Is There a Storm Brewing !

[SIPRA]

So why the inferiority complex? Superior nations wiped the floor with inferior nations routinely until recent history, even up until ww2. No such concept as universal human rights existed until the mid 20th century.

In England, there is no drama about Vikings and Romans even though they brutally occupied and slaughtered their way through these lands. English people are just far too mature to hold entire races and legacies on some eternal pedestal of shame. Do you know what they did to the angles and the Celts??

Still, I don't see people demanding York be stripped of its Viking name and Viking history being erased.

The mughals were one of many many nations who plainly wrecked the inferior feudalistic gold-hoarding animistic societies of the time all over the subcontinent. These city states couldn't mount a reasonable defence against most invaders. Mughals seized an opportunity. If they hadn't, someone else would have. Do you not realise this harsh truth? So why selectively curse the mughals?

Intriguing how you contradict yourself routinely btw, by saying at times you have nothing against the Mughal aspect of your history then almost moments later, spewing drivel about why you clearly have a problem with them.

The whole Hindustani mentality needs a paradigm change.

Hindus wiped out Buddhists from the subcontinent. When mughals came along, it was entirely in keeping with the Hindu concept of karma.

Hindutva complains about Muslims being invaders, as though aryans themselves weren't invaders. As though Hindus in general didn't wage war against one another. As though countless Hindus didn't ally with the Muslim armies against other Hindus. Sometimes Hindus allied with mughals to fight against muslim enemies of both.

It is Hindutva that reduces your history to this bizarre and inaccurate dichotomy, either muslim or Hindu with no room for both.

If you are truly as rational and free from bias as you pretend to be, you should reflect on these matters.

It is compulsion of these elite Hindus, Sanghis and Bhakts to be selective in reading the history. You better strike your head with a thick wall, in place of arguing with them.

To them Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi and Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori, who were born and brought up in Indus Valley, were "invaders"; but the Aryans, Scythians and the likes, were tourists, who came to this land on proper immigration visas.

Also, if a Maratha General attacks Punjab or Bengal and plays havoc with it, no problem, since he is "son of soil"; but if a Muslim General launches an attack, from Ghazni, on Peshawar, he is an "invader", and a looter and plunderer, as well.

Further, all the Muslims, currently living, in subcontinent are the descendants of those people, who were converted to Islam by force and coercion; but the Hindus are the scions of those Hindus, who adopted Hinduism, when Big Bang happened.

To add, all the ancient and medieval Hindu kings and Rajas were saints and had nothing to do with looting, plundering and destruction of the places of worships. Possibly, they used to collect their revenue, by begging, for running the business of the state.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Who said "pathetic"?

Please don't project your insecurities onto others.


So why the inferiority complex? Superior nations wiped the floor with inferior nations routinely until recent history, even up until ww2. No such concept as universal human rights existed until the mid 20th century.

In England, there is no drama about Vikings and Romans even though they brutally occupied and slaughtered their way through these lands. English people are just far too mature to hold entire races and legacies on some eternal pedestal of shame. Do you know what they did to the angles and the Celts??

Still, I don't see people demanding York be stripped of its Viking name and Viking history being erased.

The mughals were one of many many nations who plainly wrecked the inferior feudalistic gold-hoarding animistic societies of the time all over the subcontinent. These city states couldn't mount a reasonable defence against most invaders. Mughals seized an opportunity. If they hadn't, someone else would have. Do you not realise this harsh truth? So why selectively curse the mughals?

Intriguing how you contradict yourself routinely btw, by saying at times you have nothing against the Mughal aspect of your history then almost moments later, spewing drivel about why you clearly have a problem with them.

The whole Hindustani mentality needs a paradigm change.

Hindus wiped out Buddhists from the subcontinent. When mughals came along, it was entirely in keeping with the Hindu concept of karma.

Hindutva complains about Muslims being invaders, as though aryans themselves weren't invaders. As though Hindus in general didn't wage war against one another. As though countless Hindus didn't ally with the Muslim armies against other Hindus. Sometimes Hindus allied with mughals to fight against muslim enemies of both.

It is Hindutva that reduces your history to this bizarre and inaccurate dichotomy, either muslim or Hindu with no room for both.

If you are truly as rational and free from bias as you pretend to be, you should reflect on these matters.

