The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[MaddAdam]

Here we see a classic terrorist jailed.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...arge-frazier-glenn-cross-kansas-jewish-center

 

[MaddAdam]

Also, how we'll end up flying close air support for Assad. Great work.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/08/31/Will-the-RAAF-be-assisting-the-Syrian-Army.aspx

 

[Malifice]

That i know, but it has always been about power, why just take the middle east muslim example? it has always been like that, colonization, imperialism, or however you call it.

I haven't just used that example. While the British were doing it here, your mob engaged in a series of running wars with them. I have also used the Irish example, Nazis etc.

India used to be one of the richest countries in the world before the british invaded, they stole everything and ruled for 100 years.How is it any different? What i am trying to say is nothing has changed throughout our history.It was gold, jewels, trade routes before, now its about oil.

So as an Aboriginal man, you're OK with European or 'Western' powers invading other countries to take land/ resources/ profit, depose local authority figures, change local laws and impose their own proxy leaders?

Interesting.

You're also clearly OK if Indonesia was bombing Australia then as well I take it? And you would consider any Australians abroad that took up arms independently to either return home and fight for the nation, or instead who decided to wage a guerrilla war against Indonesia or her allies, as 'terrorists' then? You would also expect any refugees from Australia to head to either PNG, or Nairu and not further away to the UK or USA otherwise they would be 'economic migrants' and not 'real refugees' in your view?

Because that's exactly what you're doing here.

 

[Total Power]

I
So as an Aboriginal man, you're OK with European or 'Western' powers invading other countries to take land/ resources/ profit, depose local authority figures, change local laws and impose their own proxy leaders?
.

Where have i said that? i just said thats been happening throughout history. Why just blame european or western leaders for this? muslims occupied europe for a long period of time too. Muslims also occupied the entire south and south east asia for a long period of time. The Persian invasion of India was one of the bloodiest in the history still. Doesn't mean its right.

 

[Malifice]

Where have i said that? i just said thats been happening throughout history. Why just blame european or western leaders for this? muslims occupied europe for a long period of time too. Muslims also occupied the entire south and south east asia for a long period of time. The Persian invasion of India was one of the bloodiest in the history still. Doesn't mean its right.

No arguments from me. Happens all the time.

Tell me, what has been happening in the ME for the past few centuries?

How many Arab Muslim nations have invaded, bombed, annexed, occupied, implemented regime change, stolen resources from etc etc of how many Western Christian nations? Has there even been one? In a hundred years?

Now look at it the from the other side. How many Western Christian nations have invaded, bombed, annexed, occupied, implemented regime change, stolen resources from how many Arab Muslim nations over the past 100 years (and counting)?

You're painting this as if Western Christendom is the victim of the 'Muslim hordes from Arabia' here, when by any objective standard you care to name, Western Christendom has actually been the aggressor.

Open your eyes man. If you want to understand why so many Muslims are are angry at 'the West' you need to understand that we're the real bad guys.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Where have i said that? i just said thats been happening throughout history. Why just blame european or western leaders for this? muslims occupied europe for a long period of time too. Muslims also occupied the entire south and south east asia for a long period of time. The Persian invasion of India was one of the bloodiest in the history still. Doesn't mean its right.

I think you'd find more Indians died in the aftermath of the 1857 Delhi uprising than those that were slaughtered by Nader Shah.

Numbers mean nowt, however it was the Persian conquering (and subsequent buggering off) which allowed the Brits to see how weak (and rich) the ol' Mughal's were.

 

[crackerjack4X4]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...506230753?sv=cc19208288741284a21a7b2fa0b2f483

 

[Malifice]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...506230753?sv=cc19208288741284a21a7b2fa0b2f483

Stupid bloody cops. How about you arrest her next time before searching her?

 

[Total Power]

Open your eyes man. If you want to understand why so many Muslims are are angry at 'the West' you need to understand that we're the real bad guys.

angry at the government or angry at the people? i told you, i deal with people and i have lot of business interest in the middle east. Its just like saying american government are the bad guys but the people are too. There is no reason for them to hate the people for political reasons.

