BJP Youth Leader Gowhar Ahmed Bhat Killed By Terrorists In Kashmir

[Dash]

They did.

Who do you think the Maratha were.

Even the Peshwa were first shorn of all bamman trappings and trained in the art of war.

Cheers, Doc

Why cring on to Maratha and I know if they were Brahmins or not. But what exactly were the other brave souls doing before Marathas?

The so called Kshatriyas we’re giving their brides to Muslims in return for peace?

And if Brahmins are cowards and they are of course not a martial race then how did they evolve into a fighter race and then avenge themselves?

How does that make them cowards? My question still stands what we’re the brave from north doing?

 

[oOo]

Even today, the Indian army general takes the pledge to the constitution of India and we expect him to keep that pledge even if the constitution is changed to sanction genocide.

Back then, the pledge was to the throne.

The throne represents the seat responsible for serving the people. Good king or bad, the throne is supreme. So Bishma was right in keeping his pledge. For better or for worse. Just like a marriage. (God forbid if you are married to a bad women).

Look man, you are far more reasonable. Will you support army general if he start taking orders from someone who is not constitutionally the head of state but just claim to be by force or by deceive?

And how will you rate a person who gives more weight age to his pledge than the innocent blood and right karma i.e. dharma? What happened to the teachings of Gita which say follow dharma even if you have to kill your loved ones?

Let me know if you are ready for sensible discussion, I wont fall into a debate considering how touchy and sensitive this topic is.

 

[padamchen]

Why cring on to Maratha and I know if they were Brahmins or not. But what exactly were the other brave souls doing before Marathas?

The so called Kshatriyas we’re giving their brides to Muslims in return for peace?

And if Brahmins are cowards and they are of course not a martial race then how did they evolve into a fighter race and then avenge themselves?

How does that make them cowards? My question still stands what we’re the brave from north doing?

You and I are saying the same thing.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Dash]

You and I are saying the same thing.

Cheers, Doc

No. You called Brahmin cowards while talking about them as RSS mentors.

Brahmins are not cowards.

 

[oOo]

No. You called Brahmin cowards while talking about them as RSS mentors.

Brahmins are not cowards.

@padamchen

 

[Gadkari]

Look man, you are far more reasonable. Will you support army general if he start taking orders from someone who is not constitutionally the head of state but just claim to be by force or by deceive?

And how will you rate a person who gives more weight age to his pledge than the innocent blood and right karma i.e. dharma? What happened to the teachings of Gita which say follow dharma even if you have to kill your loved ones?

Let me know if you are ready for sensible discussion, I wont fall into a debate considering how touchy and sensitive this topic is.

I am the same man you called "sanghi". Just a pointer to who is "reasonable" and who is not.

I expect the Army General to follow order even if he does not like it , as long as it is from the constitutional head of state. He should have though about the moral repercussions BEFORE taking the oath, not After.

I will rate a person who honors his oath over a man who dishonors his oath over his "moral compulsions". War itself is NOT a "Moral activity". There is nothing moral about taking a human life.

His Dharma IS to honor his oath. For better or for worse. Not break his oath. Karma just means action.

If Sri. Ramachandra ji was to dishonor his word to his father or his wife, he would not be worshiped today. For a Hindu and for Hindu society, a man who keeps his word is everything.

Not for a british or a American or a chinese, for whom their word mean Nothing.

The Gita DOES tell Arjun to kill his loved one's for Dharma. There is NO Ambiguity about it.

 

[oOo]

I am the same man you called "sanghi". Just a pointer to who is "reasonable" and who is not.

I didn't use term sanghi as a derogatory sense. I don't consider the word derogatory but just a term to call RSS men. Lets not hinge to that.

I expect the Army General to follow order even if he does not like it , as long as it is from the constitutional head of state. He should have though about the moral repercussions BEFORE taking the oath, not After..

I will carry forward with this part and rest later on.

If Kauravas were constitutional head, for what Pandavas were fighting for? They had no business left and their demand for even 5 villages were unjustified.

If Kauravas were not constitutional head as per that time laws, and Pandavas were, then Bhisma was following orders of someone not the true owner of the throne.