I was just stating facts. If facts make you think that I'm some Hindutva, then that's your problem. I have nowhere said that I am a Hindutva fanatic. I don't hold anything against present Muslims for the atrocities of Mughals as I know Mughals were different and Indian Muslims are different. It's you guys who are constantly denying facts and painting Mughals as some form of benign rulers who were peace-loving. And no you can't call this inferiority complex. It is called being aware of history. It's Pakistanis who have inferiority complex when they glorify these same invaders who did atrocities on their own ancestors. That is a case of Stockholm Syndrome ('Stockholm syndrome is a condition which causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors during captivity'). I won't mince words just because stating actual facts will make me look like Hindutva.

No, Hindus didn't wipe out Buddhists through sword. There was no Holy War. In fact, there is no holy war to spread religion in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism which are actual indigenous religions of the subcontinent. In fact, you can ask any Hindu and they will say that they admire Lord Buddha and his teachings. I am personally a big fan Lord Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi. There is syncretism in Nepal, Thailand, etc where along with Buddhism, people follow Hindu philosophies and vice versa. There is no strict code in Dharmic religions where following someone else's philosophies will make people insecure of losing their faith.

Again, the above post about atrocities are some points from an article that I had read. You can say they are exaggerated. I have read that Muslim chroniclers used to exaggerate a lot to justify the ruler. So killings might not have been on the scale that the above post suggests but the kiilings on basis of religion, forceful conversions and destruction of temples was definitely done.

Hindus waged war against one another, but Hindus followed a code of conduct. None other than the fighters were harmed. In fact, there were instances where people are fighting on one side and farmers are farming on the other side of the field. Hindus also followed codes such as not striking below a person's waist and not striking from behind. War used to automatically stop at sunset to be resume at sunrise.

“The Hindu laws of war are very chivalrous and humane, and prohibit the slaying of the unarmed, of women, of the old, and of the conquered. At the very time when a battle was going on, the neighboring cultivators might be seen quietly pursuing their work, – ” perhaps ploughing, gathering for crops, pruning the trees, or reaping the harvest.” Chinese pilgrim to Nalanda University, Hiuen Tsiang affirms that although there were enough of rivalries and wars in the 7th century A.D. the country at large was little injured by them.”

https://factslegend.org/ancient-indian-warfare-ideology-weapons-and-diplomacy-part-ii/

Hindus were just too naive. Rajputs tried to follow these codes against barbaric invaders but suffered heavily. It was only the Marathas who adopted to the changing times and started answering Mughals in their own way which eventually led to the downfall of Mughal rule.

And no I don't have any dichotomy. I admire Akbar who I feel was really ahead of his times. If he was born today, he might really have been an influential personality. I admire Dara Shikoh as well who unfortunately couldn't become king.

And good that you pointed that you finally admitted that atrocities were committed. When you know that atrocities were committed, there is no need to glorify the invaders right? Suppose an Afghan invades Pakistan right now and causes countless atrocities, will you glorify him just because he is Muslim?

I still don't understand this Pakistani mentality.

Anyway, I think we both can agree to disagree here. I'm wasting a lot of time answering you when I should be doing other important things. So consider this is as my last answer to you.

Have a good Sunday.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It is compulsion of these elite Hindus, Sanghis and Bhakts to be selective in reading the history. You better strike your head with a thick wall, in place of arguing with them.

To them Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi and Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori, who were born and brought up in Indus Valley, were "invaders"; but the Aryans, Scythians and the likes, were tourists, who came to this land on proper immigration visas.

Also, if a Maratha General attacks Punjab or Bengal and plays havoc with it, no problem, since he is "son of soil"; but if a Muslim General launches an attack, from Ghazni, on Peshawar, he is an "invader", and a looter and plunderer, as well.

Further, all the Muslims, currently living, in subcontinent are the descendants of those people, who were converted to Islam by force and coercion; but the Hindus are the scions of those Hindus, who adopted Hinduism, when Big Bang happened.

To add, all the ancient and medieval Hindu kings and Rajas were saints and had nothing to do with looting, plundering and destruction of the places of worships. Possibly, they used to collect their revenue, by begging, for running the business of the state.

