Hindutva fanatics destroying 25 Muslim owned businesses and property in Aurangabad

[Coolieno1]

Arungzeb also had the most Hindus in his court, Hindus were 100% complicit.
Now go burn a widow.

And Modi had muslim ministers in his BJP party, so muslims were 100% complicit in 2002.
India has most muslim ministers in Kashmir, so muslims are 100% complicit in Kashmir.
Now go stone your sister.

 

[Rusty]

And Modi had muslim ministers in his BJP party, so muslims were 100% complicit in 2002.
India has most muslim ministers in Kashmir, so muslims are 100% complicit in Kashmir.
Now go stone your sister.

So you admit Modi is a butcher.

 

[Coolieno1]

So you admit Modi is a butcher.

I dont, but for those who do believe that (like you), I showed you how flawed your initial argument was.

You (or pakistanis in general) believe Modi is a butcherer, but you wont use your same logic to say muslims were 100% at fault in 2002.

 

[Rusty]

I dont, but for those who do believe that (like you), I showed you how flawed your initial argument was.

You (or pakistanis in general) believe Modi is a butcherer, but you wont use your same logic to say muslims were 100% at fault in 2002.

Like most Hindus, your logic is pretty retarded.

No one denies that every king in history has killed people. Aurangzeb brought the Mughal empire to its maximum, so logically he had had to kills lots of people (Muslim, Hindus, etc).

The problem is that stupid people like you think that Aurangzeb personally hated Hindus or something.

He didn't.
Again, he had more Hindus in his court than Akbar.
So your logic is stupid.

Now show me how Modi is not a butcher.

 

[Coolieno1]

Like most Hindus, your logic is pretty retarded.

No one denies that every king in history has killed people. Aurangzeb brought the Mughal empire to its maximum, so logically he had had to kills lots of people (Muslim, Hindus, etc).

The problem is that stupid people like you think that Aurangzeb personally hated Hindus or something.

He didn't.
Again, he had more Hindus in his court than Akbar.
So your logic is stupid.

Now show me how Modi is not a butcher.

Like most Muslims, your logic is non-existent.

Aurangzeb killed muslims to capture lands. Aurangzeb killed Hindus in lands he had already captured with the intention of wiping them off the face of this earth, including attacking their places of worship and destroying 1000s of temples.

ANyways i dont know why i wasted my time with someone as stupid you.

 

[Samlee]

Like most Muslims, your logic is non-existent.

Aurangzeb killed muslims to capture lands. Aurangzeb killed Hindus in lands he had already captured with the intention of wiping them off the face of this earth, including attacking their places of worship and destroying 1000s of temples.

ANyways i dont know why i wasted my time with someone as stupid you.

Oh Really Do You Even Know Who Was Fighting Your Beloved Marhatas On Behalf Of Aurangzeb???Maharaj Jeay Singh Of Rajputs.

Oh And 1000s of Temples????? Where Did You Pull That Figure From??????

 

[Rusty]

Like most Muslims, your logic is non-existent.

Aurangzeb killed muslims to capture lands. Aurangzeb killed Hindus in lands he had already captured with the intention of wiping them off the face of this earth, including attacking their places of worship and destroying 1000s of temples.

ANyways i dont know why i wasted my time with someone as stupid you.

You can't even think of your own cleaver insult so you copy mine

I know you got banned, but I really hope another internet Hindu here can provide sources for that.
Seem like most of you people believe this nonsense but have no evidence to back it up.

 

[Politico]

You can't even think of your own cleaver insult so you copy mine

I know you got banned, but I really hope another internet Hindu here can provide sources for that.
Seem like most of you people believe this nonsense but have no evidence to back it up.

Stupid people like him need some Hindutva logic to reassure themselves for their hatred of Muslims. Similar to the one Muslim poster here who claimed that Muslims would have constituted "50% of a merged India population". If they cared to study their history they would learn that Mughal emperors were the most benevolent rulers who brought about positive social and infrastructure changes to the Indian empires they ruled. Their courts consisted of large amounts of Hindu advisors and they respected Hindu festivities. What surprises me on this forum is that Indians generally do not badmouth the British Raj, thinking for some reason that the British saved their skin from the Muslim rulers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The British always regarded India as nothing more than a colony of Brown slaves. The Mughal emperors however identified themselves with the states they ruled.

 

[Daghalodi]

Thank God and Thankyou Jinnah for Pakistan!!!!

 

[Nilu Pule]

 

[Rusty]

Stupid people like him need some Hindutva logic to reassure themselves for their hatred of Muslims. Similar to the one Muslim poster here who claimed that Muslims would have constituted "50% of a merged India population". If they cared to study their history they would learn that Mughal emperors were the most benevolent rulers who brought about positive social and infrastructure changes to the Indian empires they ruled. Their courts consisted of large amounts of Hindu advisors and they respected Hindu festivities. What surprises me on this forum is that Indians generally do not badmouth the British Raj, thinking for some reason that the British saved their skin from the Muslim rulers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The British always regarded India as nothing more than a colony of Brown slaves. The Mughal emperors however identified themselves with the states they ruled.

This is so true.
How many Indians were in Queen Victoria's court?
I am guessing zero.

Yet here they are, crap talking Muslims with their made up history and victim complex like little children.

 

[Nilu Pule]

No, the British had to go, whether partition or not. What you forget that if there was no partition the Muslims would make up a significant percentage of the population perhaps upto 50%. Also we are tougher than the veggie eaters so would have dominated them.

Haha!

I don't have anything against Muslims. But if you think Muslims would be the rulers of un partitioned India, you are so wrong. Civil war would have resulted in more deaths of Muslims. All south asian Muslims aren't fierce as the pathans.

Money wins war. The hindus had it more. The banias, gujratis and marwadis would finance mass genocide of Muslims.

 

[Safriz]

Thanks Allah we got Pakistan and broke away from Barbarian Hindus.

 

[Rusty]

Haha!

I don't have anything against Muslims. But if you think Muslims would be the rulers of un partitioned India, you are so wrong. Civil war would have resulted in more deaths of Muslims. All south asian Muslims aren't fierce as the pathans.

Money wins war. The hindus had it more. The banias, gujratis and marwadis would finance mass genocide of Muslims.

I wish I could believe that.
unfortunately, most internet Hindus I have come across are almost genocidal in their hatred for Muslims.

 

[SrNair]

A Pakistani created a thread on the basis of some minor clash in somewhere in India .
(Rest of India dont even cares about it) .
And convincing themselves Jinnah was this ,Jinnah was that .

What a rare kind of obsession.
Still need consolate themselves that Jinnah was right