Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

red alert in India...

gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
okay, so there's a red alert in India, because the barbari masjid verdict would be announced today.

Basically the story is that hindus asked the muslims to move Barbari mosque in Ayodhya because it was believed to be the birth place of lord rama. Muslims refused because they saw it as a threat to all other mosques(which could be asked to move next, there were some whispers already). long story short, there was bloodshed, people were killed on both sides.

Now, today the verdict on who actually owns the disputed piece of land would be announced. The decision have been pending for ages, and i don't see how the decision can be politically correct seeing as the claim by Hindus is purely out of faith, and it is a matter of pride for muslims.

What can be a logical solution. And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:37:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:30:44 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They could share the land?

i don't think that would be desirable for any of the party. I mean, temples and mosques are often attended by orthodox religious and lets just say that their orthodox views about each other are not very favorable.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:39:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:37:40 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:30:44 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They could share the land?

i don't think that would be desirable for any of the party. I mean, temples and mosques are often attended by orthodox religious and lets just say that their orthodox views about each other are not very favorable.

Well considering Hindus and Muslims have hated each other for centuries that makes sense. The two haven't been very good at co-existing. That's pretty much why Pakistan was created, afterall... I still think that sharing the land would be the best although that seems idealistic on my part.
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:42:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:42:05 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:39:47 AM, TPF wrote:
kill everyone

now why didn't i think of that? so logical...

Very logical.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:44:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:42:57 AM, TPF wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:42:05 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:39:47 AM, TPF wrote:
kill everyone

now why didn't i think of that? so logical...

Very logical.

lol.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:44:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:39:58 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:37:40 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:30:44 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They could share the land?

i don't think that would be desirable for any of the party. I mean, temples and mosques are often attended by orthodox religious and lets just say that their orthodox views about each other are not very favorable.

Well considering Hindus and Muslims have hated each other for centuries that makes sense. The two haven't been very good at co-existing. That's pretty much why Pakistan was created, afterall... I still think that sharing the land would be the best although that seems idealistic on my part.

yes, it is idealistic.
btw, are you aware of any similar historical case?
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:49:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Honestly who cares whether or not its politically correct. People of both faiths needs to learn to respect property rights. f they can't the government needs to enforce it. If they can't do that without bloodshed maybe they should refine their religion a bit.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:57:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:49:19 AM, TPF wrote:
Honestly who cares whether or not its politically correct.
People of both faiths needs to learn to respect property rights.
but that's the whole point. Whose property should the land be? The hindus who believe it was the birth place of their lord, Or muslims who actually had a mosque erected there?

f they can't the government needs to enforce it. If they can't do that without bloodshed maybe they should refine their religion a bit.

huh?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:58:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:49:19 AM, TPF wrote:
Honestly who cares whether or not its politically correct. People of both faiths needs to learn to respect property rights. f they can't the government needs to enforce it. If they can't do that without bloodshed maybe they should refine their religion a bit.

As I said on the first page, Muslims and Hindus are literally worst enemies as Hindus are considered Pagans to them. The Qur'an says some not very pleasant things about Pagans...

Anyway, I'll stop here on that issue to avoid making this into just another religious debate. I'll need to look into the issue more to determine who has more of a claim to the land, but I almost think the Hindus. The Muslims just want dominance I think. However, if the Muslims were there first I may reconsider. Were they? How did they obtain the land?

P.S- I can't even think anymore. I need to sleep. Goodnight DDO!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 2:59:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?

Um, Jerusalem? :P
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:02:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:57:42 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:49:19 AM, TPF wrote:
Honestly who cares whether or not its politically correct.
People of both faiths needs to learn to respect property rights.
but that's the whole point. Whose property should the land be? The hindus who believe it was the birth place of their lord, Or muslims who actually had a mosque erected there?

f they can't the government needs to enforce it. If they can't do that without bloodshed maybe they should refine their religion a bit.

huh?

The point is not whose land they think it should be- the point is whose land it is according to the courts.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:17:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 3:02:54 AM, TPF wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:57:42 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:49:19 AM, TPF wrote:
Honestly who cares whether or not its politically correct.
People of both faiths needs to learn to respect property rights.
but that's the whole point. Whose property should the land be? The hindus who believe it was the birth place of their lord, Or muslims who actually had a mosque erected there?

f they can't the government needs to enforce it. If they can't do that without bloodshed maybe they should refine their religion a bit.

huh?