Spot on sir.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I was just stating facts. If facts make you think that I'm some Hindutva, then that's your problem. I have nowhere said that I am a Hindutva fanatic. I don't hold anything against present Muslims for the atrocities of Mughals as I know Mughals were different and Indian Muslims are different. It's you guys who are constantly denying facts and painting Mughals as some form of benign rulers who were peace-loving. And no you can't call this inferiority complex. It is called being aware of history. It's Pakistanis who have inferiority complex when they glorify these same invaders who did atrocities on their own ancestors. That is a case of Stockholm Syndrome ('Stockholm syndrome is a condition which causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors during captivity'). I won't mince words just because stating actual facts will make me look like Hindutva.

No, Hindus didn't wipe out Buddhists through sword. There was no Holy War. In fact, there is no holy war to spread religion in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism which are actual indigenous religions of the subcontinent. In fact, you can ask any Hindu and they will say that they admire Lord Buddha and his teachings. I am personally a big fan Lord Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi. There is syncretism in Nepal, Thailand, etc where along with Buddhism, people follow Hindu philosophies and vice versa. There is no strict code in Dharmic religions where following someone else's philosophies will make people insecure of losing their faith.

Again, the above post about atrocities are some points from an article that I had read. You can say they are exaggerated. I have read that Muslim chroniclers used to exaggerate a lot to justify the ruler. So killings might not have been on the scale that the above post suggests but the kiilings on basis of religion, forceful conversions and destruction of temples was definitely done.

Hindus waged war against one another, but Hindus followed a code of conduct. None other than the fighters were harmed. In fact, there were instances where people are fighting on one side and farmers are farming on the other side of the field. Hindus also followed codes such as not striking below a person's waist and not striking from behind. War used to automatically stop at sunset to be resume at sunrise.

“The Hindu laws of war are very chivalrous and humane, and prohibit the slaying of the unarmed, of women, of the old, and of the conquered. At the very time when a battle was going on, the neighboring cultivators might be seen quietly pursuing their work, – ” perhaps ploughing, gathering for crops, pruning the trees, or reaping the harvest.” Chinese pilgrim to Nalanda University, Hiuen Tsiang affirms that although there were enough of rivalries and wars in the 7th century A.D. the country at large was little injured by them.”

https://factslegend.org/ancient-indian-warfare-ideology-weapons-and-diplomacy-part-ii/

Hindus were just too naive. Rajputs tried to follow these codes against barbaric invaders but suffered heavily. It was only the Marathas who adopted to the changing times and started answering Mughals in their own way which eventually led to the downfall of Mughal rule.

And no I don't have any dichotomy. I admire Akbar who I feel was really ahead of his times. If he was born today, he might really have been an influential personality. I admire Dara Shikoh as well who unfortunately couldn't become king.

And good that you pointed that you finally admitted that atrocities were committed. When you know that atrocities were committed, there is no need to glorify the invaders right? Suppose an Afghan invades Pakistan right now and causes countless atrocities, will you glorify him just because he is Muslim?

I still don't understand this Pakistani mentality.

Anyway, I think we both can agree to disagree here. I'm wasting a lot of time answering you when I should be doing other important things. So consider this is as my last answer to you.

Have a good Sunday.

There is no "holy war" in Islam either. "Jihad" means "struggle". You know this so quit pretending otherwise.

Honestly your pretentious comments do you no favours.

Hindus had plenty to do with Buddhism's decline. So please don't be hypocritical about this. Regardless of whether Hinduism has a defined concept of holy war or not, Buddhists were their rivals on numerous occasions. There are none left in India to make much of a fuss but for Hindus to blast Muslims over persecution of other religions is pure pot kettle black syndrome.

Now on the subject of syndromes, Pakistanis have absolutely no particular love or esteem for medieval afghans other than naming some weapons of war after them - why - to annoy you and your ilk, not because of some weird invented version of transgenerational Stockholm syndrome.

I hope Pakistan keeps doing such things because it rankles Hindutva to its core. Everyone does such things btw. Hitler named his operation against USSR "Barbarossa". See what Israelis and Arabs call their operations during their wars. Iranians come up with a load of troll-grade nonsense too. Now if Indians take the troll bait, the trolling will continue.

I'm sure if bhakts had some Hindu hero who struck fear into the hearts of the Mughal hordes to pin their anti-Pakistan sentiments onto, they would do so. Sadly for you, you don't.

