were the Japanese worse than the Nazis?

UpHereInMyTree500

IndianSummer wrote:

no india wasnt in tatters at all. at least we still had 25% of the world economic output up till year 1800. i can show you research papers by the HIER (harvard institute of economic research) to that effect.

the british filled their "raj indian army" with muslims dear, to rule over us.

harvard paper....your paper is probably opiniated, supporting a particular argument, as most papers do!

the raj army also had hindus....

UpHereInMyTree500

so you must be a Hindu then Indian Summer?

Well, I agree, Hindus have been on the recieving end of many wrong doings.

UpHereInMyTree500

IndianSummer wrote:

no india wasnt in tatters at all. at least we still had 25% of the world economic output up till year 1800. i can show you research papers by the HIER (harvard institute of economic research) to that effect.

the british filled their "raj indian army" with muslims dear, to rule over us.

the facts are that the mughal empire was breaking up when the british arrived. The marathas were rebelling and other states were also starting to break away from the mughal empire. My argument is that if Aurangzeb did not reintroduce the jizya and actually supported the hindu faith like Akbar than the mughals could have defeated the british

IndianSummer

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

well if youre saying the indians are not the mughals...which they obviously did not originate in Indian, then who are the indians? The Indus Valley Civilisation was taken over by Arians from the Iranian Plateau. This would mean that the Indians have an Arian background wouldnt it? It is possible though that the Indus Valley inhabitants did migrate east but it is yet to be proven

i am saying the mughals are not indians, not indians are not mughals (which is also true).

as for the "indus valley civilization" thing you keep refering about - and the way they were "taken care of" by iranians... i cant really explain all of that here even if i tried. you could see the wiki entry on "aryan invasion theory" or read this book.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/index.htm

if you have questions, then send me a pm, i shall supply you all the links.


FACT - the first use of the word "arya" was in india, in a language called sanskrit, and means "noble". the chronologically second use of the word was in "aryana/airan/iran" or persia (who are the desendants of "parasu" - which is where persia gets its name from). the other people/countries who get their names from the root word "arya" are the germanic people called "allans" and the country/people called "ireland". the first time the word "hindu" was used, was when the iranians/persians/"descandants of parasu", started calling the people on the eastern side of the "sindhu" (indus) river, as the "hindus", since the sanskrit "s" is equivalent to the iranian "h". before that the word hindu never existed. we called ourselves "arya" and our "ism" was called "sanatan dharma" = (eternal duty)

IndianSummer

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

so you must be a Hindu then Indian Summer?

Well, I agree, Hindus have been on the recieving end of many wrong doings.

as aslo have been guilty of one of history's greatest crimes - inflicted on its own people, (like the commie holocousts) - the caste system. i have no defence for that.

UpHereInMyTree500

IndianSummer wrote:

i am saying the mughals are not indians, not indians are not mughals (which is also true).

as for the "indus valley civilization" thing you keep refering about - and the way they were "taken care of" by iranians... i cant really explain all of that here even if i tried. you could see the wiki entry on "aryan invasion theory" or read this book.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/index.htm

if you have questions, then send me a pm, i shall supply you all the links.


FACT - the first use of the word "arya" was in india, in a language called sanskrit, and means "noble". the chronologically second use of the word was in "aryana/airan/iran" or persia (who are the desendants of "parasu" - which is where persia gets its name from). the other people/countries who get their names from the root word "arya" are the germanic people called "allans" and the country/people called "ireland". the first time the word "hindu" was used, was when the iranians/persians/"descandants of parasu", started calling the people on the eastern side of the "sindhu" (indus) river, as the "hindus", since the sanskrit "s" is equivalent to the iranian "h". before that the word hindu never existed. we called ourselves "arya" and our "ism" was called "sanatan dharma" = (eternal duty)

well wait and see until they decipher the Indus language...then we will know who the Indians are

IndianSummer

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

harvard paper....your paper is probably opiniated, supporting a particular argument, as most papers do!

the raj army also had hindus....

its not my paper. read history of economics or keep shut. i can supply the research paper if you want.

its a known fact that till 1800, china and india shared 50 percent of the world's wealth.

china always had the monolopy on silk. we on spices. we have been the leading producer of pepper for a mere 4000 years now. dig?? read Pliny and Arrian (roman historians) and see how they blamed india for making rome hedonistic (we dupmed our surplus goods on rome, the way china dupms on usa today). or better yet read a bit of hisroty of economics and see which countries were traditionally rich and which werent.


and raj army didnt have many hindus till Veer Sarvarkar realised just what the british were doing (filling up the raj army with muslims) and recruited loads of hindus in the raj army.

