Mahatma Gandhi Reassasinated.

[Cookie Monster]

The objective to spread Truth to all corners of the World is always and will always be close to our hearts.

Now tell me. Compare the socio economic parameters of the two or three countries and compare with India.

Where is the caste problem in Pakistan?
Where is untouchability in Pakistan?
Where are Dalits being oppressed in Pakistan?
Where are devadasis oppressed in Pakistan?
Where are Hindu purohits looting people in Pakistan?
Where are Hindu gurus and swamis raping and looting people in Pakistan?
Where are Hindus denying Muslims their right to worship or diet?

I can go on and on.

The ills of Hindu society has been done away with in Pakistan. It has progressed ahead of India in social equity for this reason. It faces great problems, but none of them are due to religion anymore. We could have gone forward the same way. But then you have the gall to say that we (Indian Muslims) are backward.


None were genocides.

Hindus fought and were defeated and killed. As was the rule back in the day.

Offers to accept the Truth were also given. It was THEY who rejected. THEIR choice. Their death is NOT on Muslims.

It had to be done to show them their place. Otherwise they would have continued to oppress Muslims and even their own lower caste brethren.

Exactly that's what I'm telling him that there were no genocides again Hindus by Muslims...his victim mentality is refusing to accept this fact.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Exactly that's what I'm telling him that there were no genocides again Hindus by Muslims...his victim mentality is refusing to accept this fact.

Because he sees hundreds of temples destroyed by Islamic conquerors. And he knows Hindu society was impotent against them.
He reads about the firmans to destroy this temple or that, and he can't do anything about it.
He knows that invitations to accept the Truth was always given.

The Hindus then were stupid enough to reject it and then fight.

Even then, he can't do anything about it.

This impotency leads to anger.

Which we Muslims have to face from time to time. And you face it in forums.

 

[Royal Lancer]

Still haven't looked up the meaning of fallacy?

"faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument." - AKA your posts

Or were u unable to come up with any authentic source on history that says Muslim rulers committed genocide on Hindus?

The sources are literally countless and quite easy to access; it's not that I can't list example after example, and source after source, but these things would be lost on an apologist of Islamist Conquest like you. You'd simply ignore and/or justify everything I list - so it's a grand waste of time.

Sampurna Indian nagorik.

Bharotiyo bolbona. Sanghis have another meaning for it now.

So you're either a BD false flagger, or one of those Nurur Rahman Barkati type Bengali Muslims

Because he sees hundreds of temples destroyed by Islamic conquerors. And he knows Hindu society was impotent against them.
He reads about the firmans to destroy this temple or that, and he can't do anything about it.
He knows that invitations to accept the Truth was always given.

The Hindus then were stupid enough to reject it and then fight.

Even then, he can't do anything about it.

This impotency leads to anger.

Which we Muslims have to face from time to time. And you face it in forums.

This quote is perfect proof of my original argument. We have Gandhi to thank for snakes like you, if you're Indian, that is.

Exactly that's what I'm telling him that there were no genocides again Hindus by Muslims...his victim mentality is refusing to accept this fact.

Coming from a Pakistani and an "Indian" Muslim - two groups absolutely notorious for their victim mentalities. Constantly provoking and hounding others, then crying and acting like victims when they receive a taste of their own medicine.

The objective to spread Truth to all corners of the World is always and will always be close to our hearts.

You continue to prove my point about Gandhi. Even Patel & Ambedkar, both far from Sanghis, were spot on about a lot of you people.

Where is the caste problem in Pakistan?
Where is untouchability in Pakistan?
Where are Dalits being oppressed in Pakistan?
Where are devadasis oppressed in Pakistan?
Where are Hindu purohits looting people in Pakistan?
Where are Hindu gurus and swamis raping and looting people in Pakistan?
Where are Hindus denying Muslims their right to worship or diet?

What a stupid argument.

1. Where's the caste problem? There are literally threads on this forum itself where you can see the continued importance given to caste and resulting tensions between several groups.

