Originally posted by manny321
bias, every group has extremsits!
Come over and visit:
Originally posted by manny321
bias, every group has extremsits!
Come over and visit:
ther have been many genocides and massacres that the american and australian governments have had their respected hands in that they dont want the public to know of.
in east timor the indonesians killed nearly a third of the population in one war, killing anyone, women, children, elderly, wounded, anyone who was from east timor. the american government and the australian governments both knew of this and both stood by while hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were butchered.
in the gulf war, the american government allowed the massacre of thousands of retreating Iraqi conscripts, not layal followers of Suddam but people forced into the army. the ammount of audinence used on these people was more than what was dropped in the whole last year of WW2. there are photos and videos of american troops using bulldozers to pile bodies into ditches, these photos were suppressed for many years due to the obvious similarity to the nazis destroying jewish bodies.
then there is the now infamous My lai massacre by Charlie Company in the Vietnam war. 500 innocent women, children and elderly were killed. in the whole day, not one viet cong soldier was seen and only three weapons were found. the only american casualty was a trooper who shot himself in the foot. soldiers admitted to scalping, cutting out toungsm decapitations, disembowling, carving "c company" in chests and bodies layed 5 deep in ditches. when the comander saw a infant crawling out of one of the ditches, he picked it up, threw it into the pit and shot it. the only person who tried to stop the massacre was one helicopter pilot (Hugh Thompson who later testified against the army) who landed his chopper and started helping the fleeing civilians get to safety. he instructed his machine gunner to shoot the next american he saw shooting civilians. the american leaders had given them orders to kill everyone, including children. the government begun the cover up instantly, telling of a viet cong strong hold the soldiers took despite heavy fire. this was all horse shit and in the end the truth was reveiled through some of the troops there that day.
not only have these attorcitys been commited but in the gulf war, the american army broke every law layed down in the Kyoto Treaty
Originally posted by manny321
I remember my dad telling me something about that. The worst is the story of tamerlane storming delhi sometime in the medival times. He killed 70,000 people but he choped all thier heads off and piled them in heaps. Very disturbing history moment to me. Also many sikhs (northern Indian religion) were killed by the muslims rulers but they actually fought back really hard.
Sounds cool
Originally posted by WindDancer
Take a look and read this article:http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm#t
I had previously heard of the Hindu wars but never heard of a holocaust. Is this propaganda or someone actually asking for revise of history of events that happen in a part of the world we hardly pay attention too? Did historians missed this on purpose or it was just ignore?
WD, there are so many of such killings, and many people fail to recognise it. Sad. Very sad.
Great article though. Thanks for posting it.
Originally posted by manny321
Its true 100%. The real numbers i am not sure and none of us are, but the mughals did kill any hindu who would not become a muslim in the 1400-1700's!
Not true!
If that were true, then the India would be predominantly muslim
today. But it isn't is it?
The same bulls*** is said in Spain and the Balkans, about how
those horrible muslims forced everyone to convert, or die. Yet
in all those places the populations remained overwhelmingly
christian when muslim rule was ended, even after centuries of
islamic rule.
The fact is, many of these stories of forced religious conversions,
whether by muslims or by christians, are either false, or are
exaggerated.
Originally posted by manny321
Its true 100%. The real numbers i am not sure and none of us are, but the mughals did kill any hindu who would not become a muslim in the 1400-1700's!
I am not being biased but, infact sikhs actually protected hindus and all other religions from the mughals, infact theirs a quite famous saying in INdia ,that if it were not for the sikhs the whole of india would have been circumsied (Meaning made muslim)
Originally posted by King Burger
Not true!If that were true, then the India would be predominantly muslim
today. But it isn't is it?
Lets revise history, shall we?
Pakistan - part of India in the time of British rule.
When Independence was granted in 1947, the muslims in India demanded they needed a separate country.
It was refused which led to a bloody civil war.
Non violent hindus agreed to a Pakistan just to avoid unnecessary killing. Pakistan drove out or killed every Hindu who chose to remain there.
Religion in Pakistan - Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%),
Christian, Hindu, and other 3%
So dont talk shit, please.
Ever heard of Nadir Shah? He wiped out the whole population of Delhi in a single day!