Frankly your post is bizarre and I wonder if it's tailored to an ignorant western audience that you might be trying to impress. Clearly ANYONE who has A SINGLE IOTA of connection with the subcontinent is well aware that Afghanistan and Pakistan have fought each other numerous times, as have the tribes that predated the modern nation states from those regions. Frankly, we see Kabulites as an enemy in league with Hindustan. Certainly many pashtuns or Afghanis in a broad sense have great affection for Pakistan which we reciprocate but your assertion that Pakistan will bend over and enjoy anything from "fellow Muslims" is a weak attempt at forcing a religious (specifically Islamic) lens onto the subcontinent's rivalries.

Regarding Stockholm syndrome, acceptance of history is not an example of such a condition. As I said before, Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Mongols and many others pillaged vast nations throughout history. I honestly don't see other nations making efforts to erase them from history like Hindutva seems to want to do with Mughals and other non-Mughal Islamic empires that entered Hindu lands. It's obsessive and self defeating ultimately.

Far healthier to embrace your past, especially when it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that the mughals empowered the subcontinent and helped build the place you now call home. Better for Modi and Shah to avoid calling it a period of "slavery" because many see it as otherwise. Maybe Brahmin elites had their power capped under the mughals, hence their rabid hatred of them now. But in all honesty, a serious nerfing of Brahmin power is to everyone's benefit. I doubt you'll ever understand that.

If there's a psychological diagnosis needed here btw, it ain't Stockholm syndrome...

Rather some bhaktistanis need to Google "Post-traumatic stress disorder" and get therapy for the same. You can change all the Mughal names, relics, religion, mosques to whatever you like - it ain't gonna fix the PTSD.

 

[SIPRA]

Hindus had plenty to do with Buddhism's decline. So please don't be hypocritical about this. Regardless of whether Hinduism has a defined concept of holy war or not, Buddhists were their rivals on numerous occasions. There are none left in India to make much of a fuss but for Hindus to blast Muslims over persecution of other religions is pure pot kettle black syndrome.

Had Muslim rulers really done with the Hindus, what these Hindus did to Buddhists; then ......... perhaps, we would not have been discussing, what we are.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

There is no "holy war" in Islam either. "Jihad" means "struggle". You know this so quit pretending otherwise.

Honestly your pretentious comments do you no favours.

Hindus had plenty to do with Buddhism's decline. So please don't be hypocritical about this. Regardless of whether Hinduism has a defined concept of holy war or not, Buddhists were their rivals on numerous occasions. There are none left in India to make much of a fuss but for Hindus to blast Muslims over persecution of other religions is pure pot kettle black syndrome.

Now on the subject of syndromes, Pakistanis have absolutely no particular love or esteem for medieval afghans other than naming some weapons of war after them - why - to annoy you and your ilk, not because of some weird invented version of transgenerational Stockholm syndrome.

I hope Pakistan keeps doing such things because it rankles Hindutva to its core. Everyone does such things btw. Hitler named his operation against USSR "Barbarossa". See what Israelis and Arabs call their operations during their wars. Iranians come up with a load of troll-grade nonsense too. Now if Indians take the troll bait, the trolling will continue.

I'm sure if bhakts had some Hindu hero who struck fear into the hearts of the Mughal hordes to pin their anti-Pakistan sentiments onto, they would do so. Sadly for you, you don't.

Frankly your post is bizarre and I wonder if it's tailored to an ignorant western audience that you might be trying to impress. Clearly ANYONE who has A SINGLE IOTA of connection with the subcontinent is well aware that Afghanistan and Pakistan have fought each other numerous times, as have the tribes that predated the modern nation states from those regions. Frankly, we see Kabulites as an enemy in league with Hindustan. Certainly many pashtuns or Afghanis in a broad sense have great affection for Pakistan which we reciprocate but your assertion that Pakistan will bend over and enjoy anything from "fellow Muslims" is a weak attempt at forcing a religious (specifically Islamic) lens onto the subcontinent's rivalries.

Regarding Stockholm syndrome, acceptance of history is not an example of such a condition. As I said before, Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Mongols and many others pillaged vast nations throughout history. I honestly don't see other nations making efforts to erase them from history like Hindutva seems to want to do with Mughals and other non-Mughal Islamic empires that entered Hindu lands. It's obsessive and self defeating ultimately.

