Indo-Israeli Friendship Forged in Steel, Weaponry

[Resistance]

Al-Jazeerah

WASHINGTON, 2 October 2003 — Israel has always tried to have a friendly non-Arab ally in the neighborhood. This special buddy enjoys shopping sprees in Israel’s vast weapons market, fun-filled joint training exercises, and nary a hint of criticism from Washington, DC, which funds most of the weapons programs Israel peddles. In return for spending big bucks in Israel, the Jewish state’s special friend benefits from Israel’s considerable influence on Capitol Hill.

Now it is India’s turn. Diplomatic ties between Israel and India have been on the increase since1992 . Last year almost one-half of Israel’s $4. 2billion in total military sales went to its new favored customer, India. And now, with Washington’s final approval of Israel’s sale to India of a $ 1billion Phalcon airborne early-warning radar system, and its likely support for the more -expensive sale of Israel’s Arrow anti-missile system, Israel again has found true love. The state-run Israel Aircraft Industries contract for three plane-mounted Phalcon systems, for a total of $1. 2billion to $1. 3billion was nearly ready to sign in time for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Sept. 9 visit to New Delhi. Lucrative Indian arms and trade deals with Israel are expected to top $ 2billion in 2004 . The US blocked a similar Israeli Phalcon sale to China three years ago.

It’s easy, of course, to see why Israel is cozying up to India. The match is a financial and military bonanza for Israel. This year India has allotted 650 billion rupees ($ 17billion) for military spending, and is expected to spend $ 100billion over the next decade.

The two nations have other things in common besides an appetite for military gadgetry. India’s ruling BJP party is as Islamophobic as Israel’s Likud. Some Indians would dearly like to model their treatment of Muslims and other religious minorities on Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

(snipped the rest)

[laura888]

1. very interesting!

I didn't realize they share a hatred of muslims! thanks for the post!

[cantwealljustgetalong]

2. yes, it's the...

godless hindus and satanic jews just sharing their hatred of muslims together...

[laura888]

3. you're reading too much into this...

...I am only against actions of peoples who oppress others...

nothing more...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

5. you are reading too much into this...

who said you were against anything else?...

[Resistance]

6. you implied that Laura holds an anti-Jew viewpoint

with the obnoxious "satanic Jews" comment

[cantwealljustgetalong]

12. I implied no such thing...

my implication was that she made a false statement that Israel and India have an alliance that is based on hatred for Muslims, rather than an alliance that is based in combating the terrorism that is being perpetrated against them...

and don't accuse me of implying something that I did not imply based on your own viewpoints or internal demons...because that is really obnoxious...

[Resistance]

20. ok so your view is that a false statement was made

fine, we can work with that.

But then why did you make the "godless Hindus" and "satanic Jews" comment? What other reason could you possibly have other than to imply a bigoted view on Laura's part?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

23. it was my way of lampooning a ridiculous statement...

anything else, Grand Inquisitor?...

[Resistance]

24. ah

so you have nothing to do around here but make satirical remarks directed towards others you disagree with. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

But I do have some suggestions for you: go ahead and make your lampooning remarks all you want, if that's the best you can come up with. Just don't insinuate bigotry on the part of the person you disagree with. Nowhere in Laura's post was there any indication that Jews are "satanic" or that Hindus are "godless".

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Resistance]

47. that is ridiculous

I haven't insinuated anything - instead, I have been straight up calling you on it: you do imply bigotry on Laura's part by making the "satanic jews" and "godless hindus" remark. And now you can't even own up to what you've said. You need to be more mindful of what you post, rather than carelessly slinging around a bunch of smart-ass remarks that you think you'll score a point on.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

74. nothing like being browbeaten...

into submission of someone else's standards of correctness...

I am sure this woman knows the feeling:...

TORONTO — As a Canadian Muslim, Irshad Manji never eats pork, never drinks alcohol and regularly reads the Koran. Otherwise she is Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare.

At 35, Ms. Manji, a lesbian intellectual with spiky hair and a sharp tongue, is an outspoken television journalist who admires Israel and applauds the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein. More than that, she has issued a searing critique of her religion in a new book, "The Trouble with Islam" (Random House Canada), calling for radical change.

While every religion has its fundamentalists, she notes, "only in Islam is literalism in the mainstream," a recipe for generating hatreds that can spawn suicide bombers.

There are other Islamic liberals who say the Sept. 11 attackers did more than hijack four planes: they hijacked an entire religion. Ms. Manji goes much further, saying that Islam has deep-rooted problems with Jews, women, slavery and authoritarianism that go back centuries. Her goal is a thoroughly liberal reform, started by Muslims living in the West.

"If ever there was a moment for an Islamic reformation, it's now," she argues in her book. "If we're sincere about fighting the asphyxiating despotism" that Al Qaeda seeks to spread, she adds, "we can't be afraid to ask: What if the Koran isn't perfect? What if it's not a completely God-authored book? What if it's riddled with human biases?"

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/international/americas/04FPRO.html

[varun]

75. I see a fatwa...

..coming along Manji's way.

