Musharraf Spilling the Beans—Why Now?

[Dear shishapa:

Where do I start on which policy of India towards Pakistan I do not like? ]

Start with the one that you have thought about using your brains, not with your penis, if there is one.


[Mind you, I am not a historian...]


That is no revelation.


[, but nevertheless let me go slowly on the time line basis. ]

Please. So we can keep up with the brilliant analysis.


[The very first is screwing Pakistan with its rightful name of India, that belonged to the muslims and not the Indians. How is that for a start? ]

What came first - pedophile followers, or Hindus? How is that for an answer? Eh? :)



[Ok, you want another small trivia,..]

You call this sea of knowledge ``trivia``? That is indeed impressive.


[... what about screwing Pakistan with the money that the British did not provide when dividing India?]

Screwing Pakistan is always a pleasure. And now it is USA`s turn to bend you guys over and apply the k-y. But I`ll have to admit, they are paying you for it.


[And what about the big one that most Indians constantly brag about in the international arena, and that is the right of Kashmiri citizens to the plebiscite.]


BECAUSE you ba$tards dishonoured the original agreement (that the Maharaja made, and that Jinnah signed on to), all subsequent agreements are null and void.
The rule for the future is - screw pakiland! :)


[Ok, another one, why was muslim Hyderabad annexed to India. ]

Because Nehru was a Pu$$y. He should have just denied all rail, road and air access to Hyderabad from the rest of the ummah world (which was perfectly legal, because we did not have any agreements regarding that), and let the motherF$$kers just starve to death.

(Hint: This is why a Pakiland was never going to be viable in the middle of India)


[Are these just enough for history lesson. ]

Thanks, professor.


[Also, why is the RSS collecting money in the US, and sending it to BJP to kill muslims in India? ]

Someone has to counter the jehad boxes that we see everywhere in the world.


[As for the Zoroastrians and their coming to India is concerned, I understand that they did flee to other places as well.]

Like where, genius? How many?


[Not to Africa, I suppose, how can one go across the heartland of the muslim invaders? ]

But I thought they were peaceful.


[Further, they continued fleeing in decades, and that too through treacherous mountainous terrains, and small boats etc. Remember, the conquering Arabs were all over the place showing their ``peaceful`` religion, I suppose. ]

And your point is?


[Yes, you can say whatever you want. Actually, Zoroastrian Avesta and Sanskrit are sister languages, and most of the upper class Hindoo Brahmans were of the Aryan race. But, are these the same people who squat on the railroad tracks of Mumbai? I think not. ]

Hey, I`m a Brahmin - I could NEVER be genetically associated with a turncoat vermin like yourself who would sell his mother for a piece of Islamic pu$$y. Check out the list of achievements of Brahmins over the centuries - is there a comparable list amongst the idiot Persians? Three thousand years of supposed Persian ``civilization``, and you guys have burnt tomato and boiled rice as part of your delicious Persian ``cuisine``. :)

We are NOT associated with idiots.

#703 by behram1

[...although the Prophet himself had admonished the recently converted Muslims to treat Ajami with a velvet glove.]


Like Dost-Mitter, you listened to your penis and converted. No amount of rationalization is going to change the fact that now you are stuck.

You are stuck, my friend, and cursing Hindus is not going to save your scrawny neck from the ever-watchful Muslims and their well-sharpened knives always on the lookout for apostates.

No velvet glove for you, I`m afraid.

:)

Re:behram1#703

[...And I still have no problem citing nonsense on those from India, because frankly, I do not like India`s policy towards Pakistan.....]

Behram, I understand that you were born and brought up in Pakistan and hence absorbed the anti-India bias there and a one-sided view of history.

However, I would ask you to look at the history of the subcontinent and its parallel with Iran. The same muslim invaders who savaged Iran reached the subcontinent after conquering Iran. If you need proof of violent conquest, just look at what happened to the areas of Pakistan and subsequently India. Your blood will freeze at reading about the heights of cruelty, massacare, destruction of temples such as Somnath temple etc. Entire adult male populations were wiped out in several towns of Pakistan. India still retains that memory because hindus survived that onslaught and fought back vigorously. We even ended up creating a new religion Sikhism to counter Islam. If hindus had all converted, no one today would remember those things, as is the situation in Iran.

At the end, we were able to indigenize Islam and make it a part of our mosaic in the subcontinent. A syncretic culture developed taking both hinduism and islam into account. Those historical wounds got reopened when partition happened creating a cleavage between hindus and muslims. Nevertheless, we hindus have retained that syncretic culture even to this day in India. That is why India is secular, while Pakistan is a overt/covert jihad supporter. Yes we wanted to keep Kashmir and Hyderabad, but that is because we want to continue and maximize that syncretic culture, not allow religious exclusivism and jihadi culture to take root there, unlike in Pakistan. As a Zoroastrian, you should appreciate the amazing lengths hindus have gone to continue a syncretic civilization in the face of jihadi extremists in Pakistan, whose dream is to do to India what happened to Iran i.e. complete Islamic conversion.

Had it not been for the Ajamis of Persia... the ex-Zoarastrians... the Saracens would never have been able to create a prosperous and remarkable civilisation... And Behram is absolutely right about the Prophet admonishing his followers... and Ali was the person who had opposed the brutality in persia recalling that the Prophet had called the persians the people of the book.

Re: # 704 by shishapa on October 8, 2006 7:18pm PT

Dear shishapa:

Where do I start on which policy of India towards Pakistan I do not like?

Mind you, I am not a historian, but nevertheless let me go slowly on the time line basis.

The very first is screwing Pakistan with its rightful name of India, that belonged to the muslims and not the Indians. How is that for a start?

Ok, you want another small trivia, what about screwing Pakistan with the money that the British did not provide when dividing India? And what about the big one that most Indians constantly brag about in the international arena, and that is the right of Kashmiri citizens to the plebiscite.

Ok, another one, why was muslim Hyderabad annexed to India.

Are these just enough for history lesson.

Also, why is the RSS collecting money in the US, and sending it to BJP to kill muslims in India?

As for the Zoroastrians and their coming to India is concerned, I understand that they did flee to other places as well. Not to Africa, I suppose, how can one go across the heartland of the muslim invaders?

Further, they continued fleeing in decades, and that too through treacherous mountainous terrains, and small boats etc. Remember, the conquering Arabs were all over the place showing their ``peaceful`` religion, I suppose.

{Can we say that one of the reasons is that they landed in India amongst Hindus?}

Yes, you can say whatever you want. Actually, Zoroastrian Avesta and Sanskrit are sister languages, and most of the upper class Hindoo Brahmans were of the Aryan race. But, are these the same people who squat on the railroad tracks of Mumbai? I think not.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 703

``I do not like India`s policy towards Pakistan.``

Behram, what policy or policies of India towards Pakistan you do not like or
did not like in the past? What in your opinion is India doing wrong towards Pakistan?
Do you think Pakistan has correct policy or had correct policy towards India?

Also, when Zoroastrians were fleeing Persia, why did they come to India?
Why did not they go to any other country like Turkey or Russia or Central Asia up north or
northwest or may be to Africa or go westward towards Europe (that probably would have
been difficult)?

``It must be a miracle that Zoroastriansm is still around,``

Can we say that one of the reasons is that they landed in India amongst Hindus?
Just like Bene Israelis who landed on India`s west coast and lived without any
religious problems until most decided to migrate to Israel after Israel was formed?

Re: # 696 by ranjit on October 8, 2006 2:54pm PT

Dear Ranjit:

I have no idea as to why I am responding to your post. But, nevertheless, here it is.

I do concur with you on what happened to Zoroastrian Persia, and the ruthlessness of the conquering Arabs, although the Prophet himself had admonished the recently converted Muslims to treat Ajami with a velvet glove.

But, politicians remain politicians, and therein lies the rub. Unfortunately for the Zoroastrians they were decimated by their ruling elite, and their political structures to begin with, and then they have to contend with the invading Arabs, who burnt their only library wherein we had our religious books.

Oops, I forgot the invaders were not at all coming in with force, but somehow the richly Persian were sabotaging the poor Bedouimns. How is that possible defies logic? Till this day the Persians consider themselves better than the whole wide world, but it was the lure of the new religion that brought the greatest human travesty on to their land.

Now, some of your comments regarding my own personal self and my opinions on this chowk.

{Behram, take a clue from your own slavish loyalty to Pakistan and your denigration of non-muslims in the worst possible language.} The Hindoos on this chowk were bringing all kinds of hatred regarding the holy books of Islam, and that is wrong. And I still have no problem citing nonsense on those from India, because frankly, I do not like India`s policy towards Pakistan.

{Zoroastrians did not fight and rolled over in the face of muslim invasions.}

That might be true when you consider the continuous brutality of the muslim rulers. Even till this day Muslim Iran considers all non-muslims as untouchables, but convincing these muslim idiots about this is almost calling a war with them upon myself. These folks will bring one nonsense after the other and the whole messy use of weapons of mass deflection will be thrown on to this site that poor Ghori Sahib, will have to throw some of his Ghauri also on this site.

{Yet in spite of that history, you have no resentment of Islam and prefer to be a chamcha to Pakistanis and attack Indians. Your ancestors that converted had a similar mindset.}

No, I have no resentment towards muslims generally, because two wrongs can never make a right. Yes, my father had to leave the cruelty of Muslim Persia and take refuge in Karachi, India, and I was born in Karachi, Pakistan. Personally, I have the highest love and regard for the muslims of Pakistan.

Now these days the undercurrent of the world event is such that a titanic is brewing amongst the enlightened world and the muslim world. Although, technically I might not be a muslim, I look like a muslim, I talk like a muslim, and I feel humiliated like a muslim in the west. So what am I supposed to do, with the features that I was born with. I look like a freaking good looking Persian.

{As compared to them look at the anger in muslims against crusaders and non-muslims who fought against them.}

Muslims are able to fight today because they have quantity, and Zoroastrians don`t. This is as simple as that.

Just look at the African muslims being slaughtered by the Arab muslims in Darfur, and maybe you might agree with me on this one.

{Also, look at the anger in India against muslim invasions.} Again, Hindoos have quantity and Parsees don`t.

{The fact of the matter is that people who have a strong sense of self-respect and value their heritage, fight tooth and nail to preserve that. People who roll over basically do not value their heritage and are bound to lose it. That why Zoroastrians are now on the verge of extinction.}

It must be a miracle that Zoroastriansm is still around, because it had a sound policy of helping the society we live in. Some consider us the biggest schmoozers, so be it. It is a value that shows prudence and acceptance of the world we are in. We bear no ill will towards anybody. As you are probably aware of, religiously speaking we have never believed in quantity at all.

Respectfully submitted,

prophet tahmed(peace be unto your self-righteous posterior): your phony outrage would be mildly amusing if you pakis didn`t have that little problem of killing more muslims in 71 than US, Israel and India put together..

And a nation that`s pretty much a condom isn`t exactly the gold standard in self-respect...

Re:tahmed#697

[..ranjit #696 ``slavish loyalty to pakistan``?? do patriotic pakistanis offend you that much?..]

No they dont. Patriotic Pakistanis who support the wellbeing of Pakistan are fine. However, patriotism does not mean demeaning the other side and calling them the worst possible names. Behram has called hindus the worst possible names, made fun of poor people as railway squatters and worse.

I can even understand all that if he was a typical jihadi muslim who hate hindus with a passion. In his case, it becomes several times worse, given that fleeing zoroastrians were given refuge and a life by hindus. The zoroastrians survived in India to form the parsi community that is one of the richest communities in India. Yet he savages hindus in this manner, the very same people who gave succor to his fleeing ancestors from Iran on whose behalf he is arguing with zeemax/echo. Now you understand why he offends me?

Re: # 695

Tahmad Sahib:

I do not think you have read what I have been writing at Chowk. I believe terrorism and extremism are the problem.

Islam is redundant in all stretegic equations. It has been made part of the equations by Arabs to get wider support. Be it OBL`s journey to Afganistan. You should read my earlier response to Romair. Sadly there is no forceful leader in the middle east to take Islam out of the equation.

I believe Iran might just do it, for the first time in recent history. They are just showing to the world that nuclear capability is an issue, not a muslim Iran enrichening it.

Alternatively, let me say if what happens in middle east had happened in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Chechnya or other muslim countries, Arabs would not have even bothered.

Ironically this kind of behavior smacks colonialism. If something happened in colonies it was only their local concern, but when something happened in Colonizing countries it was a matter for all colonies. Like it or not that is how I, a non-religious (= non-muslim) person sees it.

Unlike you I do not define the cuts and views through the religious diamond. Religion is just not for me. I do not believe we have to enslave ourselves, our knowledge, and our thoughts to 2,500 year old, or 1,400 year old absolutisms. Knowledge has overcome all impediments, it has selected gems from all previous knowledge and built on it.

I see problems a lot closer to humanity and attribue to human behavior.

If you, like I, can see religion to be limited only inside the personal mindspace, then no religion can become cause of any problem. Religion may cause personal problems, but not societal.

Just as it is in my mind I keep this question ``Is man, the best creation of God, or the God is the best imagination of man?``; and accepting that there cannot be one answer to it either. I never say that once if someone has believed it, that he or she cannot unbelieve it, or else I will kill you. Or that if you do not believe it, then you are ``not us``.

I am not sure you can see my perspective, let alone understand it.

Anil

OK #697/698 sound a bit more harsh than i intended.

but seriously - as an indian, you should be glad there patriotic pakistanis like behram are an asset not just to pakistan but to the entire world. it is the unpatriotic pakistanis, products of the arab worshipping jehadi culture, who are a liability for pakistan as well as for the rest of the world including india.

further to #697 and dont confuse your petty hatred with self-respect. you spiteful little men (hindu or ``muslim``) wouldnt recognize self-respect if it came up to you and pulled your ears.

ranjit #696 ``slavish loyalty to pakistan``?? do patriotic pakistanis offend you that much? you are proof that we pakistanis have not cornered the market on mullah-hates like echoboom.

Re:behram1#685

[...Yes, otherwise how else can you suggest that the vast Zoroastrian Persian empire was converted to Islamic without total annihilation of their values. O! I forgot they were all waiting in lines to get the stamp of approval in being followers of the Arab world?.......]

Behram, take a clue from your own slavish loyalty to Pakistan and your denigration of non-muslims in the worst possible language. Zoroastrians did not fight and rolled over in the face of muslim invasions. A handful escaped to India while the rest converted to survive the onslaugh. Yet in spite of that history, you have no resentment of Islam and prefer to be a chamcha to Pakistanis and attack Indians. Your ancestors that converted had a similar mindset.

As compared to them look at the anger in muslims against crusaders and non-muslims who fought against them. Also, look at the anger in India against muslim invasions. The fact of the matter is that people who have a strong sense of self-respect and value their heritage, fight tooth and nail to preserve that. People who roll over basically do not value their heritage and are bound to lose it. Thats why Zoroastrians are now on the verge of extinction.

anil #691 you say that no religion - not even hinduism - is part of any solution.


This brings us to the next question - do you consider islam to be the only religion that in your view is a source of problems? or do you consider all religions - i.e. including not just islam but also hinduism, christianity, judaism to be a source of problems as well?

PS: the above is a trick question, btw. since whatever answer you give, i have you trapped in a fishing net of your own creation!! :-)

Zeemax:

You won`t get anything positive about muslims from the ones who sold their souls to the
angraiz. After all where would they be but for the goraa-saab. It is the anglo-infested education which produces only Money-earners & CEOs like shaukat aziz & musharraf.
Never expect anything learned from such scum.

Just take a look at the sentence I`ve quoted in 688 which is from interact #686. Isn`t it a howl?

Here, for you,I have written a brief account of the Sassanid defeat. This has been culled & gathered from different non-muslim sources....in fact the defeat of the Persians by Muslims is so ridiciculous [ No general was willing to be CinC when they heard about muslim army coming; it was virtually a walk-over. The only thing bad Saad-bin-abi Vaqas did, not believing that there will be a surrender so swift , that they suspected some trick & chased the royalty unnecessarily . Saad was afterwardssent to China as an ambassador where he built the first mosque. His tomb & mosque are still there...and well looked after by the Chinese.Islamic ConquestAbu Bakr defeated the Byzantine army at Damascus in 635 and then began his conquest of Iran. In 637 the Arab forces occupied the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon (which they renamed Madain), and in 641-42 they defeated the Sassanid army at Nahavand. After that, Iran lay open to the invaders. The Islamic conquest was aided by the material and social bankruptcy of the Sassanids; the native populations had little to lose by cooperating with the conquering power. Moreover, the Muslims offered relative religious tolerance and fair treatment to populations that accepted Islamic rule without resistance. It was not until around 650, however, that resistance in Iran was quelled. Conversion to Islam, which offered certain advantages, was fairly rapid among the urban population but slower among the peasantry and the dihqans [farmers]. The majority of Iranians did not become Muslim until the ninth century.


Although the conquerors, especially the Umayyads (the Muslim rulers who succeeded Mohammad from 661-750), tended to stress the primacy of Arabs among Muslims, the Iranians were gradually integrated into the new community. The Muslim conquerors adopted the Sassanid coinage system and many Sassanid administrative practices, including the office of vizier, or minister, and the divan, a bureau or register for controlling state revenue and expenditure that became a characteristic of administration throughout Muslim lands. Later caliphs adopted Iranian court ceremonial practices and the trappings of Sassanid monarchy. Men of Iranian origin served as administrators after the conquest, and Iranians contributed significantly to all branches of Islamic learning, including philology, literature, history, geography, jurisprudence, philosophy, medicine, and the sciences.


The Arabs were in control, however. The new state religion, Islam, imposed its own system of beliefs, laws, and social mores. In regions that submitted peacefully to Muslim rule, landowners kept their land. But crown land, land abandoned by fleeing owners, and land taken by conquest passed into the hands of the new state. This included the rich lands of the Sawad, a rich, alluvial plain in central and southern Iraq. Arabic became the official language of the court in 696, although Persian continued to be widely used as the spoken language. The shuubiyya literary controversy of the ninth through the eleventh centuries, in which Arabs and Iranians each lauded their own and denigrated the other`s cultural traits, suggests the survival of a certain sense of distinct Iranian identity. In the ninth century, the emergence of more purely Iranian ruling dynasties witnessed the revival of the Persian language, enriched by Arabic loanwords and using the Arabic script, and of Persian literature.