Far healthier to embrace your past, especially when it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that the mughals empowered the subcontinent and helped build the place you now call home. Better for Modi and Shah to avoid calling it a period of "slavery" because many see it as otherwise. Maybe Brahmin elites had their power capped under the mughals, hence their rabid hatred of them now. But in all honesty, a serious nerfing of Brahmin power is to everyone's benefit. I doubt you'll ever understand that.

If there's a psychological diagnosis needed here btw, it ain't Stockholm syndrome...

Rather some bhaktistanis need to Google "Post-traumatic stress disorder" and get therapy for the same. You can change all the Mughal names, relics, religion, mosques to whatever you like - it ain't gonna fix the PTSD.

I'm actually really glad that we don't have a Hindu hero who struck terror in the hearts of Muslims by beheading them and raping women and burning down entire villages. That's what differentiates us from you guys. That's what differentiates civilized people from barbarians. That's what differentiates 'Dharma' from 'Adharma'.

And if you are so fond of terror, stop crying about Hindutva goons in India who lynch Muslims. They are no different from the heroes you idolize. In fact, they are a much milder version of the invaders.

Naming missiles after invaders who plundered your own land is a clear case of Stockholm syndrome. Please stop going against logic here. Your argument doesn't even make sense when you say that naming missiles after invaders to rile up India. You are making a joke of yourself here. Atleast India has dignity. Then don't cry when India removes Article 370. Don't cry when India refuses to play against Pakistan. Because then this is the way India riles up Pakistan.

And who told we are erasing Mughal history? I have already answered your argument in a previous post. You are not even reading what I write it seems. I clearly said Indians know about Mughals whereas Pakistanis know very little of non-Muslim history of their own land. Read my previous responses to get more info about what I said.

Look at your own language. You are calling me bhakt, gangadeshi and what not. Clearly shows who is riled up here and who is civilized.

Regarding Hindu role in decline in Buddhism, I've already answered that as well in previous points. Please read what I've written properly. You are basically repeating your previous points. And this also shows that you are justifying brutality of invaders on subcontinent by saying 'See, even you guys did this to Buddhists' when nothing of the sort happened. Buddhists were never put to the sword. Buddhists were never forcefully converted. There is no conversion in Hinduism. In fact, Britishers grouped all the various rituals and practices that the people of subcontinent were following into Hinduism. Lord Krishna or Lord Ram who are popular figures among Hindus have never mentioned anywhere explicitly that they are 'Hindus'. Religion as a concept is only among the Abrahimic religions actually. The concept of religion was very alien to the people of the subcontinent. Abrahimic religions have strict codes and if you don't follow/believe in those principles you are automatically sent to hell regardless of how you are as a person. It's very rigid. In Dharmic faiths, what matters more is your karma. Belief in God is secondary. And that makes sense as well. Just shows how less understanding you have of Hinduism when you said that Hindus wiped out Buddhists in some religious zeal.

I don't think I need to say more now. Let's finish this discussion. I won't agree to your opinions and you won't agree to mine. That's it. No more posts needed now on this topic atleast between us both. This definitely is my last post for you.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I'm actually really glad that we don't have a Hindu hero who struck terror in the hearts of Muslims by beheading them and raping women and burning down entire villages. That's what differentiates us from you guys. That's what differentiates civilized people from barbarians. That's what differentiates 'Dharma' from 'Adharma'.

And if you are so fond of terror, stop crying about Hindutva goons in India who lynch Muslims. They are no different from the heroes you idolize. In fact, they are a much milder version of the invaders.

Naming missiles after invaders who plundered your own land is a clear case of Stockholm syndrome. Please stop going against logic here. Your argument doesn't even make sense when you say that naming missiles after invaders to rile up India. You are making a joke of yourself here. Atleast India has dignity. Then don't cry when India removes Article 370. Don't cry when India refuses to play against Pakistan. Because then this is the way India riles up Pakistan.

And who told we are erasing Mughal history? I have already answered your argument in a previous post. You are not even reading what I write it seems. I clearly said Indians know about Mughals whereas Pakistanis know very little of non-Muslim history of their own land. Read my previous responses to get more info about what I said.

