4 ms·

The barbaric religions, in the Indian context, are Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity. Of the three, Christians have lost the power they used to have, and have t

by lake99 13y ago

The barbaric religions, in the Indian context, are Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity. Of the three, Christians have lost the power they used to have, and have taken to subtler tactics, i.e. of brainwashing children, etc. (Take kids on a trip. Stop the bus mid-way in the forest. Pretend the bus has broken down. Tell the kids that if we pray hard enough, Jesus will fix it. etc.) Hindus and Muslims are as brutal as each other. Hindus and Muslims behaved equally badly during the Partition of India. For a more recent example, look at the Gujarat riots. Hindus can be terrorists too, the Government chooses not to see it that way. The media and the people are too damn scared to call it that. Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are inaccurate.

waps 13y ago
> Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are inaccurate. I actually like the point that you're making, but the data you use to illustrate it is woefully inadequate. Your example, the Gujarat riots. The third sentence from the wikipedia article on the subject : "On 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express train was attacked at Godhra by a Muslim mob.[2][3][4][5] 58 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were killed in the attack." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence The aftermath of that is what you might expect. The rest of the article has such little tidbits as calls for genocide being broadcast from mosques, in code, which obviously means that muslims were planning a genocide beforehand (or they wouldn't have had time to spread the code). The gujarat riots were an example of their standard modus operandus : small number of muslims successfully goading a large number of muslims into committing genocide, and losing the battle. I've seen groups try the same in Brussels (thankfully unsuccessfully). But don't worry, they were only trying to get muslims to shoot automatic weaponry at citizens because of graffiti on the mosque (graffiti was related to Europe). Needless to say this was officially declared "an incident of a reaction against religious intolerance". I even know why : because stating the truth had a good chance of making the muslims attack again. Did "both sides commit atrocities" yes. However, one side can make a VERY strong case it was defending itself. Furthermore given all other incidents, from partition and subsequent genocide in Pakistan but not in India to the many other instances of violence, I would suspect that was the case even without the many indications in the article that this was a coordinated plan for genocide against hindus run from the local mosques that got out of hand. I think you see why this is unlikely to sway my opinion. Please, do try again, because I really don't want to think islam and muslims are at war with everybody else, which can't end in anything but massive religious intolerance world-wide. But what you've given as examples does the exact opposite you intended.
- lake99 13y ago
  The train was returning from Ayodhya, the center of another religious controversy [1]. It's one thing to serve mob-justice to the people who burnt the train, it's an entirely different thing to "serve" it to all kinds of Muslims who are completely unconnected to the original train-burning, to children, to babies. The Hindus too started violence across the massive state of Gujarat immediately. I doubt that the Hindus were planning genocide beforehand too. But the truth is that sensational news spread quickly, even for some trivial events[2]. Both sides will play the "defence" card, even when attacking children. Hindu terrorists[3] do not need to be attacked to begin hostilities. The Mangalore case[4] is fairly famous in India. But apart from that, one often hears stories of gift shops getting attacked for selling valentine's day cards, unmarried couples getting attacked on valentine's day for fairly trivial displays of affection, etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle The news of this idiocy spread, through just word-of-mouth, all over India in just one day [3] practically no one calls them that [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Mangalore_pub_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Mangalore_pub_attack
  - waps 13y ago
    You seem to be confused about what I'm claiming happened. You say retaliation against groups because of what other members of the same group did because they were members of that group is not reasonable. On an intellectual level I concur, but I also realize that such a system is easy to game, and therefore cannot exist. Therefore group attacks, and group retaliation are a necessity, and they will exist regardless of what we rationally or morally feel justice should be. It's not a question of having this morally justified, no more than questioning the morality of a volcanic eruption anyway. As for [1], that happened during the mughal conquest of India. Again, any violence against muslims during that time was as justified as violence against nazis was in WWII. Muslim invaders were genociding through India at the time, loss of life of that conquest, which included the building of that mosque, run from the hundreds of millions up to a billion dead. Number [4] is such a trivial event I don't get why you even mention it. Drunks do that on a bimonthly basis 200 meter from where I'm sitting. Furthermore I would like to point out that in most muslim countries, those girls would have been slowly stoned to death, as a matter of general policy. I don't fully get the point your making. When pointing out muslim atrocities, I point to multiple religious genocides, and you say that the other side is "equally guilty" because of the destruction of a building and scaring a few girls. I hope you understand that these things are not comparable.