2. There are nominally no Dalits or untouchability, but everyone knows that there are higher and lower "Castes" and lineages amongst South Asian Muslims too, Ashrafs vs Ajlafs and what not; don't act like Pakistan is some utopia where all these groups intermarry and there's no discrimination.

3. Is this where we pretend that there isn't sexual abuse of children - both female and male in Pakistani society as well? Including and especially in your various religious schools that are filled with all-powerful old men, internal secrecy and zero accountability? Quit lying to yourself and/or to me.

4. Again, are we gonna pretend like they don't have Maulvis & Imams that don't engage in similar fraud with society? You're fooling nobody.

5. That's a good question, where ARE Pakistan's Hindus, or other minorities? Oh right, they hounded out most in 1947 itself and the rest are being systematically whittled down over time. Whereas the numbers of Muslims in India continues to grow.

The ills of Hindu society has been done away with in Pakistan. It has progressed ahead of India in social equity for this reason. It faces great problems, but none of them are due to religion anymore. We could have gone forward the same way. But then you have the gall to say that we (Indian Muslims) are backward.

LOOOOL, yea sure.

None were genocides.

Hindus fought and were defeated and killed. As was the rule back in the day.

Offers to accept the Truth were also given. It was THEY who rejected. THEIR choice. Their death is NOT on Muslims.

It had to be done to show them their place. Otherwise they would have continued to oppress Muslims and even their own lower caste brethren.

Your comment literally contradicts itself. That's exactly what a genocide looks like. The simple fact is, India was too big, and there were too many of us for Muslims to successfully wipe us all out, not to mention they relied on a lot of locals for administering their Empire, getting revenue and filling/running their armies.

The fact that you're unapologetic and proud about these things further bolsters my argument both about Gandhi, and all those Muslims who share your mindset - whether they left India or continue to plague it.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

"faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument." - AKA your posts



The sources are literally countless and quite easy to access; it's not that I can't list example after example, and source after source, but these things would be lost on an apologist of Islamist Conquest like you. You'd simply ignore and/or justify everything I list - so it's a grand waste of time.



So you're either a BD false flagger, or one of those Nurur Rahman Barkati type Bengali Muslims



This quote is perfect proof of my original argument. We have Gandhi to thank for snakes like you, if you're Indian, that is.



Coming from a Pakistani and an "Indian" Muslim - two groups absolutely notorious for their victim mentalities. Constantly provoking and hounding others, then crying and acting like victims when they receive a taste of their own medicine.



You continue to prove my point about Gandhi. Even Patel & Ambedkar, both far from Sanghis, were spot on about a lot of you people.



What a stupid argument.

1. Where's the caste problem? There are literally threads on this forum itself where you can see the continued importance given to caste and resulting tensions between several groups.

2. There are nominally no Dalits or untouchability, but everyone knows that there are higher and lower "Castes" and lineages amongst South Asian Muslims too, Ashrafs vs Ajlafs and what not; don't act like Pakistan is some utopia where all these groups intermarry and there's no discrimination.

3. Is this where we pretend that there isn't sexual abuse of children - both female and male in Pakistani society as well? Including and especially in your various religious schools that are filled with all-powerful old men, internal secrecy and zero accountability? Quit lying to yourself and/or to me.

4. Again, are we gonna pretend like they don't have Maulvis & Imams that don't engage in similar fraud with society? You're fooling nobody.

5. That's a good question, where ARE Pakistan's Hindus, or other minorities? Oh right, they hounded out most in 1947 itself and the rest are being systematically whittled down over time. Whereas the numbers of Muslims in India continues to grow.



LOOOOL, yea sure.



Your comment literally contradicts itself. That's exactly what a genocide looks like. The simple fact is, India was too big, and there were too many of us for Muslims to successfully wipe us all out, not to mention they relied on a lot of locals for administering their Empire, getting revenue and filling/running their armies.

The fact that you're unapologetic and proud about these things further bolsters my argument both about Gandhi, and all those Muslims who share your mindset - whether they left India or continue to plague it.