And to top it all, Manji can't leave her religion. The punishment for apostacy is DEATH.

[cprise]

4. India has a Hindu Fundamentalist problem these days

...and they resent lower-classes that become Muslims to break away from the caste system.

So yes there are other hotspots of fundamentalism besides Arabia (Islam), U.S.A. (Christianity), and Israel (Judaism); I'm sure the latter would deny any such thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. India has a MUSLIM fundamentalist problem

Muslim fundamentalists fomenting revolt, commiting acts of terror and threatening nuclear war.

Israel, India, Russia, the U.S., the Philippines, etc. all are faced with Muslim fundamentalist problems.

[Resistance]

11. ah, so taking that cue

I could reasonably counter with saying "Palestinians have a JEWISH fundamentalist problem.

Jewish fundamentalists fomenting violence, commiting acts of terror and threatening to continue stealing more land.

Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, etc. all are faced with the Jewish fundamentalist problem."

That is acceptable for you, muddle?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

13. it's acceptable to me...

say it until the cows come home...

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Not at all

You might say they have a fundamentally Jewish problem. Fundamentally, they can't accept that they have Jewish neighbors.

[Resistance]

16. Not acceptable?

Why not? It's exactly the same wording as your post, except from a different viewpoint. So where is the problem?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Hmmm

Arab world -- about 300 million people and all the land in what? About a third of a continent?

Israel population 6.6. million and a tiny sliver of land.

So what do you all spend time worrying about? The endless excesses of the House of Saud? Millions of genital mutilations? The fact that Syria conquered a neighbor and the UN did nada? Or maybe the fact that Israel took in the millions of Jews shoved aside, abused and chased out of the Arab world while the Arabs did the exact opposite to the Palestinians?

In fact, 55 years later, the Arab world continues to treat the Palestinians worse than Israel, the U.S. or the British has ever done. The Arab world uses the Palestinians to get at Israel and to provide bread and circuses so their corrupt leaders remain in charge.

Where is the problem? Look to the Arab world.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Millions?

How could Israel take in 'the millions of Jews shoved aside, abused and chased out of the Arab world' when Israel's population is currently 6 million?

Muddle, Jordan has given Palestinian refugees Jordanian citizenship and equal rights. How exactly is that treating the Palestinians worse than Israel currently is?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. I think you picked a bad example

How many Palestinians did Jordan kill during Black September? I'm not sure of the number myself, but I thought I read it here that the number was about 30,000.

As for millions, two is millions for instance.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. No, I didn't...

Can you give me a link to a credible source that shows that millions of Jews were expelled from Arab countries?

And don't try to change the subject...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. How is Jordan NOT a bad example?

Again, how many Palestinians did they kill?

As for sourcing, give me a bit and I'll see what I can find for ya.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Because we're talking about Jews who were expelled...

If you want to bring up Black September as some sort of distraction, yr on yr own, because I've read about it and that's not what I was asking about....


Okay, I'll see what you can find on the millions of Jews expelled from Arab countries. It's just that I thought the large intake of Jewish refugees was from Europe...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Your statement

I didn't bring this up, you did.

Your statement: "Muddle, Jordan has given Palestinian refugees Jordanian citizenship and equal rights. How exactly is that treating the Palestinians worse than Israel currently is?"

The Jordanians killed Palestinians in bulk -- in numbers that make the last several years look like amateur hour.

As for the millions, I will delete the "s" officially, because I am tired and can't find any citation other than specific ones related to the founding of Israel and about a million refugees from the Arab lands. That ignores others who may have fled before or since, but I'll stick with one million for the record.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I did?

Nope, I didn't bring up Black September. You did. I pointed out that Jordan gives citizenship and equal rights to Palestinians, so if you want to argue that, go ahead. But as a matter of interest, do you actually know anything about the conflict between the PLO and Jordan back in 1970?

Having read Scurrilous' post I think I tend to agree with them rather than what you think you may have read somewhere :)

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Your example

We could go round and round on this, but you brought up Jordan as an example of how well the Arab world treats Palestinians. I pointed out to you that the same example trumps Israel in a BIG way as to how many Palestinians they have killed.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Yr not making any sense here, Muddle...

I didn't bring up Jordan as an example of how well the Arab world treats Palestinians. My opinion is no state, Arab or Western, has treated the Palestinians well at all. I brought it up in response to yr claim that that monolithic Arab World you despise so much treats Palestinians worse than Israel....

The problem is you didn't mention how many Palestinians were killed in Jordan in 1970. Yr the first person I've seen who claims it's some vastly huge number and hasn't pointed out that it was in the midst of a civil-war. And if as you keep on insisting, every bad thing Israel does to the Palestinians is justified by Israel's national interests, why aren't you applying the same logic to Jordan when it expelled the PLO? Do you set a different standard when it comes to Arab states?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. From your earlier post

I like to avoid these who-struck-John debates, but it seems impossible. Your earlier post said, "Muddle, Jordan has given Palestinian refugees Jordanian citizenship and equal rights. How exactly is that treating the Palestinians worse than Israel currently is?"

That points to Jordan as an example. I merely popped that balloon.

