Buddhism v Islam in Asia Fears of a new religious strife

[hussain0216]

But surrendering.

The proud muslims should have fought till last man and died.

Or maybe they are not proud after all.

How would it be possible for Pakistan to defend Bangladesh with a elephant sized India in the way, no way to keep supplying, keep reinforcing with local opposition

The military made the correct decision, why allow innocent soldiers die when we are unable to supply them

It takes those kind of odds for Hindus


India is at least 4 times bigger in land mass and 6-7 times bigger in population and still fan boy arguments come down to exactly how many tanks were destroyed or how much km esch side took

When we are so much smaller than you, that's all you need to know about Hindu courage

 

[Iggy]

Conflict was racial rather than religious. LTTE brass was Christian anyway.

He knows it, still says it anyway

 

[HeinzG]

Or China.

Hundreds of millions of Buddhists for him to try and attack. And why? Because of some ethnic riots in Burma. What amazing logic.

Hell, there are plenty of Buddhists where he lives in the UK.

He should be careful more than Buddhists because someone is going to cut his throat in UK.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

then u guys gona suffer in future like india

Demographic expansion is unlikely when the fertility rate of that group is only average.

That means the overall percentage ratio will be maintained.

 

[Iggy]

How would it be possible for Pakistan to defend Bangladesh with a elephant sized India in the way, no way to keep supplying, keep reinforcing with local opposition

But still they were puny weak Hindus.. You guys could have use stones to cut their throat!!

 

[Developereo]

Well, some Hindus think of the subcontinent what you think of the Palestine.

Only, the Jews were the inhabitants of that land before the Arabs.

Your understanding of Palestine's historical demographics is flawed.

No we are talking as to why only Muslims have these separatist tendencies. Why don't you see Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan rebelling and starting an armed conflict, cause lets face it Most of Pakistan were under Hindus and Sikhs at some point of time in history.

Wrong. Hindus in Sri Lanka cannot coexist with their Buddhist majority neighbors.

Which brings me back to my original question, whats so special about Muslims? Why are they incapable of coexisting with other, specially after hitting the majority figures in a certain region?

Except for highly immigrant countries like USA, Australia, etc., most current nation states are formed around a shared common culture. When there are big fault lines, then conflicts happen: with Christians in Africa, Hindus in Sri Lanka, Muslims in SE.Asia.

 

[Vinod2070]

Conflict was racial rather than religious. LTTE brass was Christian anyway.

Facts again.

 

[474474]

Very surprised at your post. @Developereo
Since when did Myanmar, Thailand, Philippines become Muslim majority lands?
Muslims are a minority in all three countries. Why should Muslims rule them?


As a matter of fact that they did not give so much.

A hundred different people from different royalties wanted different kingdoms and countries once they sensed that the British flag was waning.

The leaders of India's independence movement convinced, coerced, bribed, threatened a whole lot so that they remained with India as a whole when british left.

And after British left, there were still scores left who had to be cajoled and threatened before they agreed to merge with India.

Even after all of that military means had to be used in a few cases before they joined with India.

It was not the benevolence of British, but the determination of Indians.

Don't know about the others, but Phillipines WAS a muslim majority country UNTIL the spanish invaded, followed by US. Heard this from a filipino (they don't feel awkward about saying that at all) and confirmed on the internet

 

[Developereo]

Conflict was racial rather than religious. LTTE brass was Christian anyway.

The vast majority of the rank and file separatists were Hindus.
The leadership were postcard Christians only -- to get Western support. Prabhakaran's birth, death and marriage ceremonies were Hindu, not Christian.

 

[t_for_talli]

It cannot be determined factually.

If you don't go to actual figure the story line is more or less the same
And i have never heard of Hindu vs Buddhist crusades unlike between Abrahamic Religions

 

[anonymus]

How would it be possible for Pakistan to defend Bangladesh with a elephant sized India in the way, no way to keep supplying, keep reinforcing with local opposition

The military made the correct decision, why allow innocent soldiers die when we are unable to supply them

It takes those kind of odds for Hindus


India is at least 4 times bigger in land mass and 6-7 times bigger in population and still fan boy arguments come down to exactly how many tanks were destroyed or how much km esch side took

When we are so much smaller than you, that's all you need to know about Hindu courage

So you admit this is absolute büllshit.

It was only because they were Muslim that they could withstand such punishment

If the bosnians were Hindus they would have surrendered

müzzies are only brave when bravery favors them, else they surrender like little girls.

 

[Iggy]

Wrong. Hindus in Sri Lanka cannot coexist with their Buddhist majority neighbors.

Where did you get that idea from??

 

[Vinod2070]

Your understanding of Palestine's historical demographics is flawed.

No.

But it is not selective like you.

And yes, I look at it from a different angle than you.

War is like that its tough, you win some you lose some, when you're strong you can destroy your enemy if you go through a weak period you take punishment

Yes we lost Spain, but equally Muslim armies marched to within distance of Paris and kept north Africa and many other former Christian lands

Even the crusades were defended against and eventually the crusaders thrown out by force

You win some you lose some

Try saying that to an Arab and he will laugh at your face like many of you have already found out.

 

[Roybot]

Wrong. Hindus in Sri Lanka cannot coexist with their Buddhist majority neighbors.

That was more to do with ethnicity, very little to do with religion.

Except for highly immigrant countries like USA, Australia, etc., most current nation states are formed around a shared common culture. When there are big fault lines, then conflicts happen: with Christians in Africa, Hindus in Sri Lanka, Muslims in SE.Asia.

Remind me which African Muslim country is facing armed christian separatist groups, Sri Lankan conflict as I said was an ethnic one, and yup that just leaves Muslims. Muslims in South East Asia, Muslims in Africa, Muslims in India, Muslims in China, Muslims in Russia. is it just me or do we see a pattern here?

 

[hussain0216]

But still they were puny weak Hindus.. You guys could have use stones to cut their throat!!

Yes, they were only Hindus

But we are human, in centuries past a Muslim with a sword could overcome these massive odds, Hindus and Buddhists would lose their nerve in battle

With bullets and fighting at distance, it would just be needless slaughter of innocent men