The Islamophobe in you is out in the open.

I am not in the position to defend Pakistan. Pakistanis can do that.

I put the Pakistan example to show that Pakistan faces the same problems that Iran or Saudi Arabia or Algeria (for instance suffers from). Society is evolved and do not discriminate each other. There are no anti Muslim riots there. People can focus only on development.

not to mention they relied on a lot of locals for administering their Empire, getting revenue and filling/running their armies

Then give credit to the Hindus who collaborated with Muslims when it is due.

And one sincere question.

Where those who accepted Islam punished? The people survived, thrived and flourished. Only as Muslims. So does that make less human? Where was the genocide?

Even Patel & Ambedkar, both far from Sanghis

The former was a closet Sanghi. The lines were blurred then.

And Ambedkar was a bigot when it came to Islam.

 

[Tshering22]

I am really curious to know how Gandhi's silly views costed million Indian lives. Can you shed a bit more light on this? And how it could have been avoided and by whom?

His view that the British would leave India if Indian soldiers fought for them instead of rallying the soldiers against them; we sent over a million men to be killed for those wretched colonizers in WW1 and 2. Who did the soldiers die for?

His decision that it was okay to deem Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru as terrorists, especially when the British gave him the option to decide; 3 young men were killed because of this selfish old creep and an entire decade lost.

His connivance with the British along with his pet poodle Nehru, to hand over Netaji to the British (google it, it is there online with the historic clipping) if and when found, during the heat of WW2. Instead of supporting Netaji and the INA who consisted of valiant heroes, this traitor supported the 'moderate' Brits.

Who did those INA soldiers die for again.

I am not a Gandhian by the way. Admiring Gandhi for his achievements does not make me so. I am well aware of his follies too, which he himself put like an open book in front of the world to see and judge.

Accepting ones mistake does not atone for the sins that this old coot committed.

Sorry to hurt your sentiments, but no traitor is a father of my nation.

My India is an ancient civilizational force that has been long before a perverted incenstrous creep decided to make it his own fiefdom.

My ancestors from our region were noble warriors who fought and drove the barbarians out whom your liberal variety worships and venerates: the Mughals and their coterie. We don't worship medieval barbarians and certainly not their @$$wipe admirers who appoint themselves as "father of nation".

With this being said, I also resent Netaji's (and today PM Modi's) veneration of this man, whom he trusted and respected (Gandhi and Nehru Brigade in INA were to honour the two traitors who would want to hand him over) while he connived to hand him over.

We joined India voluntarily for our civilizational bond. Not to worship the artificial constructs of the Congress party which had brainwashed every single of my people to believe MK Gandhi was a Siddhartha Gautama or a Shakyamuni. Still, many young people with limited education & awareness believe this and respect him in my state.

In my culture, peace and respect holds a very high pedestal; but so does valour, honour and righteous force when necessary. A coward, traitor and a sick perverted incestrous scum is not my leader.

 

[Royal Lancer]

The Islamophobe in you is out in the open.

I am not in the position to defend Pakistan. Pakistanis can do that.

I put the Pakistan example to show that Pakistan faces the same problems that Iran or Saudi Arabia or Algeria (for instance suffers from). Society is evolved and do not discriminate each other. There are no anti Muslim riots there. People can focus only on development.

More examples of the classic victim mentality; if you think someone critiquing Islamofascism is being Islamophobic, you're the one who has explaining to do, not me.

And what a bunch of nonsense, you were bluffing big time about how Pakistan is some great equal society compared to India - I debunked every example you gave and now suddenly you're in no position to defend them? And what a stupid damn argument, is it a miracle that countries with 95% + Muslim populations don't have "anti-Muslim" riots? Even then, pick up a newspaper or scroll the internet, there's plenty of sectarian violence going on in all-Muslim countries too. Am I to believe that Shias & Ahmadis are treated well in Sunni Pakistan? The less said about Hindus, and even people of the book like Jews & Christians, the better.

Then give credit to the Hindus who collaborated with Muslims when it is due.