Yes, it was a civil war because the Palestinians tried to take over. No, I'm not faulting Jordan at all. I'm simply pointing out that the Arab states have treated the Palestinians badly from the very beginning of this conflict. (As for the casualty total, even I emphasized that I wasn't sure of the exact number but thought I saw that figure here. If you want to argue for a lower total, go right ahead, but the point is still made.)

The Palestinians are used by the Arab world. I just wish they realized it.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. If you don't want to get into those debates, don't start them...

And don't try saying that I was trying to argue a different point than I was. You said: 'but you brought up Jordan as an example of how well the Arab world treats Palestinians.' I didn't and if you still insist it was so, go back and reread the thread. The point I was arguing was this of yrs: 'In fact, 55 years later, the Arab world continues to treat the Palestinians worse than Israel..'

You haven't popped any balloon because whatever it is you think yr trying to argue makes no sense. The casualty total seems to be yr entire point, yet you made a vague claim that it was many times more than Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is. Yr whole argument is that people have been treated worse, and I assume that yr concern suddenly isn't for combatants in a conflict, but civilians? Because how many civilians were killed in 1970? Seeing as how yr arguing that it makes the treatment of Palestinians worse than Israel's treatment, I'd like to see a bit more than a vague guess on yr part. Oh yeah, and while yr at it, show me where Israel has given the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories citizenship and equal rights, seeing as how yr conveniently ignoring all that and focusing on one civil-war from 1970 in a blanket attempt to nullify anything not-so-bad that's been done for the Palestinians since...

The Palestinians are used not only by the Arab World, but by Israel as well, and by some people who post here 'supporting Israel' when it suits them ;)

Violet...

[Scurrilous]

46. 2 million seems a bit high.

This source...

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees#Absorbing_Jewish_refugees

...claims 600,000.

This source...

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict.asp#Refugees

...claims one million.

I think the true figure lays somewhere in-between.

[Resistance]

60. most serious historians

put the figure between 600,000 and 700,000.

Not surprisingly, that 2nd source can hardly be considered a serious one. (that's based on content - not merely because of the 1 million figure)

[cprise]

19. Reaganites fit the same description

"Muslim fundamentalists fomenting revolt, commiting acts of terror and threatening nuclear war."

In fact, you could say Xian fundies started this international fundie Muslim pattern. Their Frankenstein, their cycle of violence is running out of control.

And just as with the Iran/Iraq conflict, the GOP fundies are finding ways to support both sides.

Islam has a long enough history to know it is no more warlike than any other religious tradition.

[varun]

25. if you want to know who started the hindu-muslim problems in India

there is no doubt that it was the muslim invaders.

And if you want to know who the occupiers are - it is the muslims.

Hindus and Jews were present in their countries a long time before Islam even came into the world.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Credit where credit's due...

I know this will burst the bubble of folk who like to blame Muslims for everything, but in the case of India it was the British who started the Hindu-Muslim problems. There was little to no sectarian violence before the British started stirring things up, because with every Indian wanting Britain gone, it was in Britain's best interests to use the divide and conquer tactic and then try to justify their continued rule over India by pointing to the fighting between different groups of Indian and claiming they weren't capable of governing themselves....

Violet...

[varun]

36. This is true to a certain extent

...that the English exploited the animosity between Hindus and Muslims...

BUT...this animosity was already there. Sooner or later, Muslims would have either divided India, or converted the whole subcontinent.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. No, it wasn't already there...

The animosity and violence came about due to the British. And without the British there would have been no partition, and if things had continued as they had for centuries, eventually the Muslims would have converted to Hinduism, because there's a long history in India of smaller groups being quietly enveloped by the Hindus...

Violet...

[varun]

53. I will disagree with you here

---I grew up in India and lived there for 23 years. Islam is not like other religions that came in contact with Hindus and got assimilated (sikhs, jains, buddhists, parsis were). There has been a long history of violence against the hindus (by muslim invaders and emperors)...

[Resistance]

56. what is your point?

are you ultimately trying to argue that Islam is the worst religion of all?

[varun]

58. just look at the state of the world today

and you will get my point.

Wherever Islam is coming in contact with non-islamic cultures, you see violence and unrest.

Russia, Nigeria, Philippines, India...and now USA.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out whats happening.

[Darranar]

66. Just look at the world a few hundred years ago...

Crusades, religious wars... Whenever Christians came in contact with anyone, including themselves, violence and unrest resulted.

Hey, what about JEWISH extremism, ie the occupation and hundreds of aother atrocities? What about Christian extremism, ie the current war in Iraq, the Crusades, and hundreds of other atrocities throughout history? Just because Jedo-Christian extremists haven't yet flown planes into buildings doesn't mean that they don't cause tremendous harm - and often more than all this Islamic extremism.

Guess what: All extremism, Islamic included, does far more harm within its own antion than across the world.

[Resistance]

67. well said, Darranar

:thumbsup:

[varun]

69. No one is denying the past atrocities of Christians

and no one is denying that fundies exist in all religions.

But there is no doubt in my mind that Islam is in the grip of fundies like no other religion in the world today.