by lake99 13y ago

waps 13y ago

> Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are inaccurate. I actually like the point that you're making, but the data you use to illustrate it is woefully inadequate. Your example, the Gujarat riots. The third sentence from the wikipedia article on the subject : "On 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express train was attacked at Godhra by a Muslim mob.[2][3][4][5] 58 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were killed in the attack." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence The aftermath of that is what you might expect. The rest of the article has such little tidbits as calls for genocide being broadcast from mosques, in code, which obviously means that muslims were planning a genocide beforehand (or they wouldn't have had time to spread the code). The gujarat riots were an example of their standard modus operandus : small number of muslims successfully goading a large number of muslims into committing genocide, and losing the battle. I've seen groups try the same in Brussels (thankfully unsuccessfully). But don't worry, they were only trying to get muslims to shoot automatic weaponry at citizens because of graffiti on the mosque (graffiti was related to Europe). Needless to say this was officially declared "an incident of a reaction against religious intolerance". I even know why : because stating the truth had a good chance of making the muslims attack again. Did "both sides commit atrocities" yes. However, one side can make a VERY strong case it was defending itself. Furthermore given all other incidents, from partition and subsequent genocide in Pakistan but not in India to the many other instances of violence, I would suspect that was the case even without the many indications in the article that this was a coordinated plan for genocide against hindus run from the local mosques that got out of hand. I think you see why this is unlikely to sway my opinion. Please, do try again, because I really don't want to think islam and muslims are at war with everybody else, which can't end in anything but massive religious intolerance world-wide. But what you've given as examples does the exact opposite you intended.

lake99 13y ago
The train was returning from Ayodhya, the center of another religious controversy [1]. It's one thing to serve mob-justice to the people who burnt the train, it's an entirely different thing to "serve" it to all kinds of Muslims who are completely unconnected to the original train-burning, to children, to babies. The Hindus too started violence across the massive state of Gujarat immediately. I doubt that the Hindus were planning genocide beforehand too. But the truth is that sensational news spread quickly, even for some trivial events[2]. Both sides will play the "defence" card, even when attacking children. Hindu terrorists[3] do not need to be attacked to begin hostilities. The Mangalore case[4] is fairly famous in India. But apart from that, one often hears stories of gift shops getting attacked for selling valentine's day cards, unmarried couples getting attacked on valentine's day for fairly trivial displays of affection, etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle The news of this idiocy spread, through just word-of-mouth, all over India in just one day [3] practically no one calls them that [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Mangalore_pub_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Mangalore_pub_attack
- waps 13y ago
  You seem to be confused about what I'm claiming happened. You say retaliation against groups because of what other members of the same group did because they were members of that group is not reasonable. On an intellectual level I concur, but I also realize that such a system is easy to game, and therefore cannot exist. Therefore group attacks, and group retaliation are a necessity, and they will exist regardless of what we rationally or morally feel justice should be. It's not a question of having this morally justified, no more than questioning the morality of a volcanic eruption anyway. As for [1], that happened during the mughal conquest of India. Again, any violence against muslims during that time was as justified as violence against nazis was in WWII. Muslim invaders were genociding through India at the time, loss of life of that conquest, which included the building of that mosque, run from the hundreds of millions up to a billion dead. Number [4] is such a trivial event I don't get why you even mention it. Drunks do that on a bimonthly basis 200 meter from where I'm sitting. Furthermore I would like to point out that in most muslim countries, those girls would have been slowly stoned to death, as a matter of general policy. I don't fully get the point your making. When pointing out muslim atrocities, I point to multiple religious genocides, and you say that the other side is "equally guilty" because of the destruction of a building and scaring a few girls. I hope you understand that these things are not comparable.