And one sincere question.

Where those who accepted Islam punished? The people survived, thrived and flourished. Only as Muslims. So does that make less human? Where was the genocide?

I despise those who actively and enthusiastically served those invaders too (some eventually gave up after defeat, and grudgingly carried out tasks assigned to them, sabotaging and rebelling the invaders whenever they could).

As for your other question, those who converted from high castes and worked enthusiastically to serve the invaders likely did well for themselves; those who converted from low castes ended up in situations not particularly different from their original situations.

The former was a closet Sanghi. The lines were blurred then.

And Ambedkar was a bigot when it came to Islam.

Great; everyone who doesn't take your Islamist line is a bigot. Patel who BANNED RSS is a closet Sanghi; Ambedkar the DALIT who fought against all types of discrimination and tried to enshrine equality for all in the Constitution was also an Islamophobe bigot.

The simple fact that you keep calling Islam the only truth, acting like Hindus who were told to convert or die were done a favor - and that their slaughter wasn't even an act of evil, and openly state you will CONTINUE to spread your religion that way; are all concrete proof that you are an Islamofascist. You're essentially a Pakistani with an Indian passport.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

More examples of the classic victim mentality; if you think someone critiquing Islamofascism is being Islamophobic, you're the one who has explaining to do, not me.

And what a bunch of nonsense, you were bluffing big time about how Pakistan is some great equal society compared to India - I debunked every example you gave and now suddenly you're in no position to defend them? And what a stupid damn argument, is it a miracle that countries with 95% + Muslim populations don't have "anti-Muslim" riots? Even then, pick up a newspaper or scroll the internet, there's plenty of sectarian violence going on in all-Muslim countries too. Am I to believe that Shias & Ahmadis are treated well in Sunni Pakistan? The less said about Hindus, and even people of the book like Jews & Christians, the better.



I despise those who actively and enthusiastically served those invaders too (some eventually gave up after defeat, and grudgingly carried out tasks assigned to them, sabotaging and rebelling the invaders whenever they could).

As for your other question, those who converted from high castes and worked enthusiastically to serve the invaders likely did well for themselves; those who converted from low castes ended up in situations not particularly different from their original situations.



Great; everyone who doesn't take your Islamist line is a bigot. Patel who BANNED RSS is a closet Sanghi; Ambedkar the DALIT who fought against all types of discrimination and tried to enshrine equality for all in the Constitution was also an Islamophobe bigot.

The simple fact that you keep calling Islam the only truth, acting like Hindus who were told to convert or die were done a favor - and that their slaughter wasn't even an act of evil, and openly state you will CONTINUE to spread your religion that way; are all concrete proof that you are an Islamofascist. You're essentially a Pakistani with an Indian passport.

Patel also lifted the ban on RSS.
And Ambedkar was a confirmed Islamophobe. His Thoughts on Pakistan make it very clear.

As for the people accepting Islam...I did not understand your objection therein.
For instance Abhi is a drug addict. The de addiction process often requires more than simple persuasion. Whole communities accepting Islam is something similar.

 

[Royal Lancer]

Patel also lifted the ban on RSS.
And Ambedkar was a confirmed Islamophobe. His Thoughts on Pakistan make it very clear.

Because there was no justification for the ban - still didn't stop him from initially banning them and being upset with them. As for Ambedkar, again, you dislike him because he wasn't delusional and suicidal like Gandhi - and didn't believe in appeasement of those who hated us, wanted to kill us, and clamored for a separate country.

As for the people accepting Islam...I did not understand your objection therein.
For instance Abhi is a drug addict. The de addiction process often requires more than simple persuasion. Whole communities accepting Islam is something similar.

1. Not everyone who accepted Islam did it willingly or in full cognizance of how things would turn out. Many were straight up forced on the edge of a sword, others were coerced with less direct means, many were tricked (those gullible low caste Hindus who were promised an equal, casteless religion - even as Muslims they're in the same position as before).