Look at your own language. You are calling me bhakt, gangadeshi and what not. Clearly shows who is riled up here and who is civilized.

Regarding Hindu role in decline in Buddhism, I've already answered that as well in previous points. Please read what I've written properly. You are basically repeating your previous points. And this also shows that you are justifying brutality of invaders on subcontinent by saying 'See, even you guys did this to Buddhists' when nothing of the sort happened. Buddhists were never put to the sword. Buddhists were never forcefully converted. There is no conversion in Hinduism. In fact, Britishers grouped all the various rituals and practices that the people of subcontinent were following into Hinduism. Lord Krishna or Lord Ram who are popular figures among Hindus have never mentioned anywhere explicitly that they are 'Hindus'. Religion as a concept is only among the Abrahimic religions actually. The concept of religion was very alien to the people of the subcontinent. Abrahimic religions have strict codes and if you don't follow/believe in those principles you are automatically sent to hell regardless of how you are as a person. It's very rigid. In Dharmic faiths, what matters more is your karma. Belief in God is secondary. And that makes sense as well. Just shows how less understanding you have of Hinduism when you said that Hindus wiped out Buddhists in some religious zeal.

I don't think I need to say more now. Let's finish this discussion. I won't agree to your opinions and you won't agree to mine. That's it. No more posts needed now on this topic atleast between us both. This definitely is my last post for you.

I drew a clear distinction between medieval era rampages and the modern era following the universal conceptualisation of human rights. Hence I do not consider complaints over the behaviour of modern nation states India and Pakistan as somehow relatable to medieval acts committed by Hindus, Muslims, crusading Christians, rampaging Mongols or anyone else.

Hindustan has as much responsibility to adhere to internationalised norms of behaviour as anyone else. 4 months of abrogation of basic human rights in Kashmir goes beyond all boundaries and is recognised as such by numerous world bodies, established rights organisations and major world superpowers. Only Hindustan is on its own page in this regard. Nobody in the world is going to buy this nonsense that Mughal crimes against Hindus validate modern Indian state crimes against Kashmiris. This is the precise horse manure that a notable Indian military figure recently spouted as he was being dragged off a televised debate: rape for rape....so said he.

Yes, despite your deliberately being oblivious to the facts of the matter, the actions of medieval imperial militaries is not ethically comparable to those of rampant mobs of citizens supposedly educated in a democrat secular state, guided by an extremist thug who also has the same privilege of modern education. This concept of temporal moral relativism evidently needs to be reflected on.

"Naming missiles after invaders who plundered your own land is a clear case of Stockholm syndrome. "

Again you misunderstand Stockholm syndrome. The reason the missiles are named as such is because although they may bring about some historical grief to Pakistanis, they do far far more damage to Indian egos. The minor collateral psychological damage is acceptable if there is major damage done to India.

This is damned obvious isn't it?

So to be clear, nobody "loves" the invaders for whatever they may or may not have done in Pakistani lands. We simply exploit the fact that they cause you lot to implode with rage to our advantage. This is not Stockholm syndrome. This is psy-ops with acceptable collateral damage.

Take one look at how Bollywood is regularly raging over Mughal this Mughal that, and you will understand how well the trolling is working.

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/...mpt-to-malign-muslim-ruler-ahmed-shah-abdali/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...-stereotyped-and-vilified-afghans/cid/1717346

Tell you what, here's the deal: you refer Bollywood for PTSD assessment and I promise I'll get assessed for Stockholm syndrome. We'll see what the professional psychologists have to say. While we're at it, any Brit who dresses up for laughs as a Roman or Viking would also need a Stockholm syndrome assessment.

"There is no conversion in Hinduism. In fact, Britishers grouped all the various rituals and practices that the people of subcontinent were following into Hinduism. "

You want to be careful now; your thin veneer of "secularist moderate enlightened but but I have Muslim mates so I must be a non-bhakt" is slipping away...

 

[fitpOsitive]

Attack on Turkey and Pakistan will come simultaneously. So when you hear some country in Europe openly threatening Turkey, that will be an indication that India is about to attack Pakistan.

 

[Basel]

PAF F-16's have no Kill switches , and if they have it which i doubt they would be used in Feb Conflict , as long as we can use F-16 against India, there is no problem here . Members like MK often talk about how PAF F-16's have Kill switches and wont be able to fly during any conflict or war .