The point is not whose land they think it should be- the point is whose land it is according to the courts.

the court hasn't actually given the verdict yet. so according to you, if the court announces that the land was rightfully a property of hindus, Muslims should be okay with it?
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:18:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 3:17:55 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 3:02:54 AM, TPF wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:57:42 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:49:19 AM, TPF wrote:
Honestly who cares whether or not its politically correct.
People of both faiths needs to learn to respect property rights.
but that's the whole point. Whose property should the land be? The hindus who believe it was the birth place of their lord, Or muslims who actually had a mosque erected there?

f they can't the government needs to enforce it. If they can't do that without bloodshed maybe they should refine their religion a bit.

huh?


The point is not whose land they think it should be- the point is whose land it is according to the courts.

the court hasn't actually given the verdict yet. so according to you, if the court announces that the land was rightfully a property of hindus, Muslims should be okay with it?

No they can think however they want about it. But they shouldn't cause any violence.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:21:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 3:18:43 AM, TPF wrote:
At 9/29/2010 3:17:55 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 3:02:54 AM, TPF wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:57:42 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:49:19 AM, TPF wrote:
Honestly who cares whether or not its politically correct.
People of both faiths needs to learn to respect property rights.
but that's the whole point. Whose property should the land be? The hindus who believe it was the birth place of their lord, Or muslims who actually had a mosque erected there?

f they can't the government needs to enforce it. If they can't do that without bloodshed maybe they should refine their religion a bit.

huh?


The point is not whose land they think it should be- the point is whose land it is according to the courts.

the court hasn't actually given the verdict yet. so according to you, if the court announces that the land was rightfully a property of hindus, Muslims should be okay with it?

No they can think however they want about it. But they shouldn't cause any violence.

that is unlikely.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:36:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:59:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?

Um, Jerusalem? :P
Source: wikipedia

"During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[8] The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE, making Jerusalem one of the oldest cities in the world.[9] The old walled city, a World Heritage site, has been traditionally divided into four quarters, although the names used today—the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters—were introduced in the early 19th century.[10] The Old City was nominated for inclusion on the List of World Heritage Sites in danger by Jordan in 1982.[11]"

i'm officially hyperventilating right now.
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:42:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 3:36:24 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:59:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?

Um, Jerusalem? :P
Source: wikipedia

"During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[8] The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE, making Jerusalem one of the oldest cities in the world.[9] The old walled city, a World Heritage site, has been traditionally divided into four quarters, although the names used today—the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters—were introduced in the early 19th century.[10] The Old City was nominated for inclusion on the List of World Heritage Sites in danger by Jordan in 1982.[11]"

i'm officially hyperventilating right now.

Welcome to the world. Its a rough place. shack up in your home with plenty of water+perishable goods and an AK and you should be good to go.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:49:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 3:42:55 AM, TPF wrote:
At 9/29/2010 3:36:24 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:59:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?

Um, Jerusalem? :P
Source: wikipedia

"During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[8] The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE, making Jerusalem one of the oldest cities in the world.[9] The old walled city, a World Heritage site, has been traditionally divided into four quarters, although the names used today—the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters—were introduced in the early 19th century.[10] The Old City was nominated for inclusion on the List of World Heritage Sites in danger by Jordan in 1982.[11]"

i'm officially hyperventilating right now.

Welcome to the world. Its a rough place. shack up in your home with plenty of water+perishable goods and an AK and you should be good to go.

hahaha. i don't think i am in any danger though. With all the security around due to CWG, i am safe.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:46:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
okay, so there's a red alert in India, because the barbari masjid verdict would be announced today.

Basically the story is that hindus asked the muslims to move Barbari mosque in Ayodhya because it was believed to be the birth place of lord rama. Muslims refused because they saw it as a threat to all other mosques(which could be asked to move next, there were some whispers already). long story short, there was bloodshed, people were killed on both sides.

Now, today the verdict on who actually owns the disputed piece of land would be announced. The decision have been pending for ages, and i don't see how the decision can be politically correct seeing as the claim by Hindus is purely out of faith, and it is a matter of pride for muslims.

What can be a logical solution. And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?
When they stop going against their own scriptures and avoid believing in demigods, we will find a good solution to this. They built their temples when Muslims were in control over their land.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:52:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
What can be a logical solution. And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?