2. So everyone who isn't Muslim is akin to a drug addict who needs de-addiction treatment? I also bet that depending on whether you're Sunni or Shia, and which sect you belong to within those denominations, you have similar views even about other Muslims. Why is someone of your mindset even living in India? Your beliefs and ideology are a 100% fit for Pakistan. The mindset you display, and you're certainly not the only one in the Indian Muslim population, proves the very basis of my argument about Gandhi and how he was a fool who screwed us big time. At this point I rest my case.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Because there was no justification for the ban - still didn't stop him from initially banning them and being upset with them. As for Ambedkar, again, you dislike him because he wasn't delusional and suicidal like Gandhi - and didn't believe in appeasement of those who hated us, wanted to kill us, and clamored for a separate country.



1. Not everyone who accepted Islam did it willingly or in full cognizance of how things would turn out. Many were straight up forced on the edge of a sword, others were coerced with less direct means, many were tricked (those gullible low caste Hindus who were promised an equal, casteless religion - even as Muslims they're in the same position as before).

2. So everyone who isn't Muslim is akin to a drug addict who needs de-addiction treatment? I also bet that depending on whether you're Sunni or Shia, and which sect you belong to within those denominations, you have similar views even about other Muslims. Why is someone of your mindset even living in India? Your beliefs and ideology are a 100% fit for Pakistan. The mindset you display, and you're certainly not the only one in the Indian Muslim population, proves the very basis of my argument about Gandhi and how he was a fool who screwed us big time. At this point I rest my case.

Well. The constitution gives me the right to practice and preach my Deen.
And I don't use force or violence to do it.
There is a difference.

 

[scorpionx]

His view that the British would leave India if Indian soldiers fought for them instead of rallying the soldiers against them; we sent over a million men to be killed for those wretched colonizers in WW1 and 2. Who did the soldiers die for?

His decision that it was okay to deem Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru as terrorists, especially when the British gave him the option to decide; 3 young men were killed because of this selfish old creep and an entire decade lost.

His connivance with the British along with his pet poodle Nehru, to hand over Netaji to the British (google it, it is there online with the historic clipping) if and when found, during the heat of WW2. Instead of supporting Netaji and the INA who consisted of valiant heroes, this traitor supported the 'moderate' Brits.

Who did those INA soldiers die for again.



Accepting ones mistake does not atone for the sins that this old coot committed.

Sorry to hurt your sentiments, but no traitor is a father of my nation.

My India is an ancient civilizational force that has been long before a perverted incenstrous creep decided to make it his own fiefdom.

My ancestors from our region were noble warriors who fought and drove the barbarians out whom your liberal variety worships and venerates: the Mughals and their coterie. We don't worship medieval barbarians and certainly not their @$$wipe admirers who appoint themselves as "father of nation".

With this being said, I also resent Netaji's (and today PM Modi's) veneration of this man, whom he trusted and respected (Gandhi and Nehru Brigade in INA were to honour the two traitors who would want to hand him over) while he connived to hand him over.

We joined India voluntarily for our civilizational bond. Not to worship the artificial constructs of the Congress party which had brainwashed every single of my people to believe MK Gandhi was a Siddhartha Gautama or a Shakyamuni. Still, many young people with limited education & awareness believe this and respect him in my state.

In my culture, peace and respect holds a very high pedestal; but so does valour, honour and righteous force when necessary. A coward, traitor and a sick perverted incestrous scum is not my leader.

When the first World War broke out, Gandhi's political career in India was in budding stage. Indian National Congress was dominated by Moderate constitutionalists. It was even viewed by stalwarts like Bal Gangadhar Tilak that mass recruitment of Indians for the war would broaden the scope of military training for non-martial classes which could be proved invaluable for the future defense of India. It is ridiculous to assume that Gandhi would think anything against prevalent, popular political psyche.