Kill switches are not buttons which one can press remotely, the software can have backdoors so when time comes OEM can help US to shutdown or corrupt avionics software, it is very real threat in aviation these days, also aircraft can be taken over like drone from remote location.

 

[PakFactor]

Kill switches are not buttons which one can press remotely, the software can have backdoors so when time comes OEM can help US to shutdown or corrupt avionics software, it is very real threat in aviation these days, also aircraft can be taken over like drone from remote location.

During the Falkland War "some say" the French gave over the codes to the Exocet Missile the Argentineans were using over to the British to override the missiles - however, their was 3 successful missile hits on British ships -- but possibility is always their to over ride any equipment.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Kill switches are not buttons which one can press remotely, the software can have backdoors so when time comes OEM can help US to shutdown or corrupt avionics software, it is very real threat in aviation these days, also aircraft can be taken over like drone from remote location.

Theory of Kill switches or deliberate software malfunction has been debunked and thrown into trash by most of the senior and respected members here, people who actually know what they are talking about .. This whole thing was brought by a Crazy old American guy here who claims that he threatens General Kiyani and Ex-DG ISI . America is exporting its weapons to not just Pakistan but many countries who to say the least rely on them to defend their countries, you really think all these countries , their experts , their Engineers and air force Personnel are dumb idiots who couldn't catch anything ? Turkey , Israel , Pakistan , KSA , UAE , Europe , Australia , Japan , S.Korea against some Pakistani's and their Conspiracies ? Doesn't cut with me .

 

[SIPRA]

I drew a clear distinction between medieval era rampages and the modern era following the universal conceptualisation of human rights. Hence I do not consider complaints over the behaviour of modern nation states India and Pakistan as somehow relatable to medieval acts committed by Hindus, Muslims, crusading Christians, rampaging Mongols or anyone else.
..........
Yes, despite your deliberately being oblivious to the facts of the matter, the actions of medieval imperial militaries is not ethically comparable to those of rampant mobs of citizens supposedly educated in a democrat secular state, guided by an extremist thug who also has the same privilege of modern education. This concept of temporal moral relativism evidently needs to be reflected on.

As usual, you have again nailed it, to the hilt. Great post. Highly appreciate it. The term "temporal moral relativism", possibly coined by yourself, is very illuminating.

Tell you what, here's the deal: you refer Bollywood for PTSD assessment and I promise I'll get assessed for Stockholm syndrome. We'll see what the professional psychologists have to say. While we're at it, any Brit who dresses up for laughs as a Roman or Viking would also need a Stockholm syndrome assessment.

However, the professional psychologist, to be deputed for the purpose, shall not be some Sanghi or Bhakt, from Gangudesh.

You want to be careful now; your thin veneer of "secularist moderate enlightened but but I have Muslim mates so I must be a non-bhakt" is slipping away...

This veneer, of so called secularism and enlightenment, is as thick and as opaque, as the Sari worn by Zeenat Aman, in the Bollywood song "Satyam Shivam Sundaram".

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

There is no "holy war" in Islam either. "Jihad" means "struggle". You know this so quit pretending otherwise.

Honestly your pretentious comments do you no favours.

Hindus had plenty to do with Buddhism's decline. So please don't be hypocritical about this. Regardless of whether Hinduism has a defined concept of holy war or not, Buddhists were their rivals on numerous occasions. There are none left in India to make much of a fuss but for Hindus to blast Muslims over persecution of other religions is pure pot kettle black syndrome.

Now on the subject of syndromes, Pakistanis have absolutely no particular love or esteem for medieval afghans other than naming some weapons of war after them - why - to annoy you and your ilk, not because of some weird invented version of transgenerational Stockholm syndrome.

I hope Pakistan keeps doing such things because it rankles Hindutva to its core. Everyone does such things btw. Hitler named his operation against USSR "Barbarossa". See what Israelis and Arabs call their operations during their wars. Iranians come up with a load of troll-grade nonsense too. Now if Indians take the troll bait, the trolling will continue.

I'm sure if bhakts had some Hindu hero who struck fear into the hearts of the Mughal hordes to pin their anti-Pakistan sentiments onto, they would do so. Sadly for you, you don't.

