Mahatma Gandhi Reassasinated.

[Cookie Monster]

Meanwhile, when many trolls are busy in discovering great fundamentalism in shooting a picture of Bapu, A 25 year old lady is shot on head who was bagging for mercy. I do not see any thread on that. Perhaps, it is against the convince of Pseudo secular who are busy in exploring fundamentalism of Hinuds and Hindu organizations. No mater an innocent lady bagging for mercy was shot on her head. Her dead body was also shot with one more round. There is no discussion, there is no anger, there is no abuse. hates off to me who has always unmasked these double standard hypocrites who post here with a fixed agenda and have a little concern for real human rights.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...errorists-in-pulwama/articleshow/65438001.cms

No one is stopping u from creating a thread for it. What u r doing here is called whataboutism(look up this term).

Sure there is outrage on this thread about this action of shooting an effigy of Gandhi but is there any admiration being shown by those outraged members for the murder of this lady? So how can u call them "hypocrites" and that they have double standards?

 

[HariPrasad]

No one is stopping u from creating a thread for it. What u r doing here is called whataboutism(look up this term).

Sure there is outrage on this thread about this action of shooting an effigy of Gandhi but is there any admiration being shown by those outraged members for the murder of this lady? So how can u call them "hypocrites" and that they have double standards?

I call them hypocrite because they will not open a thread on real Human right violation. Their concern for Human right is limited for one section. They will turn blind eye on real human right violation. Now the killing of lady is real human right concern but rather than opening these sort of thread, they will dig out something else which is way less offensive and doesn't amount to any human right violation.

 

[Royal Lancer]

lol Pakistan was gonna happen regardless. Gandhi didn't give u the short end of the stick...if anything it was Gandhi's views of a secular united India(one nation theory) that lessened support for the creation of Pakistan among the Indian Muslims(Maulana Kalam Azad and the likes).

Gandhi absolutely gave Hindus and Sikhs the short end of the stick; and he thankfully died before he could screw over independent India with his delusional idealism and pacifism any more than he already had - because there's no doubting that he would have emotionally arm twisted the leadership and much of the masses into following him even farther down the path of suicide.

As for Indian Muslims, those who genuinely loved India, believed in coexistence and opposed the two nation theory would've likely done it even without Gandhi's mollycoddling - they likely weren't the ones slaughtering Hindus and Sikhs anyways. But even among Indian Muslims who opposed the two nation theory, there were some who opposed the two nation theory not out of love for Hindus, India or Gandhi - but because they knew the sort of power they would wield in a unified India with a gargantuan Muslim population. So don't try to paint it as some sort of favor or gift to us.

As for Muslims slaughtering Hindus and Sikhs...hmm I wonder what Hindus and Sikhs were doing...throwing roses perhaps? Oh right u conveniently missed out the part that Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtering Muslims.

1. Who started these major riots I listed? Who instigated Direct Action Day?
2. Yes, thankfully some Hindus and a lot of the Sikhs refused to just sit around and die like Gandhi wanted us to and actually defended themselves; I'm sure that in your mind we should probably apologize for not being 100% wiped out and letting all of South Asia become Dar ul Islam.

No one in Pakistan has any love for Gandhi...and I'm not here to tell u what u should or should not do...so no need to get butt hurt. Remember I didn't quote u...u quoted me. I was only engaging the more civil members here presenting the more human side of the argument like how we shouldn't mock the deceased by glorifying their murderers. It's something called respect/manners/honor/etc...something that's hard for u to comprehend.

I quoted you because you were suggesting that this was all about some minor differences of opinion - it really isn't at all. Something you still don't seem to understand. As for your whole humanity spiel, I'm sure there was a human side to those killed because of Gandhi's suicidal delusion. When you command the sort of respect and unquestioning following of the masses that Gandhi did - you become responsible for them, and Gandhi directly failed a lot of them. A man like that deserves very little respect/manners/honor or whatever other idealistic terms you want to throw at me. He left us many lingering problems, and has blood on his hands.

As for u not wishing to answer when the same situation applies to u...just the fact that u r shying away from answering is enough for me to know. Ur hypocrisy is shining bright. In my case I like to treat others how I want to be treated.

Again, you're rambling on and on about a completely false parallel. If my father had betrayed a large chunk of his people like Gandhi did, had he left an entire country with the sort of lingering problems Gandhi did, if he had blood on his hands like Gandhi did - I would be incredibly scathing of him as well; as for how I'm treated - I wouldn't be shameless enough to expect good treatment if I did the things I listed above either.

But that wasn't ever your question. You're still frantically trying to compare apples to oranges (a massive understatement) and then acting like I'm deflecting. When in reality, I just don't feel obligated to address the preposterously stupid false parallel that you've artificially created or the inane question which results from it.

So go ahead glorify the murderer and stomp on the name and legacy of the man who gave u ur freedom...I don't care either way. However I will continue to speak my mind whenever and wherever I please...and u don't have to engage me if it doesn't fit ur misguided world view...just disagree in ur head and spare me ur "arguments"(if we can call it that).

ONE* of the men who gave us freedom. And LMFAO, when did I tell you not to speak your mind? It's actually you who's being butthurt over nothing, I never said you should shut up or that you can't have/voice an opinion on this subject or any other.

 

[scorpionx]

Meanwhile, when many trolls are busy in discovering great fundamentalism in shooting a picture of Bapu, A 25 year old lady is shot on head who was bagging for mercy. I do not see any thread on that. Perhaps, it is against the convince of Pseudo secular who are busy in exploring fundamentalism of Hinuds and Hindu organizations. No mater an innocent lady bagging for mercy was shot on her head. Her dead body was also shot with one more round. There is no discussion, there is no anger, there is no abuse. hates off to me who has always unmasked these double standard hypocrites who post here with a fixed agenda and have a little concern for real human rights.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...errorists-in-pulwama/articleshow/65438001.cms

Not a single of your so called pseudoseculars in this forum have ever supported terrorism in Kashmir, neither they are blind eyed to this. If one asks to put a check on security excesses which no sane mind would deny, it does not mean he is supporting terrorism. Problem in debating with ultra nationalism is this: you read even things that is not shared by the writer.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Gandhi absolutely gave Hindus and Sikhs the short end of the stick; and he thankfully died before he could screw over independent India with his delusional idealism and pacifism any more than he already had - because there's no doubting that he would have emotionally arm twisted the leadership and much of the masses into following him even farther down the path of suicide.

As for Indian Muslims, those who genuinely loved India, believed in coexistence and opposed the two nation theory would've likely done it even without Gandhi's mollycoddling - they likely weren't the ones slaughtering Hindus and Sikhs anyways. But even among Indian Muslims who opposed the two nation theory, there were some who opposed the two nation theory not out of love for Hindus, India or Gandhi - but because they knew the sort of power they would wield in a unified India with a gargantuan Muslim population. So don't try to paint it as some sort of favor or gift to us.

U can continue to live in ur fantasy land but don't try to preach me ur fantasy. Thankfully I've read enough history to see how plainly wrong u r.

1. Who started these major riots I listed? Who instigated Direct Action Day?
2. Yes, thankfully some Hindus and a lot of the Sikhs refused to just sit around and die like Gandhi wanted us to and actually defended themselves; I'm sure that in your mind we should probably apologize for not being 100% wiped out and letting all of South Asia become Dar ul Islam.

There it is...that hatred for Muslims is finally coming out. Again I would say u can keep ur fictional history to urself. Muslims ruled India for centuries and yet here u r numbering in billions...so what was that again about Muslims wanting to eliminate Hindus?...to a normal person that kind of reasoning would fly in the face of logic but then again I don't expect u to be normal.

I quoted you because you were suggesting that this was all about some minor differences of opinion - it really isn't at all. Something you still don't seem to understand. As for your whole humanity spiel, I'm sure there was a human side to those killed because of Gandhi's suicidal delusion. When you command the sort of respect and unquestioning following of the masses that Gandhi did - you become responsible for them, and Gandhi directly failed a lot of them. A man like that deserves very little respect/manners/honor or whatever other idealistic terms you want to throw at me. He left us many lingering problems, and has blood on his hands.

Again, you're rambling on and on about a completely false parallel. If my father had betrayed a large chunk of his people like Gandhi did, had he left an entire country with the sort of lingering problems Gandhi did, if he had blood on his hands like Gandhi did - I would be incredibly scathing of him as well; as for how I'm treated - I wouldn't be shameless enough to expect good treatment if I did the things I listed above either.

But that wasn't ever your question. You're still frantically trying to compare apples to oranges (a massive understatement) and then acting like I'm deflecting. When in reality, I just don't feel obligated to address the preposterously stupid false parallel that you've artificially created or the inane question which results from it.

ONE* of the men who gave us freedom. And LMFAO, when did I tell you not to speak your mind? It's actually you who's being butthurt over nothing, I never said you should shut up or that you can't have/voice an opinion on this subject or any other.

I'm butthurt? I'm just merely pointing out that I didn't engage u and that u r set in ur ways. In one of my previous posts I said a few times that with u "there's no argument to be had". All I m saying(which u failed to comprehend the first time) is stop quoting me. U can disagree all u want...just don't quote me. I'm not interested in debating with someone who doesn't get the basic concepts of logic and believes in their version of history.

I call them hypocrite because they will not open a thread on real Human right violation. Their concern for Human right is limited for one section. They will turn blind eye on real human right violation. Now the killing of lady is real human right concern but rather than opening these sort of thread, they will dig out something else which is way less offensive and doesn't amount to any human right violation.

What? That's an impossible task. If they had opened a thread on this lady's murder then somebody would've come charging in saying "hey but what about this other crime over here...no one opened a thread for this...hypocrites".

So should a person not open a thread on anything unless they can simultaneously open millions of other threads covering everything that happens in every passing second around the world?

 

[Royal Lancer]

There it is...that hatred for Muslims is finally coming out. Again I would say u can keep ur fictional history to urself. Muslims ruled India for centuries and yet here u r numbering in billions...so what was that again about Muslims wanting to eliminate Hindus?...to a normal person that kind of reasoning would fly in the face of logic but then again I don't expect u to be normal.

Since all your other counterpoints were basically about not quoting you - I'm going to counter this one assertion you made and then call time on the whole conversation (from my end).

1. It's not a hatred of Muslims, it's a hatred of Islamists, the kind who believe in things like Ghazwa e Hind, and Hindus being kaafirs deserving of the sword etc - I've never hidden it, and I'm not apologetic about it.
2. That's one of the biggest fallacies ever; it wasn't for a lack of intent or effort on the part of various Islamic invaders. But as they and many other invaders learned, India was too big, geographically diverse, and populated to be completely conquered and directly subjected to foreign rule. So more often than not, invaders reached arrangements with local leaders who would pledge allegiance and provide tax revenue, help administer parts of the Empire, often lead the Armies, and in turn get to keep their titles and kingdoms.

 

[Tshering22]

Yes. And this is unfortunate and shame.

Not really.

Gandhi was no peacenik. He was responsible for numerous deaths and was a military officer in the Raj's army. His silly views have costed numerous Indians their lives and it was because of his appeasement and weakness that India suffered what it did.

While our textbooks worship him, I refuse to accept him. We are a community of mountain warriors who in history have upheld righteousness and fought the enemy tooth and nail. We have never been occupied (security treaties are not occupation) and before becoming a part of India, were known for our ferocity.

While we do hold respect (many people actually still believe in Gandhi's greatness, especially the poorer less educated ones) but that is only due to the kids being shoved with propaganda about Gandhi's so-called greatness.

Assassination was no way of getting rid of him, but as they say his demise saved India from being much smaller in size.

Now that elections are here, such drama will be played on both sides to show each other down.

Gandhi is no icon for us.

Since you hold him and his views in such esteem, I would like to see you do anshan when someone gets into your house, beats up your family members and occupies it.

Nothing personal against your views, but most Gandhiwadis I have spoken to, are quite the opposite of tolerant when it comes to their personal interests.

That fat sow in the video who is pointing the gun isn't exactly a shining example of femininity either.

Indeed.

Gandhi is no more and nothing is really going to happen by pointing gun at the image of a man no longer on this planet.

Seems more like a drama to make the current government look bad just because of the propaganda around.

 

[scorpionx]

Not really.

Gandhi was no peacenik. He was responsible for numerous deaths and was a military officer in the Raj's army. His silly views have costed numerous Indians their lives and it was because of his appeasement and weakness that India suffered what it did.

While our textbooks worship him, I refuse to accept him. We are a community of mountain warriors who in history have upheld righteousness and fought the enemy tooth and nail. We have never been occupied (security treaties are not occupation) and before becoming a part of India, were known for our ferocity.

While we do hold respect (many people actually still believe in Gandhi's greatness, especially the poorer less educated ones) but that is only due to the kids being shoved with propaganda about Gandhi's so-called greatness.

Assassination was no way of getting rid of him, but as they say his demise saved India from being much smaller in size.

Now that elections are here, such drama will be played on both sides to show each other down.

Gandhi is no icon for us.

Since you hold him and his views in such esteem, I would like to see you do anshan when someone gets into your house, beats up your family members and occupies it.

Nothing personal against your views, but most Gandhiwadis I have spoken to, are quite the opposite of tolerant when it comes to their personal interests.



Indeed.

Gandhi is no more and nothing is really going to happen by pointing gun at the image of a man no longer on this planet.

Seems more like a drama to make the current government look bad just because of the propaganda around.

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?

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.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Since all your other counterpoints were basically about not quoting you - I'm going to counter this one assertion you made and then call time on the whole conversation (from my end).

1. It's not a hatred of Muslims, it's a hatred of Islamists, the kind who believe in things like Ghazwa e Hind, and Hindus being kaafirs deserving of the sword etc - I've never hidden it, and I'm not apologetic about it.
2. That's one of the biggest fallacies ever; it wasn't for a lack of intent or effort on the part of various Islamic invaders. But as they and many other invaders learned, India was too big, geographically diverse, and populated to be completely conquered and directly subjected to foreign rule. So more often than not, invaders reached arrangements with local leaders who would pledge allegiance and provide tax revenue, help administer parts of the Empire, often lead the Armies, and in turn get to keep their titles and kingdoms.

Learn the meaning of fallacy and go learn history. The invaders who looted, pillaged, killed are no different than any other invaders like mongols, europeans(British, French, Vikings, Greeks, Romans and many others throughout different ages), Egyptians, etc. The history is littered with such examples. For most of human history it's been kings and empires and "might is right". Any king powerful enough to expand his kingdom DID expand his kingdom. Any king powerful enough to loot and pillage and draw tributes from another weaker kingdom DID do all that.

The Muslim invaders who invaded India or ruled over India didn't do anything different than that. In fact under British(not just British Raj but since they started scheming shortly after their arrival) the ppl of the subcontinent faced similar things. Now go look up the meaning of genocide and tell me which Muslim invader or ruler tried to wipe out Hindus...u will not find any mention of a Muslim invader/ruler trying to wipe out Hindus in history(u might find it in ur modified fictional history but not in real history).

 

[AfrazulMandal]

@Joe Shearer Just see the motivation behind this horrendous act. British India was partitioned because of Gandhi!! 'Bharat Maata ki tukde kar diye'. Where exactly we are heading, sir? This is not just her view. This same pov is shared by many educated fellows too. He was a Muslim appeaser and because of him India was partitioned.

He was no Muslim appeaser. He was soundly ignored in Bengali Muslim villages during Partition.

He was weak. That is the only thing I agree. But then most of your Mahatmas fall in that category. Not that these cucks worshipping Godse are any better.

Except Bose and Gandhi both admired each other. Bose even had a Gandhi regiment in the INA.

It is really a travesty that so many Indians don't even know the impact Gandhi had not just in India but the world. And when the idiots were celebrating their independence, this old man was trying to stop riots in Naokhali.

Meanwhile the hero of the right Savarkar was writing mercy petitions to the Raj. And this might not please the right wing loonies but there is more chance that he was gay. And nathuram Godse was a cross dresser as a kid. Go figure.

Nope. Gandhi hated Subhas. Subhas respected Gandhi.

Sons of Savarkar.

Hindu Rashtra did not happen because of Gandhi. So the hate. These Hindu extremists are followers of Savarkarism. They want another land of the pure. A mere 4 years of RSS rule has taken back India by 30 years. Imagine, how regressive Hindutva is. http://donboscoindia.com/english/resourcedownload.php?pno=1&secid=185

Gandhi was as regressive as a Hindu.

Blame the roots. Not the man.

He wouldn't have let the fragmented pieces to be united in the first place, Considering his past record he would have sat on a Aamaran Anshan to convinece CHicHA Nehru to give Hydredabad state to Pakistan.

That should have been done anyway. No?

What happened to the 'Most peaceful religion' slogan now?

"Even If Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing us we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives." - "Mahatma" Gandhi

He was absolutely much harder on Hindus and Sikhs. If you haven't seen the quote I posted, or the other similar ones by Gandhi regarding other incidents (Rawalpindi, Moplah, Noakhali)

Gandhi knew you people better than you knew yourselves. Without him begging around, more Hindus would have suffered.

The Sikhs soundly ignored him. But they are getting what they deserve. They beg to Pakistan to visit Nankana.

 

[Royal Lancer]

Learn the meaning of fallacy and go learn history. The invaders who looted, pillaged, killed are no different than any other invaders like mongols, europeans(British, French, Vikings, Greeks, Romans and many others throughout different ages), Egyptians, etc. The history is littered with such examples. For most of human history it's been kings and empires and "might is right". Any king powerful enough to expand his kingdom DID expand his kingdom. Any king powerful enough to loot and pillage and draw tributes from another weaker kingdom DID do all that.

The Muslim invaders who invaded India or ruled over India didn't do anything different than that. In fact under British(not just British Raj but since they started scheming shortly after their arrival) the ppl of the subcontinent faced similar things. Now go look up the meaning of genocide and tell me which Muslim invader or ruler tried to wipe out Hindus...u will not find any mention of a Muslim invader/ruler trying to wipe out Hindus in history(u might find it in ur modified fictional history but not in real history).

Again, massive fallacy. I see a lot of apologists of Islamic Conquest make false claims like that, airbrushing the religious angle out of things. Glad to see your mask slip off.

Gandhi knew you people better than you knew yourselves. Without him begging around, more Hindus would have suffered.

The Sikhs soundly ignored him. But they are getting what they deserve. They beg to Pakistan to visit Nankana.

LOOOL, are you even really Indian, or are you a false flagger?

 

[scorpionx]

He was no Muslim appeaser. He was soundly ignored in Bengali Muslim villages during Partition.

He was weak. That is the only thing I agree. But then most of your Mahatmas fall in that category. Not that these cucks worshipping Godse are any better.

Internet is cheap. So are opinions, these days.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Again, massive fallacy. I see a lot of apologists of Islamic Conquest make false claims like that, airbrushing the religious angle out of things. Glad to see your mask slip off.



LOOOL, are you even really Indian, or are you a false flagger?

Sampurna Indian nagorik.

Bharotiyo bolbona. Sanghis have another meaning for it now.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Again, massive fallacy. I see a lot of apologists of Islamic Conquest make false claims like that, airbrushing the religious angle out of things. Glad to see your mask slip off.



LOOOL, are you even really Indian, or are you a false flagger?

Still haven't looked up the meaning of fallacy? Or were u unable to come up with any authentic source on history that says Muslim rulers committed genocide on Hindus?

Whatever RSS did to u...u r too far gone.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

airbrushing the religious angle out of things. Glad to see your mask slip off.

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.

authentic source on history that says Muslim rulers committed genocide on Hindus

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.