During Second World War, a resolution was passed that was drafted by C Rajagopalachari, supported by Nehru and Patel (the blue eyed boy of the true nationalists today) that 'Congress would throw in its full weight in the efforts for the effective organization of the defense of the country if they (British) committed themselves to complete Independence.' Gandhi opposed this as 'drifting from each other in our outlook upon the political problems that face us.' Ultimately this proposal was rejected by the British and the rest are taught in school books, I do not need to remind you about it.

I do not know from where you got the idea that it was because of him three revolutionaries lost their lives. Gandhi's frequent talks with Irwin, Aruna Asaf Ali's memoirs, contemporary news paper reports, least Gandhi's very own public statements do not suggest anything of that sort. If Gandhi was wise enough, saving the three revolutionaries would have been taken as a victory of non-violence. He apparently failed. I do not think, he was such a short sighted political strategist.

Rest, I respect your emotions and idea of civilizational bond with India. But admit/like it or not, Gandhi brought today's India under one political umbrella. It was him who shaped the political nationalism and brought it to every Indian household that made him one of the most influential men in twentieth century.. His economic/Industrial policy, some of his views on women may look outdated even in the standards of his own time, but it was his idea of tolerance, social nd religious equality the very idea of India stands on. Whether you chose to ignore it or not, your choice.

 

[Cookie Monster]

"faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument." - AKA your posts

If u cannot understand what the definition means then clearly u have comprehension issues. I have only made TWO arguments.

1) the first was not in response to u but in response to the topic of the thread...which is Gandhi was one of the main founding fathers(FACT) and that whatever the differences in points of views let's not mock the dead(Gandhi in this case) by glorifying a murderer(this is my OPINION based on honor, mannerisms, growing up in a civilized society)...
...care to point out the "fallacy" in this? Oh right u don't know what that word means.

2) My second argument was in response to ur idiotic claim of Muslims committing a supposed genocide against Hindus. I replied to u that the conduct of Muslim rulers of invading/looting/plundering/conquering and establishing empires was no different than those of others(of various religions) in various parts of the world throughout history...for this I gave some of the most obvious well known examples(there are a ton more) like Genghis Khan, Attila, Alexander the Great, and many many more. Moreover I asked u for PROOF from any credible source in academia(and not ur made up RSS taught fantasy) of Muslim rulers/invaders committing genocide against Hindus...
...which u never provided...do u see any fallacy with me asking u to back up ur argument? Dammit I keep forgetting u r unable to comprehend what that word "fallacy" means.

Maybe u just recently learned this big fancy word without grasping the meaning and thought u would throw it around a bit here and there in ur conversation and feel smart...it's not working out well for u.

The sources are literally countless and quite easy to access; it's not that I can't list example after example, and source after source,

Oh wow if we r drowning in copious amounts of sources confirming a genocide of Hindus at the hands of Muslim invaders/rulers then I wonder what all the fuss is about...u could've easily just shut me up and my whole argument with the plethora of sources u apparently have...so then what's the hold up?

but these things would be lost on an apologist of Islamist Conquest like you. You'd simply ignore and/or justify everything I list - so it's a grand waste of time.

Lmao...that's how u r gonna try to save urself from the embarrassment of not being able to provide proof? If u r gonna come up with an excuse...at least come up with a good one. A 5 year old can think of such a simple excuse...
...it's like telling the teacher "I did the homework but my dog ate it"...u just simply replaced a few words "I have the sources but u would just ignore them"

Just when I thought I had witnessed all sorts of extreme levels of stupidity on PDF...u got creative and showed me something entirely new.

Now listen here kid...I'm not apologist nor a denier of history(actual well documented history). I don't give a sh*t whether the Islamic invaders/rulers committed genocide against Hindus or not. I'm not gonna try to justify anything
...why? Bcuz it doesn't matter to me. I'm not responsible for it in any way nor does it affect me in any way. It's just like how it doesn't matter to me what Napolean did or what the conquistadors did. History is history...and it just so happens to be that Muslim invaders/rulers DIDN'T commit genocide against Hindus. So u can take ur fictional history and sad excuses elsewhere bcuz it ain't gonna fly. Either back up ur argument with sources and debate on substance or quit quoting me.