Search results

lol. i'm sure the person making the statement doesn't know anything about india. i even doubt whether he's american.

a solid reply, polemos. here's another explanation. India is considered a partner of the US from time to time. Sometimes it gets a bad deal and India asks russia for help. It is not an equal partner. That is much more valid an interpretation than claiming it's Red Indians.

that's more like your interpretation of what it means with no reference to native indians or red indians and no clarification it is wishful to think that it refers to red indians. to compare russia with red indians would be silly.

nothing to object to in that post. it definitely doesnt say red indian or native indian and it wouldnt make any sense if it did. it's a reference to India without doubt. Whether it's genuine or made up/believed by the writer is another matter.

the revisionists are you. The creation of Hinduism occurred sometime between the Artherveda and the Yajurveda somewhere in the gangetic plains. ---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ---------- buddhism isnt extinct. many people in the far east practise it.

buddhism along with another non hindu religion (now extinct).

or you're in denial.

lol, it's not red indians. there's no red in there.

it's not a metaphor. Ancient Pakistan without Hinduism would be Ancient Pakistan even though Hinduism didn't exist in Ancient Pakistan at any point.

Seems like he's just saying what everyone else thinks, that india is considered a lapdog Shouldnt be so harsh on him.

You claim since there was a religion in Pakistan that modern Pakistanis do not follow, then all the scientific achievements of that period cannot be claimed as Ancient Pakistani history. Nothing could be more stupid. The French, before Christianity was introduced, had a history. It does...

it appears i'm surrounded by serious leeches trying to leech away history at any price.

if you own a house.. you put in new furniture, does it not become your house anymore because your parents wouldnt approve it? your arguments are stupid. so France doesn't belong to the French people because pre-christianity they believed something else? your point is dumb beyond belief.

yes, indeed. however, genius, the girl that you married is part of your history, your marital history.

explain why Pakistanis cannot inherit the land of Pakistan? your medication is wearing off.

if you believe that, then you are in denial (probably a fanatic). about the resume bit. Your employers would want to know all your previous history whether you quote it or not. It is relevant whether you want it to be or not.

Of course you don't lose your history. If you convert from one job to another, is your previous job not part of your history?

umm, no. but the point you're making that India would give up its land because of the pre-Hindu religions in India would be as valid as his convert and lose land theory. The land belongs to those that inherit it. Religion doesnt have anything to do with it.

hang on? Why do you lose your rights to the land if you convert to something else? if you convert to another religion, do you lose your home?

^^^^you really are unable to assimlate anything lance