There is no ''overexaggeration'' of the fact that people India died and the ways in which many of them died. They died, and they suffered for a very long time!
Are there funadmentalist Hundus? Hell yes! There are fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, everywhere, but Indian history is rather clear and very bloody!
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So dont talk shit, please.
Now who's using bad language here?!
Silly arguements.
So what is Nadir Shah destroyed Delhi? The shamanist Mongols
destroyed Baghdad, but you don't hear me blaming it on
there religion, though it had elements that may have been use
to justify it.
Most of Tamerlane's victims were muslims.
The Catholic Crusaders ravaged Constantinople, a Christian
city.
Massacres and destructions like these are commited by many
people, regardless of religion. Religion never prompted such
a massacre, any more than it stopped it.
And I never argued differently!
Religious violence is a product of fundamentalism and extremism.
Ignorance + arrogance = religious fundamentalism and extremism.
You were the one going on about religion in India - I explained why India is still hindu.
And religious violence is still happening, and how can it not, when pretty much most books of religious nature talk about some kind of violence on one form or another, and just enough for people to misinterpret as they see fit.
Edit - apart from Triptaka 😄
"I am not being biased but, in fact Sikhs actually protected Hindus and all other religions from the mughals, in fact theirs a quite famous saying in India ,that if it were not for the Sikhs the whole of India would have been circumcised (Meaning made Muslim)"
True, if it wasn't for the martyrdom of the ninth Sikh guru or prophet, India would be a Muslim country. Also in 1947 the riots the anti Hindu/Sikh riots in Pakistan and anti Muslim riots in India killed hundreds of thousands perhaps millions. One of the most saddest time in its history.
The mughals wanted to in 1400-1700 wanted everyone to become Muslim or they were killed killed.
This is true as a recall a big battle where tens of thousands of Sikhs were massacred in one big battle in northern India in the 1700's against the mughals who wanted to wipe them out. The mughlas in India wanted to wipe out other religions in India especially in its northern India. Don't start people, my background is from this area. Yeah i called them mughals not mongols!
If you want to force people to convert, it can be done. It's difficult,
and will require alot of bloodshed, but it can be done, and has
been done!
The Spaniards in the New World wanted everyone to be Christian.
Guess what? Everyone became Christian within a century or so.
Yet that didn't happen in India, did it? It happened in Mexico and much
of South America, yet not India, why? Because the Hindus were more
sophisticated and therefore more resistant? Probably, but so were the
people of the Mediterranean during the 4-5th centuries AD, but that
didn't stop the Roman Empire from successfully converting most
of them to Christianity.
If the Mughals wanted everyone under their control to convert (I am
aware that the Mughals never controlled all of the Indian sub-continent),
then everyone under their control wouldn've become muslim eventually.
Originally posted by manny321
Don't start people, my background is from this area. Yeah i called them mughals not mongols!
So what?! People can be ignorant or mis-informed about their own
nation's and people's background. You're not immune.
Originally posted by King Burger
yet not India, why? Because the Hindus were more
sophisticated and therefore more resistant?
...or perhaps Hindu religion and culture is older than christian and islamic put together. And that is its place of origin.
So unless they wiped out ALL of Hindus - totally and absolutely, there would be no way in hell anyone could convert them - and they havent.
Do you think that if country invaded Saudi Arabia and situated in Mecca, do you think that people would convert to some random religion from Islam? I think they'd all die first.
For a similar non conversions due to people being in their holy cities, see Jerusalem sitation.
The Mayan faiths were older than Christianity as well.
The worship of Isis and Mithra and Cybele, and the other
ancient dieties of the Mediterranean, were also older than
Christianity and Islam, but the people there converted as
well.
I don't get the Jerusalem reference.
The example of Saudi Arabia is stupid. There are muslims
outside the country as well.
But regardless, monotheistic religions are more tenacious
because they have a very strict written truth, and well as
very strict laws against apostacy. Maybe that makes them
more intolerant, but it also makes them more resilient to
forced conversions.
And the point is that the sub-continent not only did not
become all-muslim, it didn't even become majority muslim.
Oh, and the origins of Hinduism are not in India, but
from outside, brought with the Aryan invaders into the
land.