance on Jews and the making of Israel? Just a small extract:

Text

"Gandhi on Zionism?

He stated unequivocally that it was "wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct." Gandhi bluntly described the idea of handing over Palestine to the Jews as a "crime against humanity." The champion of nonviolence also stated that "according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."

Much of this seems forgotten by Hindu extremists in their rush to capitalize on Israeli influence in Washington by promising Israel economic and military as well as political benefits if they come to power in New Delhi. The Indian media is full of statements by BJP officials questioning why India is sacrificing a "beneficial relationship with Israel for fear of a few Arab despots."

Some analysts note that such Hindu extremists believe that they can make such statements with impunity because no matter how close India gets to Israel, there will be no reaction from most Arab and Muslim states. The Indian government realizes, however, that India benefits far more from its present broad ties with the Muslim world than it can ever benefit from supporting Israel.

There are hundreds of thousands of Indians working in the Middle East and providing India with billions of dollars in direct remittances. Their acceptance as trusted employees at all levels in Middle East states also eases the dismal employment situation at home.

According to the Institute of Development Studies in Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala, the direct benefit to Kerala alone from its more than 150,000 workers in the Gulf amounts to 25 percent of its GDP. The Muslim world also has provided an open market for Indian exports?from agricultural produce to manufactured goods.

Commenting on the increased media attention focused on their lobbying initiatives, Tiwari says that "Our efforts are only attracting attention because of the growing perception that the BJP will come to power in the next election."

Such attention, however, appears to be well deserved. Many India-watchers believe that if the BJP came to power at the national level, the pluralistic society of India as it exists today would soon be relegated to the realm of vanished "golden ages" in the subcontinent's long and colorful past.

Old but quite relevant. I don't see India cutting off ties with the ME in support of your 'All Muslims are terrorists and are inferior to Hindus' stance. I am awaiting your apologist response.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Gee, you got to hand it to these Muslims.

They ended up defending Arabia so well, they ended up in India. I guess this is the same way they apply the excuse "muslims getting oppressed" whenever they engage in terrorism whenever they are a significant minority.

And Magomago, if you claim that the atrocities in India did not take place, you are denying history. Its a pity it is not considered the same as holocaust denial. Did you get your inspiration from the Iranian Prez who claims the Jews were not murdered by the Nazi's?

I did not deny anything. Show me where I denied the murder of Indian innocents? What I DID was try to explain to you that you do not know what Jihad is, and that its concepts are different from what you want, and that what you claim to be Jihad isn't because it isn't defined as such.

 

[Braznor]

Asadasif,

The article you quoted is a piece of intellectual garbage. The so called Hindu extremists AKA the BJP was the first party which tried to seek peace with your nation and went out of its way to do so, only to be stabbed in its back. And your comparision of BJP to the Nazi party is laughable, do you know its chief spokesman is a MUSLIM?

If the BJP is the Nazi party of India, then every politician in Pakistan deserves to be shot out of hand.

And by the way, that quote from Gandhi came when he was busy trying to appease muslims (and failing bitterly in the end) He also adviced the Jews to commit suicide in face of Hitler's oppression and Hindus to be good Hindus and die at the hands of good Muslims who kill were simply being muslims for killing the idolator hindus.

Don't believe me? research over the Khilafat movement riots in India. The Khilafat movement against the British for the restoration of the Turkish caliphate was launched by Gandhi to appease muslims, yet they ended up murdering Hindus over it.

BTW, the time period I refer to is nearly 600 hundred years, not a mere few decades.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: asadasif

Originally posted by: Braznor
Also the interesting thing is that it was Pakistan which instigated Sikh separatism from India.

That is the standard Indian excuse. Pakistan this, Pakistan that. Grow out of it. It's fanatics like you who are a real threat to the region. Do you have any other thing to do than cry rivers over India's failures and blame it on Pakistan? Grow out of your Hindu-Muslim hate. Every thread you have posted in, the argument is the same. You, sir, are a propagandist!

Believe me Asadasif, I would love to love Pakistan and live with them. But so long the Pakistani govt sends terrorists to kill their infidel brothers, that ain't happening.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Braznor

Gee, you got to hand it to these Muslims.

They ended up defending Arabia so well, they ended up in India. I guess this is the same way they apply the excuse "muslims getting oppressed" whenever they engage in terrorism whenever they are a significant minority.

And Magomago, if you claim that the atrocities in India did not take place, you are denying history. Its a pity it is not considered the same as holocaust denial. Did you get your inspiration from the Iranian Prez who claims the Jews were not murdered by the Nazi's?

I did not deny anything. Show me where I denied the murder of Indian innocents? What I DID was try to explain to you that you do not know what Jihad is, and that its concepts are different from what you want, and that what you claim to be Jihad isn't because it isn't defined as such.

I may not know what Jihad is according to muslims, but I and the world have seen enough to know what it stands for, how it works and its consequences. A pity, We haven't found an answer to stop it. One thing though, appeasing Islam is sure ain't the answer.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Braznor
The article you quoted is a piece of intellectual garbage.

Of course it is garbage since it contradicts your stereotypical views. :roll:

And by the way, that quote from Gandhi came when he was busy trying to appease muslims (and failing bitterly in the end)

And here you are being your usual apologist self. It's amusing how you take quotes from Gandhi, etc whenever they suit your purpose and ridicule/stupidly justify them when they don't.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: BraznorBelieve me Asadasif, I would love to love Pakistan and live with them.

I refuse to believe you are even capable of 'loving Pakistan and living with them'. You have shown nothing but unbridled hatred of Muslims in every thread you have posted in. I am 100% sure not all Hindus are like this. What you represent is a very small fanatical minority which are discrediting Hindus and India. You have no basis for your claim.

 

[Braznor]

Ultimately I have no choice, India is home to the world's second largest islamic community, I would love to leave in peace with them. I have plenty of muslim friends, I bear no hate, only grudges and that too, only for issues happening right now, not what happened to my anscestors.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: asadasif

Originally posted by: BraznorBelieve me Asadasif, I would love to love Pakistan and live with them.

I refuse to believe you are even capable of 'loving Pakistan and living with them'. You have shown nothing but unbridled hatred of Muslims in every thread you have posted in. I am 100% sure not all Hindus are like this. What you represent is a very small fanatical minority which are discrediting Hindus and India. You have no basis for your claim.

I would be grateful if you could show me where I quoted Gandhi to serve my purpose.

BTW: Criticizing Islam to show its faults is hate speech???

I would criticize my own religion when it comes to that.

 

[INDIANFREEMAN]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Unless you have just awoken from a slumber spanning the past two millenia, you would know that Islam conquers either through the sword or through the womb.

And? Like christians haven't? matter of fact muslims are small time compared to the westeners genocide and invasions. Muslims raise hell when invaded or provoked, like anyone would.

Notice muslims are not a issue until we started messing with them in soviet afgani war, we encouraged the old mostly outdated concept of jihad to have them fight the commies by proxy for us, now it has come back to bite us in the ass like a baby pet croc flushed down a toilet, 404 conspiracy not found, just more blowback for idiotic cold-war foreign policys.

its just like one rotten fish can spoil the water for entire pound......and this is what happens exactly with the moslims.....they were a issue in themselves and then they spread it all over ...the focal point has to be afganistan...

 

[theeedude]

It's not rocket science. If you want more of your offspring to be around in the future, have more offspring.
Noone is stopping you. If you think your lifestyle and career is more important, then that's your decision, but don't complain when others have different priorities.