Frankly your post is bizarre and I wonder if it's tailored to an ignorant western audience that you might be trying to impress. Clearly ANYONE who has A SINGLE IOTA of connection with the subcontinent is well aware that Afghanistan and Pakistan have fought each other numerous times, as have the tribes that predated the modern nation states from those regions. Frankly, we see Kabulites as an enemy in league with Hindustan. Certainly many pashtuns or Afghanis in a broad sense have great affection for Pakistan which we reciprocate but your assertion that Pakistan will bend over and enjoy anything from "fellow Muslims" is a weak attempt at forcing a religious (specifically Islamic) lens onto the subcontinent's rivalries.

Regarding Stockholm syndrome, acceptance of history is not an example of such a condition. As I said before, Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Mongols and many others pillaged vast nations throughout history. I honestly don't see other nations making efforts to erase them from history like Hindutva seems to want to do with Mughals and other non-Mughal Islamic empires that entered Hindu lands. It's obsessive and self defeating ultimately.

Far healthier to embrace your past, especially when it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that the mughals empowered the subcontinent and helped build the place you now call home. Better for Modi and Shah to avoid calling it a period of "slavery" because many see it as otherwise. Maybe Brahmin elites had their power capped under the mughals, hence their rabid hatred of them now. But in all honesty, a serious nerfing of Brahmin power is to everyone's benefit. I doubt you'll ever understand that.

If there's a psychological diagnosis needed here btw, it ain't Stockholm syndrome...

Rather some bhaktistanis need to Google "Post-traumatic stress disorder" and get therapy for the same. You can change all the Mughal names, relics, religion, mosques to whatever you like - it ain't gonna fix the PTSD.

Actually those Afghans are a part of Pakistan too. Considering more Afghans(Pakhtoons) are in Pakistan then any where else combined.

Theory of Kill switches or deliberate software malfunction has been debunked and thrown into trash by most of the senior and respected members here, people who actually know what they are talking about .. This whole thing was brought by a Crazy old American guy here who claims that he threatens General Kiyani and Ex-DG ISI . America is exporting its weapons to not just Pakistan but many countries who to say the least rely on them to defend their countries, you really think all these countries , their experts , their Engineers and air force Personnel are dumb idiots who couldn't catch anything ? Turkey , Israel , Pakistan , KSA , UAE , Europe , Australia , Japan , S.Korea against some Pakistani's and their Conspiracies ? Doesn't cut with me .

Yes and no. Agreed that it will tank their exports and support programs but we would be fools to think it doesnt exist. So tread with caution cause they're is nothing wrong with being cautious but there is plenty of good.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

temporal moral relativism

Not my theory. It is well established. Moral absolutism and moral relativism are at opposite ends of this spectrum. Temporality is the usual descriptor in these types of arguments.

Actually those Afghans are a part of Pakistan too. Considering more Afghans(Pakhtoons) are in Pakistan then any where else combined.

Thank you. I was trying to infer that Pakistan the nation state has warred against the Kabul regime on multiple occasions. Certainly pakhtuns and what you or I would regard as genuine afghans are a part of the vast pakistani fabric and we are undoubtedly now sons of the same soil.

 

[Basel]

During the Falkland War "some say" the French gave over the codes to the Exocet Missile the Argentineans were using over to the British to override the missiles - however, their was 3 successful missile hits on British ships -- but possibility is always their to over ride any equipment.

British also gave radar codes to US to neutralize Iraqi radars during first gulf war.

Also codes were given after Exocet was successfully used and there is huge difference in tech of that time and now.

Theory of Kill switches or deliberate software malfunction has been debunked and thrown into trash by most of the senior and respected members here, people who actually know what they are talking about .. This whole thing was brought by a Crazy old American guy here who claims that he threatens General Kiyani and Ex-DG ISI . America is exporting its weapons to not just Pakistan but many countries who to say the least rely on them to defend their countries, you really think all these countries , their experts , their Engineers and air force Personnel are dumb idiots who couldn't catch anything ? Turkey , Israel , Pakistan , KSA , UAE , Europe , Australia , Japan , S.Korea against some Pakistani's and their Conspiracies ? Doesn't cut with me .

Kindly Google how aircraft can be hacked and controlled like drone.