I would personally not revere a person who let gone millions of innocent life just to stick to his oath (made to satisfy his father lust for another woman) even if that means supporting Adharma. Can there be a bigger selfishness and self righteousness?

Let me add more twist to the tale: By telling the secret of his life to Pandavas, doesn't he betrayed the throne? Just if I take your stance for a second?

Anyways even if a general do a genocide on orders of his chief, that general is not an example to quote or a role model. We are humans and not a programmed devices, and we shall remain so. In that sense even General Niazi is worth revering for doing BDesh genocide. But then lets discuss Bhisma only.

 

[Soumitra]

No. You don't.
Everything else in your last post doesn't warrant any attention.

Yes I dont know english and you hav a PhD in English Litreature from Oxford University. Maybe @Joe Shearer was your guide.

 

[padamchen]

Sanghis having seizures at being called sanghis.

Funny.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Gadkari]

I didn't use term sanghi as a derogatory sense. I don't consider the word derogatory but just a term to call RSS men. Lets not hinge to that.

I don't care in which capacity you resorted to name calling. The very fact that you did, demonstrates which side of "reasonable" you stand.

I will carry forward with this part and rest later on.

If Kauravas were constitutional head, for what Pandavas were fighting for? They had no business left and their demand for even 5 villages were unjustified.

Kaurava's went back on their "constitutional" promise of conceding power back to the pandava's after the pandava's served their time. (Vanvasam & Agnyatavasam)

If Kauravas were not constitutional head as per that time laws, and Pandavas were, then Bhisma was following orders of someone not the true owner of the throne.

Irrelevant. Bhishma had promised to follow the order of anyone who sat on the throne. True or untrue owner. Bhishma himself was the true owner of that throne. (before he gave it up )

I would personally not revere a person who let gone millions of innocent life just to stick to his oath (made to satisfy his father lust for another woman) even if that means supporting Adharma. Can there be a bigger selfishness and self righteousness?

He did not anticipate the repercussions of his oath. Which is why this story is taught to Hindus so that we do not take an oath lightly. It has ugly repercussions too.

How you feel about it is irreverent. That is a testimony to your character or lack of it. Bhishma was a man of impeccable character and that is admired and respected by Hindu society.

Maybe your view will be admired in British and American christian society. You should try your luck there.

Let me add more twist to the tale: By telling the secret of his life to Pandavas, doesn't he betrayed the throne? Just if I take your stance for a second?

His boon of "Svecchamrityu" (dying when he so desired) was not a secret. He had out lived pretty much everybody by then. One has to be pretty stupid not to realize that he could not die like a normal human.

Anyways even if a general do a genocide on orders of his chief, that general is not an example to quote or a role model. We are humans and not a programmed devices, and we shall remain so. In that sense even General Niazi is worth revering for doing BDesh genocide. But then lets discuss Bhisma only.

A general who follows the orders of his chief, IS a role model for OTHER Generals and people in the army. Maybe not for all civilians, but certainly for all those in the armed services and who have sword an oath to the constitution.

That is what differentiates Indian army generals from a pakistani army general. You can continue to root for pakistani army generals, while the rest of India will root for Indian army generals who stand by their oath.

 

[oOo]

I don't care in which capacity you resorted to name calling. The very fact that you did, demonstrates which side of "reasonable" you stand.

Irrelevant. Bhishma had promised to follow the order of anyone who sat on the throne. True or untrue owner. Bhishma himself was the true owner of that throne. (before he gave it up )

He did not anticipate the repercussions of his oath. Which is why this story is taught to Hindus so that we do not take an oath lightly. It has ugly repercussions too.

How you feel about it is irreverent. That is a testimony to your character or lack of it. Bhishma was a man of impeccable character and that is admired and respected by Hindu society.

Maybe your view will be admired in British and American christian society. You should try your luck there.



His boon of "Svecchamrityu" (dying when he so desired) was not a secret. He had out lived pretty much everybody by then. One has to be pretty stupid not to realize that he could not die like a normal human.



A general who follows the orders of his chief, IS a role model for OTHER Generals and people in the army. Maybe not for all civilians, but certainly for all those in the armed services and who have sword an oath to the constitution.