Can there be a logical solution to an illogical problem?
It basically comes down to what group of sub-human scum you are willing to appease and which one you are willing to cheese off.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:35:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 6:46:20 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/29/2010 2:27:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
okay, so there's a red alert in India, because the barbari masjid verdict would be announced today.

Basically the story is that hindus asked the muslims to move Barbari mosque in Ayodhya because it was believed to be the birth place of lord rama. Muslims refused because they saw it as a threat to all other mosques(which could be asked to move next, there were some whispers already). long story short, there was bloodshed, people were killed on both sides.

Now, today the verdict on who actually owns the disputed piece of land would be announced. The decision have been pending for ages, and i don't see how the decision can be politically correct seeing as the claim by Hindus is purely out of faith, and it is a matter of pride for muslims.

What can be a logical solution. And also, is there any historical case similar to this one?
When they stop going against their own scriptures and avoid believing in demigods, we will find a good solution to this.

They built their temples when Muslims were in control over their land.
Actually they believed that muslims had burnt the temples when they came here during Mughal era. There isn't any proof though.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:48:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:35:14 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Actually they believed that muslims had burnt the temples when they came here during Mughal era. There isn't any proof though.
Maybe sometimes that happened, but nothing significant. They could have exterminated the Hindus and their entire culture, but they did not. "Thank you" is something like this situation of the mosque. What a shame. At least they should follow their own scriptures and stop blaspheming. They prevent worshiping God at a particular place for the sake of the birthplace of a demigod. Their scriptures condemn this shame.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 8:30:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:48:39 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/29/2010 7:35:14 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Actually they believed that muslims had burnt the temples when they came here during Mughal era. There isn't any proof though.
Maybe sometimes that happened, but nothing significant. They could have exterminated the Hindus and their entire culture, but they did not. "Thank you" is something like this situation of the mosque.

Thats actually quite sickening to hear. I'm not sure 100% on the hindu side but I gotta saay now I'm siding with them.

What a shame. At least they should follow their own scriptures and stop blaspheming. They prevent worshiping God at a particular place for the sake of the birthplace of a demigod. Their scriptures condemn this shame.

What do you mean? I've neever read their scriptures so I wouldn't know. It seems like something that would logically be expected. If christians wanted to keep the land where Jesus was born sacred then so be it, same with the hindus and their [demi] gods.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 9:01:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:48:39 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/29/2010 7:35:14 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Actually they believed that muslims had burnt the temples when they came here during Mughal era. There isn't any proof though.
Maybe sometimes that happened, but nothing significant. They could have exterminated the Hindus and their entire culture, but they did not. "Thank you" is something like this situation of the mosque. What a shame. At least they should follow their own scriptures and stop blaspheming. They prevent worshiping God at a particular place for the sake of the birthplace of a demigod. Their scriptures condemn this shame.

The mosque wasn't functioning because some dispute had prevented namaaz from being said there for decades. But the reason they didn't move was because they saw it as a demand that could trigger further demands.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:13:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 8:30:34 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/29/2010 7:48:39 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/29/2010 7:35:14 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Actually they believed that muslims had burnt the temples when they came here during Mughal era. There isn't any proof though.
Maybe sometimes that happened, but nothing significant. They could have exterminated the Hindus and their entire culture, but they did not. "Thank you" is something like this situation of the mosque.

Thats actually quite sickening to hear. I'm not sure 100% on the hindu side but I gotta saay now I'm siding with them.
It is sickening to hear that when Muslims were in charge, they let Hindus live? That is sickening to you?

What do you mean? I've neever read their scriptures so I wouldn't know. It seems like something that would logically be expected. If christians wanted to keep the land where Jesus was born sacred then so be it, same with the hindus and their [demi] gods.
They go against their own scriptures. They have no proper moral argument against the mosque.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:21:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 8:30:34 AM, lovelife wrote:

What do you mean? I've neever read their scriptures so I wouldn't know. It seems like something that would logically be expected. If christians wanted to keep the land where Jesus was born sacred then so be it, same with the hindus and their [demi] gods.

I agree with this. I don't see how it's any different than Christians viewing Bethlehem as sacred or Muslims viewing Mecca as sacred. Overall, people of other faiths should respect that.