[Darranar]

70. That's junk...

You've fallen victim to the media exxagerations of Islamic extremism.

Which has killed more innocents: 9/11, or the Iraq war?

Which has killed more innocents: Bali, or the Afghan war?

Which has killed more innocents: Israel's aggressive polciies in the West Bank and Gaza, or suicide bombings?

It's true taht there are brutal fudnamentalist dictatorships in the Middle East, but the fact is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are Muslims. You'd see the same situation in Europe if they had lived under a corrupt empire for hundreds of years followed by Arabic imperialism...

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yr not disagreeing with me...

Yr disagreeing with historians, but I guess if you lived in India for 23 years then all those historians must be wrong ;) If you are interested in reading up about it, see if you can get hold of a book called "The Partition of India: Causes and Responsibilities" edited by TW Wallsank, and read 'Hindu-Muslim Antagonism: A British Creation' by Jabez T Sunderland. Y'know, it's bad enough having to watch people trot out lines about those nasty, nasty Muslims when it comes to the I/P conflict, let alone seeing it be done when it comes to India...

Violet...

[varun]

61. well...

...even Historians diagree :)

If you want, I can give you hundred of URLs and books which "prove" my point of view..but that wouldn't convince you either.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Go for it...

Start firing those urls and books at me. Just make sure they're from credible sources, that's all...

Violet...

[varun]

68. here are some...

http://hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm

...According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history...

http://www.indiacause.com/IC_FG_020710_WestAndIslam.htm

Aurangzeb (1658-1707) did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples to be destroyed and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction. A few examples: Krishna's birth place temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujarat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Varanasi and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures.According to his own official court chronicles: "Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices." Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions....

[varun]

71. sore more....

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples1/pre.htm

...This chapter, however, though significant, was only a part of the Muslim behaviour-pattern as recorded by Muslim historians of medieval India. The other parts were: 1) mass slaughter of people not only during war but also after the armies of Islam had emerged victorious; 2) capture of large numbers of non-combatant men, women and children as booty and their sale as slaves all over the Islamic world; 3) forcible conversion to Islam of people who were in no position to resist; 4) reduction to the status of zimmis or non-citizens of all those who could not be converted and imposition of inhuman disabilities on them; 5) emasculation of the zimmis by preventing them from possessing arms; 6) impoverishment of the zimmis through heavy discriminatory taxes and misappropriation of a major part of what the peasants produced; 7) ruination of the native and national culture of the zimmis by suppressing and holding in contempt all its institutions and expressions...

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/imwat/ch1.htm

In the year C.E. 1000 the first attack of Mahmud of Ghazni was delivered. The region of Mahmud’s activity extended from Peshawar to Kanauj in the east and from Peshawar to Anhilwara in the South. In this, wherever he went, he converted people to Islam. In his attack on Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom, like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. Since the whole town is reported to have been converted the number of converts may have been quite large. At Multan too conversions took place in large numbers for, writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at Multan) were ‘witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism’.21 In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud ‘converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni’. In the latter campaigns, in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions took place. While describing ‘the conquest of Kanauj’, Utbi sums up the situation thus: ‘The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort…, and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.” In short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in C.E. 1023, Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, ‘Islam spread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of force’. Conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objects of Mahmud....

[varun]

73. more...

interesting that while I googled your book (about British complicity in creating Pakistan)...I came across this article.

http://www.indiafirstfoundation.org/archives/articles/arc_bkp/2003/june1003.htm

...The Hindu-Muslim discord is firmly rooted in the Indian history of one millennium and can't be wished away with a shallow analysis. Unlike the Europeans who came as merchants, Islam entered India's northern border as aggressor. The conquest it aimed at, it should be borne in mind, was not merely territorial, but religious. Beginning from the Alexandrine assaults of 327 BC, India had seen several powerful invasions in the pre-Islamic period: Bactrian Greek, Sakas, Kushanas, Huns etc. But all these could at worst injure India physically, but not traumatise its collective psyche. The dynasties of these invaders could wrest parts of India (never whole of it) for some time before being defeated by the gallant Hindus. But invaders would have conceded a cultural defeat even before that when they accepted Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism and assimilated in the Hindu mainstream. So, genealogical aliens became culturally Indians. However, it was the reverse with the Muslims...

http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_mar01chb01.html

Islam entered the subcontinent around 1,275 years ago with Arab traders settling down on the west coast at Calicut in 633 A..D. in the time of Umar. However, Muslim military presence was established only in 712 A.D. during the Umayyad period. The modern period begins from the 1857 War of Indian Independence against the British Indian regime. The two Islamic highpoints in India are the Wahabi movement in the 19th century and the Pakistan movement in the 20th century. Muslim religious leaders realised that Islam could not survive without political power and that lslam and Hinduism were antitheticaltherefore only one of the religions could thrive at the expense of the other...

..The grand political finale was the formation of the All India Muslim League on December 30, 1906 at Dacca which was the capital of Eastern Bengal. Muslim elite who feared Hindu domination in a democratic system based on majority rule established the League.that extent the Muslim League remained wary of the Congress claim to represent all Indians. The League projected itself as a body to represent Muslim interests...