That is what differentiates Indian army generals from a pakistani army general. You can continue to root for pakistani army generals, while the rest of India will root for Indian army generals who stand by their oath.

So he was none better than a fool with poor judgement when he was a free soul and none better than a disciplined soldier committing genocide blindly just because his master ask him to do.

He would have followed orders from anyone on the throne, no matter even if some soldier in night time sat on it or an enemy grab it by force.

What is there in him to respect? Honestly?

Isn't committing "Svecchamrityu" when the state need you in war is committing a treason? What happened to his oath then?

Good that you bring in "Svecchamrityu".

And I am routing for pakistani generals? God bless your comprehensions then.

If Bhishma follow orders and kill innocent, kidnap girls, he is role model.
Pakistani Generals follows order and kill BDeshi, they are demons?

 

[Gadkari]

So he was none better than a fool with poor judgement when he was a free soul and none better than a disciplined soldier committing genocide blindly just because his master ask him to do.

He would have followed orders from anyone on the throne, no matter even if some soldier in night time sat on it or an enemy grab it by force.

What is there in him to respect? Honestly?

Isn't committing "Svecchamrityu" when the state need you in war is committing a treason? What happened to his oath then?

Good that you bring in "Svecchamrityu".

And I am routing for pakistani generals? God bless your comprehensions then.

If Bhishma follow orders and kill innocent, kidnap girls, he is role model.
Pakistani Generals follows order and kill BDeshi, they are demons?

Pakistani generals flout their oath, while Indian Generals don't.

Your choice and admiration is for those who flout their oath for "other considerations". Those are YOUR words, not mine.

Bhishma oath was to fight for the throne, not guarantee a win for the throne. He said he will fight to the best of his ability as per HIS rules and principles. For example he refused to fight a eunuch. Those were part of his principles. His oath operated within the framework of his principles. There is no contradiction here.

When Bhishma made that oath as a young man, we was being an emotional fool. Or one can call him a hero who made this supreme sacrifice for his father like Sri. Ramachandra before him. (who can also be called a 'fool').

But sacrifice is also part of the Hindu ethos and Hindu society. You want to admire selfishness, then again you will have better luck with Christian and western societies.

BTW it was impossible for an enemy to seize the throne since it was Bhishma's oath to prevent that from happening. THAT is why he fought the Pandavas.

But anyone who sat on that throne by following the laws and loop holes in the law, had his loyalty.

 

[oOo]

Pakistani generals flout their oath, while Indian Generals don't.

Your choice and admiration is for those who flout their oath for "other considerations". Those are YOUR words, not mine.

Bhishma oath was to fight for the throne, not guarantee a win for the throne. He said he will fight to the best of his ability as per HIS rules and principles. For example he refused to fight a eunuch. Those were part of his principles. His oath operated withing the framework of his principles. There is no contradiction here.

When Bhishma made that oath as a young man, we was being an emotional fool. Or one can call him a hero who made this supreme sacrifice for his father like Sri. Ramachandra before him. (who can also be called a 'fool').

But sacrifice is also part of the Hindu ethos and Hindu society. You want to admire selfishness, then again you will have better luck with Christian societies.

BTW it was impossible for an enemy to seize the throne since it was Bhishma's oath to prevent that from happening. THAT is why he fought the Pandavas.

But anyone who sat on that throne by following the laws and loop holes in the law, had his loyalty.

You have stopped making sense now and responding just for the sake of it. No point in further continuing the topic.

I think I have stated my position and so as you.

 

[Gadkari]

You have stopped making sense now and responding just for the sake of it. No point in further continuing the topic.

I think I have stated my position and so as you.

Of you could demonstrate some personal integrity and admit that you were wrong.

Much easier than calling names and pretending that posts don't make sense. But that is just me.

 

[noksss]

He was affiliated with a terrorist organization RSS himself, which was responsible for Gujarat rape and massacre

That's rich coming from a country who is protecting the chief of a UN declared terrorist organization

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...-says-china/story-IdemUQPwNS14ya4GEVlsAI.html