And i disagree with you regarding we are the real bad guys thing. Occupation of country is nothing new.Have you seen the indians turn into radicals for 100 years of rape torture and murder? i have given previous examples of imperialism and colonisation, forced occupation is nothing new, but give me another example of such radicalism? you wont, japanese killed kamikaze style during war is an absolutely poor reply, sorry to say.

 

[Total Power]

I think you'd find more Indians died in the aftermath of the 1857 Delhi uprising than those that were slaughtered by Nader Shah.

Numbers mean nowt, however it was the Persian conquering (and subsequent buggering off) which allowed the Brits to see how weak (and rich) the ol' Mughal's were.

Not true, the Islamic invasion of India for 400 years resulted in deaths upto 60 million people whch reduced the indian population by 30%. You might want to read up on Hindu Genocide or persecution of hindus.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Not true, the Islamic invasion of India for 400 years resulted in deaths upto 60 million people whch reduced the indian population by 30%. You might want to read up on Hindu Genocide or persecution of hindus.

Stop moving the goalposts will ya!

You were referring to "persian invasion", whilst not providing any info on which Persian invasion. I just assumed you were referring to that of Nader Shah, as the other invasions were many hundreds of years before that (being the historical scholar extraordinaire that you keep reminding us, you'd obviously be aware of that).

More Indians were killed (both muslim and hindu) by The Army of Retribution in the aftermath of the Delhi uprising than by the Persian, Nader Shah.

If you can prove otherwise, I might be persuaded to change my opinion.

BTW, Islamic conquests of the Indian subcontinent go back a lot further than your 400 years

 

[Total Power]

Stop moving the goalposts will ya!

You were referring to "persian invasion", whilst not providing any info on which Persian invasion. I just assumed you were referring to that of Nader Shah, as the other invasions were many hundreds of years before that (being the historical scholar extraordinaire that you keep reminding us, you'd obviously be aware of that).

More Indians were killed (both muslim and hindu) by The Army of Retribution in the aftermath of the Delhi uprising than by the Persian, Nader Shah.

If you can prove otherwise, I might be persuaded to change my opinion.

BTW, Islamic conquests of the Indian subcontinent go back a lot further than your 400 years

I agree i dont think any country has suffered that many genocides as India. First under the Islamic rules from 1100 to 1500, then Mughals/Persians then British. India still has the highest muslim population outside of an Islamic country. This is strengthens my argument that in a war, people kill each other.. but only cowards target civilians. I understand Muslims are annoyed at the West but that doesnt mean they will go blow up innocent people. Many countries were forcefully occupied and it has been a bloody conflict (from both sides) but have you seen an Indian blowing up british civilians in London during that? or after war? i think people are missing the point, i am not saying that the west are not responsible and are angels, but you guys underestimate radicalism in Islam OUTSIDE of western intervention. As i mentioned before, Many pakistani terror groups got nothing to do with western intervention. NONE whatsoever. If only people will listen.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

I agree i dont think any country has suffered that many genocides as India. First under the Islamic rules from 1100 to 1500, then Mughals/Persians then British. India still has the highest muslim population outside of an Islamic country. This is strengthens my argument that in a war, people kill each other.. but only cowards target civilians. I understand Muslims are annoyed at the West but that doesnt mean they will go blow up innocent people. Many countries were forcefully occupied and it has been a bloody conflict (from both sides) but have you seen an Indian blowing up british civilians in London during that? or after war? i think people are missing the point, i am not saying that the west are not responsible and are angels, but you guys underestimate radicalism in Islam OUTSIDE of western intervention. As i mentioned before, Many pakistani terror groups got nothing to do with western intervention. NONE whatsoever. If only people will listen.

No, Indian nationalists restricted their activities to their homeland.