...The Muslim League successfully organised the Muslims into a political party through their demand for Pakistan which revived memories of past glories and promised prospects of a great future. And the Quaid-I-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah created Pakistan with the termination of British rule in the Indian subcontinent. This was possible because there was a clamour for Islamic government, Islamic state and Islamic constitution among sections of the Indian Muslim community...

[Violet_Crumble]

81. A question about that first source...

Sorry, I haven't got to the rest yet, but did you miss the word *credible* in my request? I clicked on that link and found an anonymous author going on about holocausts and dropping Nazis and Hitler into that ever-so-scholarly diatribe. Are the rest exactly the same? Somehow anonymous writers on the internet who never seem to have heard of footnotes remind me that any old moron can type their opinion on anything and have some gullible sucker stumble onto it and take for granted what's being said is some sort of credible work by a historian and is something other than the usual crap that clogs up way too much of the internet...


Violet...

[Darranar]

82. Same thoughts as you, Violet...

but I didn't even click on the link. His wildly exxgaerated numbers were enough for me.

[varun]

85. It quotes the author

Dr. K.S. Lal and his book.

You should go through the other sources - they are more scholarly in nature.

[Darranar]

86. If all this happened to such an extent...

why are there still so many Hindus in India?

[varun]

87. go to this link

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/imwat/ch6.htm

to find your answer

[Darranar]

88. If all that is true...

and you also believe the huge numbers above to be true, then there's a contradiction.

[varun]

89. Do you know about the Hindu-Kush mountains?

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/miscarticles/hkmhs.html

...All Standard reference books agree that the name 'Hindu Kush' of the mountain range in Eastern Afganistan means 'Hindu Slaughter' or 'Hindu Killer'. History also reveals that until 1000 A.D. the area of Hindu Kush was a full part of Hindu cradle. More likely, the mountain range was deliberately named as 'Hindu Slaughter' by the Moslem conquerors, as a lesson to the future generations of Indians...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you still think that everything was rosy and hunky dory between the Hindus and Muslims before the British came to India?

[Darranar]

90. Yes.

n/t

[varun]

91. Do you know of any other mountain range in the world

that glorifies genocide and mass killings?

"...Encyclopedia Americana comments on the Hindu Kush as follows: The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when (Hindu) SLAVES from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afgan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia (15). The National Geographic Article 'West of Khyber Pass' informs that 'Generations of raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - "Killer of Hindus"'(10). The World Book Encyclopedia informs that the name Kush, .. means Death ..(16). While Encyclopedia Britannica says 'The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afgan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)(2)...."
------------------------------------------------------------------
And you still think Hindus were happy being enslaved by the Islamic invaders, their women being raped, their temples destroyed...???

[Darranar]

92. Never said that...

at times such events occured, on both sides. But it has been greatly exxagerated by you in an attempt to demonize Islam.

[varun]

93. well...violet said that...

it was the British that caused the animosity between the Hindus and the muslims.

What does she think now?

Also - a question to you (Darranar):

Were the Hindus fighting the muslims in Arabia or India?

Whats does the answer tell you?

[Darranar]

94. She's right, essentially...

for the most part, Hindus and Muslims lived in peace. The British put a stop to that.

[varun]

95. like I said before...

...my sources will not convince you or violet.

But I tried...and its upto you and violet to find out the truth.

BTW, If you ever go to New Delhi, visit the famous muslim landmark - Qutub Minar.

You will find the defaced and broken hindu idols which make up this monument.

[Darranar]

96. I don't think that you're completely wrong...

I just think that you're exxagerating quite a bit.

[varun]

97. Time will tell, Darranar...

India has finally woken up from the centuries of Islamic and British occupation. Her history will come to the surface, sooner or later.

[Aidoneus]

100. are you certain about the origin?

The sites that I see claiming that are all Hindu nationalist-oriented sources, your "Sword of Truth" webpage no exception.

That could very well be true, but I've also seen it far before then, referring either to the Kushni/Kushan empire based there 500yrs before the Islamic ideas were even existing, or a corruption of it's pre-Islamic name from other languages (Hindu Koh or Indo-Kushanid being two particulars I've seen mentioned), referring to the boundary between the Hindu and non-Hindu parts of the Afghan area.

I'm no expert, but I have run across contradictory claims.. :shrug:

[varun]

101. Yes

I am certain what Hindu-Kush means. I speak Urdu, and in Urdu, Khud-Kushi means self(khud) - killing (kushi) (in other words, suicide).

In all the languages prevalent around the Hindu-Kush mountains (Urdu, Farsi), Kush has the same meaning.

Ask any inhabitant of hindu-kush mountain now, and you will find out what it means.

About your concern on my sources:

I can understand your eurocentric point of view. Any "Indian" researcher is going to be incompetent and biased, hence that source should be ignored.

Racism is subtle, but it is palpable.

Its not your fault, Aidoneus.

[Aidoneus]

103. heh.. I'm not eurocentric

you should hear my opinions about European history sometime..

I don't at all believe Indian researchers are incompetant or biased--I look rather at the specific political motives of the specific source itself and go from there. It may be assuming too much, and on that I can be blamed--to be fair, I also make such assumptions about "Western" sources, and for that I'm accused of being anti-"western"; I defend Muslims on a lot of things, but then am called "anti-Islamic" for being agnostic. Now I'm a eurocentric racist for not believing that a common trait to human political history isn't a uniquely conspiratorial menace. I think I'll go eat worms..
It's not racism, more like political classism--I see the unsavory nationalist-driven motives in all sorts of people, I could give a rat's ass what their skin colour is. There are some subjects that I don't know as much about as others, and I never mind being corrected on those.

Your concern is legitimate, however, and I don't blame you for making the assumption for I can see how such can exist and affect the views. I don't think that applies to me, but I've run into more than a few people who do hold racist views on many matters and I think they're useless assholes because of it. That is a real concern, but look before leaping.

[Darranar]

104. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Where have we seen that before? Subtle accusations of racism to deflect legitimate points?

That frankly, is junk. Should I trust the IDF or a far-right Likudnik to give me information about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Does not trusting them mean that I'm anti-semitic?

[varun]

105. I am sensitive to racism...

and why not?

The history of India that you and I read in maintsream media / Universities was written by Europeans, and Islamists (before them).

And that says a lot about the "motive".

Like I said, give it some time. THe real history (good, bad and the ugly) of India will come to the surface.

[Aidoneus]

106. as well you should be

it's a driving force for some. I don't think that applies to me on this matter, but I never mind an ugly side of myself to be dragged out and beaten if it deserves it. I looked around at that page before commenting and noticed a specific trend to it I've noticed elsewhere--perhaps I was mistaken. :shrug:

[Darranar]

107. Actually, it was written almost entirely by Europeans...

and for some strange reason of mine, I'm inclined to believe that if you want to bring racism into the pictue, Europeans were as, if not more, racist towards Arabs than they were towards Hindus.

After all, there's the Crusades and the centuries of conflict between them, but all that goes down the drain when you're attempting to prove something...

Facts shouldn't stand in the way of rhetoric, I guess.

[varun]

110. facts...

it is interesting that I have become more aware of Indian history here in the USA than in India itself.

Most Indian historians are still towing the European line.

[Darranar]

111. Nice subject dodge...

You're as good as a few other posters who I won't mention by name.

[varun]

112. I wasnt dodging anything

maybe I should have stated (about my knowledge of Indian history) in another thread.

One thing I would like to say is that you learn a lot by living in a society (about its culture, etc).

What my 13 year stay in the West has taught me, no cultural/religious/history book could have done.

And my 23 years in India (and I still go there every other year) has taught me is what I am expressing on this board. I think I speak from experience, not just from some history book.

[Darranar]

114. You clearly indicated...

that Europeans favored the Muslims in this conflict. I didn't think so; I posted why. You've said nothing to contest my claims, except for all this "personal experience" junk that doesn't prove anything.

[Aidoneus]

113. they were just as racist, I think

The British felt they had the right to rule over the subcontinent & Burma because of the "moral superiority" of their race, that the Indians were backward savages who needed Christian salvation--usual bullshit, same reason they were messing around with the Arabs, Africans, and anyone else as well. They got taught their lesson when Indian resistance against their carefully built structure of empire was dismantled and were driven out after committing massacre after massacre, though failing to learn the basic fact that other people don't like some self-rightous assholes with guns and a flag bossing them around (hence their involvement in the re-colonizing of Iraq).

The insidious conspiracy of Pakistan is a footnote to this; during the periods of stuggle near the last century of the raj, the British created an organization of middle class Muslim lawyers and businessmen to help them maintain the empire, called the Muslim League. During the last European war/"WWII", the Congress Party and other organizations were in full revolt against the occupation, the Muslim League was to be rewarded with a state of their own after the war ended. Jinnah never thought there would be conflict, but the real stupidity of dividing states along ethnic/religious lines came right upfront with mankind's 2nd favourite pasttime, mutual slaughter for stupid reasons pushed on by opportunistic politicians and various other elite-class assholes (used to be the #1 favourite, now overtaken by soccer).

Kashmir was supposed to go to the new state--or if I was in charge of things, totally independent of the two under Sheikh Abdallah and not used as a battleground for 2 sets of opportunistic nationalists to vent their diversions on--, but through creative jerrymandering that would make the Texas Governor stand back in awe, the province went de facto to Indian possession before a vote to determine the status; 55yrs later, no vote, but plenty of war and a dandy police state. Personally, my opinion is that it should be independent on the caveat that Pakistan (and to a lesser extent China) also fuck off of it as well, though out of principle I don't think that should be imposed by any "Western"-backed pressure for that usually implies less worthwhile motives on the side (my insipid eurocentricism shines through again). :shrug:

[Darranar]

115. True...

imperialism's appeal seems to have a lot to do with racism. My only point is that the Europeans despised the Muslims, too, so any claim of them favoring Muslims seems a little suspicious to me.

Isn't it also true, though, that one of Britian's main interests in India was trade? Just like the Iraq war, corporate interests and racism seemed to have combined here.

[Aidoneus]

116. in India

To a point I think there could be a case to be made for the British favouring "the Muslims" (in the case of Pakistan and the early history of the Muslim League), but cautiously so and not so in their dealings elsewhere. The raj favoured anybody who would serve the British, and those that did had their own opportunistic interests in mind rather than a conspiracy (I would assume anyway), and the British didn't restrict themselves to one particular group. Muslims who opposed the status were probably treated exactly the same as any other Indian that did.

Definitely trade--when varun talks about "a campaign to loot, capture, and convert India", that's exactly what they had in mind there, the British dominantly so eventually. There was probably some benefit on the underside to the mixing of cultures--on the one hand the number of rival rulers/states was down to just 3-4 fighting each other, mutually assuming that the others are the source of all evil that has to be destroyed..

[varun]

117. British

found Muslims to be "closer" to them (perhaps because of the monotheism).

Muslims certainly look at Christians and Jews as "People of the Book".

Hindus are far inferior to them.

[varun]

108. you sound like...

a repuglican, Darranar ;)

"..Where have we seen that before? Subtle accusations of racism to deflect legitimate points?..."

[Darranar]

109. Me? A republican? Not in your life!

Calling some fool right-winger a racist is no equivalent to calling progressive who know what they're talking about, like Aidoneous, racists. The rethuglicans who are racists are rather clearly racist, with tremendous evidence to back it up. The rampant and unfounded accusations by the Right of the Left being anti-semitic was what I was refering to.

[Jackie97]

43. Before Islam even came into the world....

Who cares? Really? What does the chronological sequence of which religions and cultures came into the world first have to do with anything?

[varun]

55. I dont really care...but...

I was responding to cprise's statement:

"...In fact, you could say Xian fundies started this international fundie Muslim pattern. Their Frankenstein, their cycle of violence is running out of control..."

[Aidoneus]

118. and before that?

should the Canaanites & Dravidians band together to liberate their occupied lands? awfully selective.

[varun]

119. well...the concept of Aryans and Dravidians

is not well understood. The conquest of "Dravidian" India by Aryans is another one of the European views of Indian history, thats being dismantled slowly...

[Aidoneus]

120. so I've heard

that's a subject I have something of an 'empty space' about to be filled in later, since the theories are contested. That was just a joke anyway. What is it being replaced with by Indian histories so far? The idea of it being contested is something I read of in passing, didn't note the other half of the discussion or who is specifically contesting it.

[varun]

121. The two theories...

about Aryans are:

1. Aryans came to India as nomadic settlers / migrants from Cenrtal Asia (region near the Caspian sea) about 1500-2000 B.C. They did not come to India as warriors or aggressors. The Aryans intermingled with the native populations (the Dravidians, or the Mohan-Jo-Daro civilization), and were assimilated into an already "Vedic" or Hindu society.

2. The Aryans actually originated from India, and spread their culture to other parts of Asia/Europe.

Remember, that the Aryans who came to India were nothing like the one Hitler claimed to be like.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modern techniques are discovering "facts" that are challenging the old theories of Aryan Invasion.

- Satellite imagery of the now dead Saraswati River (that is mentioned in the Vedas) have shown that if the Aryans who wrote the Vedas came from Central Asia, they would not have mentioned this river in the vedas (which dried up 3000 B.C. or so)

- Discovery of images of Shiva and other Hindu gods/goddesses from the ancient bronze age sites in India / Pakistan showed that these deities existed before the arrival of the Aryans.

- Astronomical records show that some of the vedic writings were more than 5000 years old (Aryans were only 3500 years old in India).

-Recent discovery of a 7000 year old submerged city in Gujarat shows that India had Hindu traditions dating back a long time ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------

These "discoveries" are still in infancy, and more work needs to be done before any conclusions can be reached.

[Herschel]

21. Well said my friend

Those that should fear this alliance are Muslim terrorists.

[varun]

8. one difference

between Islamic and other (Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc.) fundamentalist:

They (other) do not take their Jihad (holy war) to other countries. Their fundamentalism is confined within their own countries. The Islamic fundamentalists have taken their war to USA, Russia, India, Philippines, Nigeria and even China (non -Islamic countries).

[cprise]

17. Europeans, Israelis, etc. deal with Xtian US fundies all the time

The difference is that they're not often desperate enough to pick up a gun themselves.

[varun]

27. and that is a big difference...

there is a BIG difference between muslim fundamentalist blowing bombs in Russian theaters, in Indian parliament, flying planes into WTC and Xtian fundies harassing non christians politically.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Rubbish...

Xtian fundies have murdered doctors in the US. Don't even try to pretend they don't use violence to try to attain their goals...

Violet...

[varun]

35. perhaps you didnt read what I wrote

...that muslim fundamentalists take their jihad (war) to other countries...usually hindu/Xtian/Jewish fundies dont do that.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. So what?

So the Bali Bombing wasn't as bad because it wasn't done in another country? Those fundies that murder doctors in the US just don't count because they haven't yet moved further afield? And if you don't think fundies take their wars to other countries, what do you think Bush and his cronies are doing right now?

