Search results

you're right, genius. Their protest was rejected and poor Gangotri was killed. The protest of those Muslims who want changes to the law also gets rejected when necessary. Both sets are looking for changes to the law/cultural imperialism/exemption in this case. Where's the difference?

silence.. quelle suprise ;)

it was Gangotri the bull not Banjo the bull ;)

You misunderstood first time. I'm very consistent ;) If living with diseased animals is against the laws of a country, why should Hindus be allowed to do it? Is it not wanting to impose a foreign culture on the host country? Explain how that would be different to a set of people wanting...

Since it doesn't exist, I don't know what it is. It looks like some concocted theory to give a name to global competition for resources. The clash of civilization according to the map shown takes for example, the Middle East or Islamic areas as one group, Eastern Europe as another, China as...

The Crusades werent a clash of civilization. There were political, economic motives. If politics was removed, there'd have been no crusades. So it wasn't a clash of civilization. It was a convenient way to polarize the world at the time.

Nonsense. A Hindu may not be able to lead Pakistan (a Muslim won't be able to properly lead India either), but that isn't a clash of civilization. A clash of civilization would be something like a Hindu wanting to own diseased cows against the law. It doesn't happen much.

A Muslim nation allying itself with a Buddhist nation. This would not be possible if the clash of civilization was true. Yet it exists. The reason is that there is no clash of civilization that is rooted in religion or culture. There are differences that arent so important. Though there is...

Islamic civilization is not culturally all the same. Why would the Ottomans fight in World War 1 alongside a Christian nation in what was a western european war, for example?

Anyhow if in one timeframe the clash of civilizations is between Christians and Muslims, then it switches to a fight against Fascism where one entity can be Christian or Muslim, there is no basis for any clash of civilization, except for a man-made one during a particular timeframe. Explain...

Point 2. It's wrong to call it a clash of civilization when it isn't, obviously. Political conflicts are frequent and override whatever religious conflict there might be. It's true everywhere. You gave the example above of Western Europe uniting during the Cold War. Religious differences were...

Original. Try coming up with something new. To summarize, you're saying that religion and culture becomes subordinate to any perceived threat (in this case the Soviet Union). Great. That's what I was saying. (it is non existent). Finally. Yes, Europe and the Americas are multicultural...

You need to be in a majority before any Indian dares do anything physically mischievious, which has it's advantages to host nations. Being second largest won't make any difference. The reference wasn't for cultural domination. It was an example of imposing culture to the same degree that...

The timeframe does make it a bogus concept imo. If in one timeframe the clash is with Pagan, then it switches to Communists, then it switches to Muslims, that shows that something else is causing the clash in civilization other than culture.

There isn't any clash of civilization. There's competition between nations to overpower each other and gain resources. That is an eternal source of conflict. The clash of civilization is a convenient excuse to point out foes based on ideology. For example, none of those grouped civilizations...

The clash of civilization is a bogus concept that changes from generation to generation. Before it was communism and freedom, now it's Islam.. tomorrow it shall be?

you wanted an example of Hindu cultural imperialism in the west, I gave it. Now you want examples of mass murder. You're not in sufficient numbers outside of India to commit mass murder like you do in India regularly (you need to have around 40 Indians to every victim) plus you don't have motive...

my point was when it comes to integration, Indians are at the bottom of the pile considering the statistics. Integration is a two way thing, I agree. However you (or he) made the claim that Indians integrate well. These examples show you do not. If you want cultural things Hindus try to...

Muslims could easily live with Hindus in India. This wasn't a problem. Already 250 million Muslims live there, minus the odd genocide like in Gujerat. Political representation would be the problem. Why should Pakistan which was historically seperate from India be a part of India? There was...

you sound vvvvery scary Major Vikram Batra. being an enemy's nightmare :cheesy: