Should Buddhas Blasted by the Taliban Be Rebuilt?

[Vinod2070]

Inconsistent, yes, in the sense you don't seem able to state any facts about what I've said, plus you get in a muddle constantly.

1) Colonialism spread through the subcontinent because Eastern Indians helped take over central India and Western India by joining colonial forces. Parts of Pakistan were also occupied due to this fact. However, other parts were not. Two different histories in fact.

2) Some Greek influence, less Persian influence, even less Arab influence, and Afghans always have been a part of Pakistan. Completely different to what you've said really.

Except the British invasion, all other invaders came to India through Afghnaistan and Pakistan. You know where Bin Qasim came from? Alexander? Mongols? Turks? You need to take a refresher course.

And if Afghans were always a part of Pakistan (not sure what it means really), why don't they just join Pakistan. In fact the Afghans claim the opposite: that the Pakistani Pushtuns are not Pakistanis but Afghans. That is what the Durand line issue is about. No?

Afghanistan is at an important route in central asia. It always has been, which is why it's been under the eyes of superpowers.

Whilst it's possibly true that Afghan kings would have interfered in the affairs of other countries, if they could have, the fact is they've never been strong enough to do so much of the time. At least compared to the successive superpower strengths that have invaded their country over time. it's a bit one-sided.

Irrelevant.

Sounds like Afghan-Tajiks you're referring to here. I agree with that in fact.

No. If you insist, I am talking about the Pashtuns. Read the details of how the Americans bought the Pushtun tribal chiefs with their clans for a few pieces of silver. I can give you references if you need.

Another piece of lacklustre brain power from you indeed. Never heard of "collateral damage" it would seem. Hundreds of people are killed in some airstrikes in Iraq or Afghanistan, and innocent people are also killed by suicide bombings. One cannot differentiate the two as you're doing.

Indeed, soon as the third anglo afghan war was over, everyone just left the place, and the economy recovered overnight in a flash. Actually things had improved following this quite dramatically. Yep, it was all due to tohe Soviets of course.

Truth is that Afghanistan improved considerably when left on its own. Women were granted full voting rights in 1965 when countries like Switzerland had not granted it to them. This is what happens when a country is not interfered with by warfare. So, again, you're incorrect. The country was a "rabble" in the early 1920s, improved some decades, then plunged into war again after it improved.

"collateral damage" is unintended damage when the main target is something else. It is not true here. The girl schools and the barbers and music shops that are destroyed by the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan are the intended targets. Same for the bombs that go off in the crowds. They are intended to kill innocent bystanders not foreigners. This shows the lacklustre brain power on your part (in fact it may just be the blinkers and tinted lenses that seem to be a part of the anatomy).

And yes, I agree that Taliban has made Afghans more backward than they were earlier.

Pakistan did not support anyone after the Soviets left, as you seem to imply. Not sure what bandit rule is either, though you seem to be implying it's the Mujahideen. This is where it gets really tedious talking to you due to the Bharat-Rhaksha type ignorance you come out with. Typical Hindu fanatic. The Mujahideen were responsible for the chaos that followed the Soviet withdrawal, but had the Soviets not invaded, the Wahhabist ideology of the Mujahideen would not have been created. Then there would have been no Mujahideen. You see what interference does?

They behaved monstrously irrespective of how the monster was created. If you feel they were holy warriors, its up to you. I see nothing holy in the way they behaved. In fact quite the opposite. ANd Pakistan was where they were created and trained, so not sure whom you are trying to implicate.

And Mahmud Ghazni was firstly not an Afghan, he was Turkish (I bet they didn't teach you that at Bharat Rhaksha). Secondly, Ghanzi's top commander was Sombay Rai, a Hindu who carried out most of his conquests. The figure of 2 million sounds wrong also. I doubt there was a very good record keeping system of war dead in the 10th century. Just more wind blowing over from you fundamentalist household.

What does it even mean. There are traitors in every country and community. That doesn't take away anything from the cruelty of Gazhani. I am sure it didn't matter to his victims in Pakistan and North India if he was a Turk or an Afghan. And it proves that Afghan was under foregin rule (Turk in this case and also Mughal later on) in its history.

So you are simply incorrect in saying that it was always independent.

And I guess that Gauri and Abdali were Afghans. They were not better than Gazhani in any way.

These aren't Aryans (which are a group of people in history):

Look, it's all in the Avesta and other books. It's in map, Aria was centred on Afghanistan. It's even got some mention in Birtannica.
Aria -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

And here's one for Gandhara
http://www.mythinglinks.org/Map~Parthia~c~R50Dinkd~TLPersians.jpg

It's widely accepted that rig vedic scriptures were written in pakistan too.

Modern day India only got a flow of culture from Pakistan, which they adopted and converted into Hinduism.

I asked you to give me Islamic or Pushtun sources not western sources. Do I take it, there is none?

Rigveda doesn't have a made in Pakistan stamp. It may be "widely accepted" that it was written in the land that is now Pakistan and it doesn't mean a damn thing. The location is irrelevant. The seeds of India's partition were only sown after Bin Qasim's invasion. ANd Rig veda was written much before that. Any history before that is simply Indian history. Nothing to do with a nation that was created solely on the basis of Islam regarding its pre-Islamic history as Jahiliyah and where majority of the people clamor to be called non-natives to the land.

There are exactly two people in the whole world who think Rig veda is Pakistani! I won't care too much about them frankly.

If only Indians would stop stealing stuff. Even the name India comes from Pakistan originally. Saptha Sindhu, gets converted into Indus, as everyone knows the Indus River is located in Pakistan, and India comes from the Indus name.

Irrelevant. It only proves that Indian land was snatched from them, something like the Turks capturing the Greco-Roman empire land. It doesn't make the Greek history a Turkish history. Same way Arabs occupying the Palestine will not make the ancient Jewish history of that land an Arab history. They only inherit the history of their ancestors.

Could be, or the other reality is that the poor grow the opium and sell them to rich dealers. Stop getting so emotional over this. It doesn't make you anymore credible.

Don't worry, it doesn't concern me much. It is the Pakistanis on this forum who blame Afghans for all the ills and crimes of Pakistan, not me.

I was only replying to your post.

I would agree that 1989-1994 was the Afghans own fault, though the other invasions couldn't be ascribed to them. Even the 1989-1994 war, one could argue is not their fault, since if the Soviets had not invaded there would be no Mujahideen, or if the madrassas were not funded, there would also have been no Mujahideen. The Mujahideen ideology is a foreign ideology anyway, specially created for Afghanistan.

And your country (Pakistan) shares a major part of the blame.

You can blame everyone all the way to the apple that eve ate for all Afghan problems!

Bangldesh's "genocide" has been denied by even the Bangladeshi ambassador himself. A Shamshad someone or other. It was officially disproved at a US conference of historians given by Bose, where even the Bangladeshis admitted it was not a genocide. The only people in the world that try and perpetuate this myth are Indians and Bangladeshis. Well, good luck!

Kashmiri militants are also not Afghani. The Indian government acknowledges them to be Kashmiri outfits, Hizb.

It will be an unnecessary digression to discuss this. Just buy (or borrow) a copy of the Guinness book and look up the Genocide section.

We will discuss after that.

 

[roadrunner]

^^Oh God, not you. I might read you're essay at some later point, or when i feel like discussing something nonsensical.

 

[Vinod2070]

Indeed.

 

[Energon]

back to the topic....

I don't see the point in rebuilding these statues if some other religiomaniac nutjob just going to knock them down again later if the country fails to stabilize. If the Afghani population was really in support of such a venture then maybe it would be worth it. But as of right now I think its mostly organizations abroad who want to accomplish this task. The money would be much better spent in renovating and restoring the countless works of ancient art that have been vandalized through India, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Viet Nam etc. where the governments and population seem to be more supportive.

 

[Flintlock]

Not sure I get your counter argument. It is better to destroy yourself and go down fighting, than to destroy yourself by allowing yourself to be colonized. Had the Indians fought off the all the colonizers, the Portuguese, the British, the Dutch, the French, in the middle of the 17th century, and defeated them by the 18th century, they would have been in a much more evolved position than today.

Colonialism is a complex thing, and its rather crude to analyze it in terms of egoistic terms like "going down fighting", "licking arse" etc. etc.

British rule had a number of effects on the Indian subcontinent, but I would be lying if I said that some of them had not been positive, and could not have happened without British influence.

The very fact that India fell to the Brits meant that there were some weaknesses which were liable to be exploited.

I don't get your comment about it being irresponsible if you're a country of millions.

What I mean is, that its very irresponsible to put the lives of your countrymen into the hands of illiterate militia in order to preserve your "independence", since its the only way to do so.

Pakistan was not conquered at all. The Western half was given autonomy. The Eastern half was the last place of India to be occupied, that only after the British Indian Army had been fully formed.

Oh stop living in paradise. Pakistan was the first to fall to the Islamic armies.

Such as what? And can you not be creative enough to think of anything by yourself?

Apparently not. Everybody cannot invent everything.

We are not going to wait for an Indian to invent the airplane before we decide to build one.

As i said, when someone cuts your arm and legs off, then gives you spectacles to see better, why do you thank them for this little reward in technology for you to learn off? Answer this, don't avoid it, as I'm curious as to your answer.

Since your arms and legs are already cut off, you'd might as well use the spectacles to your advantage to eventually defeat the enemy.

However, if you reject even the spectacles and keep writhing about, you have got no hope.

India has been conquered throughout history.

Pakistan was always the first to fall when the Indian subcontinent was attacked.

Not surprising because it was first in line, but still.

Why should now be any different? nuclear weapons? I doubt it. India wouldn't launch them knowing a country could launch them back. It's quite possible for it to happen again. A country united by nothing more than nationality with many competing ideologies and ethnic groups suffering discrimination is going to find it difficult to remain united. India has never been united until recently, so why is now any different?

It is. Can't you see?

Not sure I follow. What attitude?

Of rejecting everything foreign simply because of its origin.

Alright, the Pakistani leadership to an extent have done that. Not so the people though. I would say NS and BB have tried cutting a lot of deals.

Aren't the leaders representative of the people? Aren't the leaders people themselves?

 

[Flintlock]

Take the example of Vietnam. Their country was laid waste by the Americans. Yet, we don't see any Vietnamese suicide bombers or terrorists.

But look at their country. They've rebuilt everything from scratch and today they're hosting Miss Universe contests.

 

[Keysersoze]

Take the example of Vietnam. Their country was laid waste by the Americans. Yet, we don't see any Vietnamese suicide bombers or terrorists.

But look at their country. They've rebuilt everything from scratch and today they're hosting Miss Universe contests.

Actually you need to check your history dude. The Viet Cong often used suicide bombers. The fact that after America stopped their interference in a another nations business it became successful is moot.