Violet...

[Fight_n_back]

45. My question to you is

should the US outlaw abortion because terrorists kill abortion doctors and blow up clinics?

How understanding should US citizens be of Timothy McVeigh and his issues?

The world was changed more for the good in the 1960s and 1970s without terrorism than it is being changed now because of it.

Terrorists aren't romantic freedom fighters, they are cult members and serial killers. I don't need to "understand" why they blow up wedding parties and discos anymore than I should "understand" why the Klan lynched blacks. It is rather evident that they do so because their weiners get hard from killing poeple.

[Darranar]

48. No, of course not...

because abortion's purpose has nothing to do with stopping the blowing up of abortion clinics.

[Resistance]

51. oh but

you do seem to "understand" why the Israeli military murders Palestinians, bulldozes their homes, and steals their land. Lots of "understanding" there.

[Fight_n_back]

78. What makes you think that?

Show me a post of mine where I say that. Why would you even leap to that assumption?

[varun]

49. Bali...

...is 90% Hindu.

Besides, the intent of the terrorists was to kill westerners (Americans, Australians, etc)...so in effect, they did take their terrorism to another country.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Bali isn't a country...

It's part of Indonesia, and the attacks were carried out by Indonesians, therefore it wasn't carried out in another country...


Violet...

[varun]

57. for all purposes...

...Bali is another country. It is the antithesis of Islamic culture. Women bathe naked in the rivers and ponds, people worship multiple deities...

...in fact, most of Indonesia was like Bali before it became muslim..and the sad fact is..that the "tolerant" version of Islam is fading in most of southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia), and is being replaced by fundamentalists...

[Violet_Crumble]

62. No, it's not...

Bali is part of Indonesia, no 'for all purposes it's another country' about it...

You appear to know very little about Indonesia if you think Muslims there are becoming fundies. It's a secular nation that just happens to have the largest Muslim population in the world. And the vast majority of those Muslims practice their faith just the same as the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc practice their faith - peacefully. And that's because Islam is no better or worse than any other religion, something you should take notice of...

Violet...

[varun]

63. just like...

...East Timor was part of Indonesia?

[Violet_Crumble]

64. No...

East Timor is completely different. It was a Portuguese colonial possession and was invaded by Indonesia in 1975. East Timor was never part of Indonesia....

Violet...

[Resistance]

52. your entire premise is false, varun

What do you think the U.S. is doing in Iraq? "Liberating" the people?

[reorg]

76. Gujarat ...

Since the intent of Hindu fascists was to kill only a few thousand Muslims in Ahmedabad, I guess they also took their terrorism to "another country"?

[reorg]

77. ... "state sponsored terrorism"

Modi, India's Milosevic

By Gulam K. Noon

"It was nothing but a pogrom in Mahatma Gandhi's home state of Gujarat. Hindu-Muslim riots are not new to India but what is new is State-sponsored terrorism. Narendra Modi's government is guilty of ethnic cleansing. ..."

http://www.freeindiamedia.com/guest_column/25_may_guest_column.htm

The writer is an industrialist and President of the London Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

Courtesy www.hindustantimes.com

[varun]

79. that must be why...

...20 million (yes, MILLION) illegal muslims slip across the borders to live in India, RIGHT?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0304/p07s01-wosc.html

[Darranar]

39. Iraq war?

Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

[rini]

9. My, my

what a nice objective source.
Israel and India are both fighting terrorism. Or is it all India's fault because they exist?

[laura888]

10. Terrorism is the only way for some people to fight against...

...a powerful oppressor.

If they were fighting a communist nation, (even if their violence was enacted in the same way - suicide bombs, etc) they would be "freedom fighters."

[varun]

15. not really

Gandhi and most Indians used non violent means such as hunger strikes, non-cooperation, boycott, mass jailing, etc. to drive the British out of India.

[cprise]

18. Boycotts often fail on nations

S. Africa could be said to be an example of a successful boycott. But that country had an overwhelming black majority. India had a similar majority situation.

Progressives can hope for non-violent means, but cannot absolutely expect the opressed to follow them.

[varun]

26. does that mean we should advocate

terrorism to overthrow the "occupiers"?

[laura888]

28. not advocate, but understand

if South African blacks were rioting violently in the streets in the 1970's - would we condemn them? No, not the best solution, but understandable.

[varun]

37. OK, I understand...

so now what?

What is the solution?

[Aidoneus]

98. curious, varun

do you acknowledge the trade/economic & class-based aspect of Islam's entry into India, or just the statist & militarist factors? The latter is easier to attack in an argument, the former far more difficult to acknowledge but I believe more accurate..

[varun]

99. I believe, it was driven first by trade

but subsequently, it turned into a a campaign to loot, capture, and convert India.

[Aidoneus]

102. and what was it like before?

was it a paradise before the Muslims came and wrecked everything, or were there also rival factions and rulers fighting amongst themselves then too? Maybe some of the lower caste peoples would point to the elites and say the same things about their religiously-justified class warfare.