UpHereInMyTree500

IndianSummer wrote:

as aslo have been guilty of one of history's greatest crimes - inflicted on its own people, (like the commie holocousts) - the caste system. i have no defence for that.

yeah dont know much about that

slightly off topic...i was watching a movie not long ago about the British Raj and how the sepoys rebelled against them....cant remember the name, but i suppose it wasnt a bad insight into what happened there

UpHereInMyTree500

IndianSummer wrote:

its not my paper. read history of economics or keep shut. i can supply the research paper if you want.

its a known fact that till 1800, china and india shared 50 percent of the world's wealth.

china always had the monolopy on silk. we on spices. we have been the leading producer of pepper for a mere 4000 years now. dig?? read Pliny and Arrian (roman historians) and see how they blamed india for making rome hedonistic (we dupmed our surplus goods on rome, the way china dupms on usa today). or better yet read a bit of hisroty of economics and see which countries were traditionally rich and which werent.

of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

the way today's australins rule australia after wiping out - in this case entirely - the natives.

Tell that to the thousands of Aborigines in Australia today. I expect they'd have something to say about that comment.

IndianSummer

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

the facts are that the mughal empire was breaking up when the british arrived. The marathas were rebelling and other states were also starting to break away from the mughal empire. My argument is that if Aurangzeb did not reintroduce the jizya and actually supported the hindu faith like Akbar than the mughals could have defeated the british

yes and we dont differentiate between mughals and british. both were oppressors and both were invaders. one caused religion based carnage and another caused economic loot.

marathas (sachin tendulkar is a maratha) were amongst the only indians who had managed to weather the islamic onslaught and keep fighting the muslims till the last day and then fought the british too.

akbar never supported the hindu faith at all - he wanted to make islam more acceptable to hindus, by taking/inducting a piece or two from hinduism into his brand of islam, the way the missionaries do it all over the world (eg - in scandivavia the churches are built on/like viking temples. the festival of christmas likewise has nothign to do with Christ. it is an act of christianity inducting the pagan concept of celebrating the winter solstice, to make christianity more acceptable. btw, the date for christmas, was also chosen in similar ways - 25th december is when Mithras was supposedly born, and the cult of Mithras was very popular in rome).

Byrnzie

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)

The indian sub-continent had one of the wealthiest economies in the world before the British took control of it, and re-directed the wealth back to blighty. A bit like the way the U.S takes control of foreign economic wealth today and redirects it back into American business under the guise of the free market, and with the help of corrupt puppet regimes and officials, and the threat of military intervention - i.e, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq.

IndianSummer

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

well wait and see until they decipher the Indus language...then we will know who the Indians are

sure, i lok forward to it too - just as long as you do not come up with Asko Parpola's lunatic interpretations.

UpHereInMyTree500

IndianSummer wrote:

yes and we dont differentiate between mughals and british. both were oppressors and both were invaders. one caused religion based carnage and another caused economic loot.

marathas (sachin tendulkar is a maratha) were amongst the only indians who had managed to weather the islamic onslaught and keep fighting the muslims till the last day and then fought the british too.

akbar never supported the hindu faith at all - he wanted to make islam more acceptable to hindus, by taking/inducting a piece or two from hinduism into his brand of islam, the way the missionaries do it all over the world (eg - in scandivavia the churches are built on/like viking temples. the festival of christmas likewise has nothign to do with Christ. it is an act of christianity inducting the pagan concept of celebrating the winter solstice, to make christianity more acceptable. btw, the date for christmas, was also chosen in similar ways - 25th december is when Mithras was supposedly born, and the cult of Mithras was very popular in rome).

by my reading akbar employed hindus under him and even married a hindu princess....yeah some say he did it so he could prosper a lot more, but most argue, and i also argue, that akbar wanted muslims and hindus to live in peace together

UpHereInMyTree500

Indian summer...you are a very biased Hindu...maybe take an objective stance once in a while instead of cuttting down other peoples opinions...just because u are indian does not make you right.

IndianSummer

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)

not only did it go through india - it CAME from india. all the raw materials. most of the rest came from china.

UpHereInMyTree500

Byrnzie wrote:

The indian sub-continent had one of the wealthiest economies in the world before the British took control of it, and re-directed the wealth back to blighty. A bit like the way the U.S takes control of foreign economic wealth today and redirects it back into American business under the guise of the free market, and with the help of corrupt puppet regimes and officials, and the threat of military intervention - i.e, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq.

i know that...im not argueing against that
read my posts
im argueing that the break up of the mughal empire made it easier for the british to colonise!
The break up wasnt caused by a lack of wealth beacues they were wealthy, it was caused by trouble amongst the peoples attitudes

UpHereInMyTree500

IndianSummer wrote:

not only did it go through india - it CAME from india. all the raw materials. most of the rest came from china.

so what??????
whats your point

Byrnzie

UpHereInMyTree500 wrote:

i know that...im not argueing against that
read my posts
im argueing that the break up of the mughal empire made it easier for the british to colonise!
The break up wasnt caused by a lack of wealth beacues they were wealthy, it was caused by trouble amongst the peoples attitudes

I wasn't arguing with you. :eek:

UpHereInMyTree500

Im off


P.S.
Ricky Ponting shits all over Sachin Tendulkar
Come talk to me when India win a World Cup
ha ha ha ha