Al Qaeda Launches Wing in Indian Subcontinent

[SQ8]

@Oscar

Cant see, youtube banned.
Post youtube video tag

 

[ni8mare]

Cant see, youtube banned.
Post youtube video tag

it just a hate speech

 

[danger007]

India is soon going to face hell India if doesn't leave Kashmir alone would loose every thing

first save your country. ..

 

[Vinod2070]

Technically, it was invaded by British who took over from a land ruled by Muslims who had it for nearly 800 years .. who took it from people who had the land for nearly 2000 years.. who took the land from people who had it for much earlier before that. But then again, using the "invader" excuse is common in India to justify Islamophobia(when ironically the most invaded land is now what is modern Pakistan).

British took India from Marathas (and Sikhs). There was no Muslim rule for more than a 100 years before 1857.

There was no Muslim rule in India for 800 years as well. Most of the local converts were never part of any ruling elite, they were just musallahs, Ajlafs, second class ones.

You are taught a canard, a very bad canard that "Muslims ruled India" as if the local converts had anything to do with those barbaric uncivilized invaders.

 

[alpha q]

Mr it took us 50000 more than 12 years to end TTP they are not easy to be finished

So if al-qaida was not able to beat pakistan even when pak is islamic state, how they plan to capture india?

 

[illusion8]

@Vinod2070,

The Indian internal security apparatus are viewing this latest development pretty darn seriously, I hope we come up with steps to nip it in the bud.

 

[alpha q]

That was afghanisthan and most al qaeda ground fighters and leaders are dead anyway,while america is chilling.
You here talking abt coming to india and winning?Really?U think IED's and rpg's and kalashnikov's going to break india?Inside indian borders if IA sneezes AQ will be blown away.

Nevermind, he is trying to scare us using his teddy bear...

 

[asq]

British took India from Marathas (and Sikhs). There was no Muslim rule for more than a 100 years before 1857.

There was no Muslim rule in India for 800 years as well. Most of the local converts were never part of any ruling elite, they were just musallahs, Ajlafs, second class ones.

You are taught a canard, a very bad canard that "Muslims ruled India" as if the local converts had anything to do with those barbaric uncivilized invaders.

what happened to Mughal empire, you bypass the biggest ruilers of India. and than you go to say there was not rule for 100 years do the last king who took refuge in Burma was not the part of your so called above rant.

British gave rule to Sikhs and marhatas for their subservient ways to please the masters.

 

[Donatello]

British took India from Marathas (and Sikhs). There was no Muslim rule for more than a 100 years before 1857.

There was no Muslim rule in India for 800 years as well. Most of the local converts were never part of any ruling elite, they were just musallahs, Ajlafs, second class ones.

You are taught a canard, a very bad canard that "Muslims ruled India" as if the local converts had anything to do with those barbaric uncivilized invaders.

Where did the Mughals go? Marathas didn't build the Taj Mahal did they?

Or we read the history entirely wrong.

 

[Tridibans]

Where did the Mughals go? Marathas didn't build the Taj Mahal did they?

Or we read the history entirely wrong.

He is talking about the time when british took over India. Mughals were all but finished by 1750.

 

[asq]

it just a hate speech

for this you say just a hate speech but when Hafiz saeed speaks he is blah, blah, blah you Indians are spin masters

 

[Donatello]

He is talking about the time when british took over India. Mughals were all but finished by 1750.

Nope they weren't. In influence, yes, but the exile of the Bahadur Shah Zafar made sure that British have finally and officially arrived.

 

[Yogijaat]

what happened to Mughal empire, you bypass the biggest ruilers of India. and than you go to say there was not rule for 100 years do the last king who took refuge in Burma was not the part of your so called above rant.

British gave rule to Sikhs and marhatas for their subservient ways to please the masters.

Britain fought with marathas under the flag of mughals.

 

[Tridibans]

Nope they weren't. In influence, yes, but the exile of the Bahadur Shah Zafar made sure that British have finally and officially arrived.

By the time Marathas reached the Punjab borders, most of the Mughal lands were ceded to local Rajputs and small muslim rulers (in Awadh or Oudh). In the meantime, the Sikhs were getting stronger by the day as they expanded into the Afghan territories. It was all downward spiral since Aurangzeb's suicidal mission to finish off Marathas where he himself died in Aurangabad. Mughals were restricted to small pockets around the present day Delhi and western Uttar Pradesh.

 

[acid rain]

Nope they weren't. In influence, yes, but the exile of the Bahadur Shah Zafar made sure that British have finally and officially arrived.

auranzeb was unofficially the last of the efftard who mattered.