I also challenge the validity of the so called "Hindu Genocide" which is propogated by Hindu nationalists.

Terrorism is not a religious act but a political one. Allus has been

 

[Total Power]

No, Indian nationalists restricted their activities to their homeland.

I also challenge the validity of the so called "Hindu Genocide" which is propogated by Hindu nationalists.

Terrorism is not a religious act but a political one. Allus has been

Just like Vietnam, just like Japan, cause they were at war in homeland? you dont see them target civilians anyway, targets were government officials and generals. That is my point, you havent seen Japanese blow up americans in america cause of WMD strike on Japan, have you?

You can challenge the validity of persecution of hindus but most historians agree, and the recent persecution of hindus in bangladesh a few decades ago was a religious one. You need to read more on that. East Bengal became East Pakistan and there was no hindu/christian policy then. Now you are telling that religious persecution got nothing to do with religion? seriously? i agree its political in many cases but in other cases its been religious, but you have made up your mind already.Ask the people in west bengal about it who came to india as refugees from bangladesh.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Just like Vietnam, just like Japan, cause they were at war in homeland? you dont see them target civilians anyway, targets were government officials and generals. That is my point, you havent seen Japanese blow up americans in america cause of WMD strike on Japan, have you?

They were too poor and didn't have the backing of filthy rich Wahhabists.

You can challenge the validity of persecution of hindus but most historians agree, and the recent persecution of hindus in bangladesh a few decades ago was a religious one.

Name 'em

You need to read more on that. East Bengal became East Pakistan and there was no hindu/christian policy then. Now you are telling that religious persecution got nothing to do with religion? seriously? i agree its political in many cases but in other cases its been religious, but you have made up your mind already.Ask the people in west bengal about it who came to india as refugees from bangladesh.

Nothing of the sort. I was referring to terrorism.

And stop telling me to "read more"

 

[Total Power]

They were too poor and didn't have the backing of filthy rich Wahhabists.



Name 'em

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest. [/quote]
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/biggest-holocaust-world-historywhitewashed-history

Will Durant argued in his 1935 book "The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459):

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."

Francois Gautier in his book 'Rewriting Indian History' (1996) wrote:
"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilisations (1995), that Islamic rule in India as a

"colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."

ain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l' Inde writes:

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races."

Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

Need more?

Nothing of the sort. I was referring to terrorism.

And stop telling me to "read more"

You need to read more cause you think it has got nothing to do with religion. So Lashkar ey Taayba got nothing to do with Sunni and Shia violence? Jamat e Islamiya got nothing to do with Darul movement? bangaldeshi genocide got nothing to do with Islam? killing hindus in millions is not terrorism?

 

[Total Power]

Sounds familiar? this was the Mughals in the 12th century, really what has changed? you cannot even play the US/UK card. Islam is violent, it has always been violent. There are peaceful periods in history though i admit, but Muslims, just like Ottomans or the Mughals or the Persians used to invade a nation with the main aim of converting people. That has a "religious motive" to it. The Hindu genocide in Bangladesh is still ongoing, Hindu temples and sites are destroyed on a regular basis, Hindus have fled to India for over 5 decades, but no one talks about it, why?

 

[WA ROO]

Sounds familiar? this was the Mughals in the 12th century, really what has changed? you cannot even play the US/UK card. Islam is violent, it has always been violent. There are peaceful periods in history though i admit, but Muslims, just like Ottomans or the Mughals or the Persians used to invade a nation with the main aim of converting people. That has a "religious motive" to it. The Hindu genocide in Bangladesh is still ongoing, Hindu temples and sites are destroyed on a regular basis, Hindus have fled to India for over 5 decades, but no one talks about it, why?

Fear

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

And i disagree with you regarding we are the real bad guys thing. Occupation of country is nothing new.Have you seen the indians turn into radicals for 100 years of rape torture and murder? i have given previous examples of imperialism and colonisation, forced occupation is nothing new, but give me another example of such radicalism? you wont, japanese killed kamikaze style during war is an absolutely poor reply, sorry to say.

source:http://rkgregory.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/India

The caste system in Hindu society still turns up extremist (i.e beyond established norms) behaviours - especially in rural India.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/petitio...t-gets-175000-signatures-20150831-gjc38r.html

New Delhi: An online petition seeking protection and justice for two low-caste Indian sisters allegedly threatened with rape by a village council has gathered over 175,000 signatures in a week, Amnesty International India has said.

The human rights group began the petition last week after 23-year-old Meenakshi Kumari, her 15-year-old sister and their family were forced to flee their northern India village in May after their brother eloped with a higher caste, married woman.

An un-elected village council, dominated by upper caste "Jat" men, in Uttar Pradesh state on July 30 allegedly ordered the two "Dalit" sisters be raped and paraded naked with their faces blackened as punishment for their brother's actions...

Indeed, Hindu fundamentalists are on the rise

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-silencing-enemies-along-the-way-9155591.html

When (book publishers) Penguin abruptly accepted defeat in an Indian court and withdrew a controversial book a fortnight ago, the backlash was so ferocious it took almost everyone by surprise.

A small, hardline Hindu group said it had found the book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, by the academic Wendy Doniger offensive towards their religion, forcing the mighty conglomerate to retreat in the face of a lawsuit. Two authors subsequently asked the publisher to cancel contracts and pulp their books, too, a move called "unprecedented" by one Indian newspaper.

Other famous writers in its stable protested at Penguin, including the activist Arundhati Roy, who accused it of succumbing to "fascists". On Twitter, images of the Penguin logo circulated with its name replaced by "Chicken"...

...Hindus don't have a reputation for religious extremism, but over the past 25 years an increasingly aggressive movement has grown and started flexing its muscles. The list of authors who have faced ruinous lawsuits, had books banned or lives threatened in India is growing alarmingly long. (Not all of the bans relate to Hindu groups; Muslims and Christians have demanded censorship, too.)

It is also less understood that the rise of this movement in India has been partly fuelled by activists in the UK and US, who in turn have pushed similar agendas. If (Narendra) Modi is voted in as prime minister, there are fears that his election would have repercussions not only in India but abroad, too.

Hindu fundamentalism, also called Hindutva, is driven by a trio of organisations in India called the Sangh Parivar – the family. The RSS is an ultra-conservative group that demands unflinching patriotism and preservation of Hindu culture; the VHP is their religious arm; the BJP is the political arm and India's main opposition party. There are smaller offshoots too including a violent paramilitary wing called the Bajrang Dal and the hardline Shiv Sena party in Mumbai whose founder adored Hitler.

"Hindu nationalism is built on the idea that India is a Hindu majoritarian nation, with Muslims and Christians cast as the minority, 'other'," Rahul Verma, a journalist and researcher on the subject, says. He says Hindu nationalism in recent years has fed off the Islamophobic, post-9/11 "Muslim terrorist" narrative...

When will it become clear that ALL forms of religious fundamentalism is dangerous?

 

[Total Power]

i dont disagree with that geelong sicko, but according to clubmedhurst, religion is not the one to blame, politics are. Btw i have already mentioned hindu fundamentalism once before in this thread, but you are missing the point, islam is not a peaceful religion, muslim regimes have never been peaceful unlike popular belief that its the "west" who started the rot. Islamic fundamentalism goes way beyond US/UK

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html[/QUOTE]

Elst has hitched his wagon to the Hindutva. Hell this is the bloke responsible for the greatly discredited, "Out of India" theory. As for Lal's thesis, his estimates fail to take into consideration other variables for the population decline (i.e. famine, disease, plague etc)

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/biggest-holocaust-world-historywhitewashed-history

Using the BNP as a reference will not assist your argument

Need more?

Would like to know more from Indian historians that aren't in thrall to the BJP (i.e. Sarvepalli Gopal, Romila Thapar). The victors tend to overinflate their victories, notorious braggards.

You need to read more cause you think it has got nothing to do with religion. So Lashkar ey Taayba got nothing to do with Sunni and Shia violence? Jamat e Islamiya got nothing to do with Darul movement? bangaldeshi genocide got nothing to do with Islam? killing hindus in millions is not terrorism?

The motivation is always political.

Don't be swayed by the British and Hindu revisionists, they have an agenda (a political one)

 

[Total Power]

Using the BNP as a reference will not assist your argument

\

Why do i bother with you? i have just named the famous historians there, but no no you need to look at the website.

http://francoisgautier.me/tag/hindu-holocaust/

And this is K.S Lal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._S._Lal

Where do you see the BJP link? you just saw "hindu" on the website name and jumped the gun? dear lord

 

[Total Power]

Epigraphy evidences[temples have been converted to mosques]

1. Quwwat al-Islam Masjid, Qutb Minar, Delhi by Qutbud-Din Aibak in 1192 A.D.

2. Masjid at Manvi in the Raichur District of Karnataka, Firuz Shah Bahmani, 1406-07 A.D

3. Jami Masjid at Malan, Palanpur Taluka, Banaskantha District of Gujarat: ?The Jami Masjid was built? by Khan-I-Azam Ulugh Khan, The date of construction is mentioned as 1462 A.D. in the reign of Mahmud Shah I (Begada) of Gujarat.

4. Hammam Darwaza Masjid at Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh, Its chronogram yields the year 1567 A.D. in the reign of Akbar, the Great Mughal

5. Jami Masjid at Ghoda in the Poona District of Maharashtra, The inscription is dated 1586 A.D. when the Poona region was ruled by the Nizam Shahi sultans of Ahmadnagar

6. Gachinala Masjid at Cumbum in the Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh, The date of construction is mentioned as 1729-30 A.D. in the reign of the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah.

Literary Evidences-

1. Jhain[name of the place], Jalalud-Din Firuz Khalji went to the place and ordered destruction of temples, mentioned in Miftah-ul-Futuh.

2. Devagiri, Alaud-Din Khalji destroyed the temples of the idolaters , , mentioned in Miftah-ul-Futuh.

3. Somanath, Ulugh Khan, mentioned in Tarikh-i-Alai

4. Delhi, , Alaud-Din Khalji , Tarikh-i-Alai

5. Ranthambhor, mentioned in Tarikh-i-Alai

6. Brahmastpuri (Chidambaram), Malik Kafur, Tarikh-i-Alai

7. Madura, mentioned in Tarikh-i-Alai

8. Fatan: (Pattan), mentioned in Ashiqa

9. Ma?bar: (Parts of South India), Tarikh-i-Alai



It is silly to assume that Muslim invaders did all that but didnt persecute hindus or took them as slaves?

 

[Total Power]

The motivation is always political.

Don't be swayed by the British and Hindu revisionists, they have an agenda (a political one)

Despite the fact that i have provided evidence of dozens of temples converted into mosques you think its political? what is so political about converting temples into mosques or converting people into Islam? heck you dont even have to go to india, go to eastern europe and ask people about the ottomans, people in the balkans were not allowed to construct a church that was higher than a turkish soldier on a horseback. I am sure it has got nothing to do with Islam right?

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

\

Why do i bother with you? i have just named the famous historians there, but no no you need to look at the website.

Because your so heavily invested in your POV and are totally blinkered regarding any counterpoint.

http://francoisgautier.me/tag/hindu-holocaust/

A failed journalist and not a historian. Another Hindutva apologist

And this is K.S Lal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._S._Lal

We've already been over that

Where do you see the BJP link? you just saw "hindu" on the website name and jumped the gun? dear lord

I didn't. It was a BNP link that you posted.

You're not the sharpest tool (pun intended) in the shed are ya?

Anyway keep up your ranting and fraidy cat nonsense, I got important work to do