Order by Previous days letters
D-6/57
Nov 01, 2014
01:47 AM

"Only an ignoramus would accept that as the major cause for the Crusades. As Wiki sums up......."

Wow. Anwaar acquires his history lessons from wiki. No wonder he comes across as a man entirely out of his depth. 

That wiki stub was probably written by a wishy washy apologist like Anwaar to obfuscate the issue. Blame Pope Urban's ambition, drag in the 16th century protestants for something that happened 500 years earlier, call the crusaders barbarians......do everything but admit that in 1065, the Seljuqs captured Jerusalem, destroyed churches and slaughtered 3000 Christian pilgrims. Big deal huh?

Why should such a minor skirmish provoke crusades? After all, hundreds of temples were demolished and hundreds of thousands of Indians were massacred, if not more. Did the Indians retaliate? No, they realised that their religions were false and rushed to embrace the only true religion that guaranteed eternal accommodation in a hedonistic paradise.

The crusaders, being barbarians, were incapable of appreciating the only true religion. That is why they launched the crusades. QED. 

D.L.Narayan
Visakhapatnam, India
D-5/29
Nov 01, 2014
01:24 AM

"Nobody has ever said Gandhiji appears incomplete without Patel.".....Anwaar

This is what Gandhiji wrote in his autobiography:

"If anything, I can only claim the cleverness that is necessary for a commander in picking out men for his campaign. I was clever enough in doing that, but there too I should not have achieved anything if you had not acquitted yourselves well. I will say that without the help of Vallabhbhai Patel, we should not have won the campaign. He had a splendid practice, he had his municipal work to do, but he renounced it all and threw himself in the campaign.

archive.org/stream/MahatmaLifeOfMohandasKaramachandGandhi/TXT/00000423.txt

Obviously, Anwaar knows more about Gandhiji than the Mahatma himself.

On a lighter note, it is amusing to see how Anwaar insists on opening his mouth wide and then promptly shoves his foot into it with alacrity. 

D.L.Narayan
Visakhapatnam, India
D-4/56
Nov 01, 2014
01:15 AM

DLN,

>> "what happened is that after the caliphate lost control of Jerusalem to the Seljuqs in 1065, horrific massacres of Christians took place"

Only an ignoramus would accept that as the major cause for the Crusades. As Wiki sums up, "Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe; and others see them as confident, aggressive, papal-led expansion attempts by Western Christendom.... Urban II sought to reunite the Christian church under his leadership by providing Emperor Alexios I with military support. Several hundred thousand Roman Catholic Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and receiving plenary indulgences from the church. These crusaders were Christians from all over Western Europe under feudal rather than unified command, and the politics were often complicated to the point of intra-faith competition leading to alliances between combatants of different faiths against their coreligionists, such as the Christian alliance with the Islamic Sultanate of Rûm during the Fifth Crusade.....During the Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the 16th century, historians saw the Crusades through the prism of their own religious beliefs. Protestants saw them as a manifestation of the evils of the Papacy, while Catholics viewed the movement as a force for good. During the Enlightenment, historians tended to view both the Crusades and the entire Middle Ages as the efforts of (Europe's) barbarian cultures driven by fanaticism."

Your ignorance in history, just as your ignorance in politics, is motivated by your usual ignoble animus. 

Anwaar
Dallas, United States
D-3/6
Nov 01, 2014
12:55 AM


Sad that someone with 22 criminal cases registered against him becomes the CM of Maharashtra. 

Anwaar, Dallas
D-2/2
Nov 01, 2014
12:43 AM

 
> "Only she whose body is hurt, knows."

How true!

Anwaar
Dallas, United States
D-1/28
Nov 01, 2014
12:17 AM


Four facts about Sardar Patel that Modi would find disappointing

1) Patel was not enamoured of the RSS

After Gandhi's assassination, Patel wrote. "“… as [a] result of the activities of these two bodies [the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha], particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasbha was involved in this conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the Government and the State.”

2) Nehru did not steal the prime minister's crown from Patel

The simple reason as to why Nehru became PM was that he was, by far, the Congress’ most popular politician (after Gandhi, of course). Right from the 1937 provincial elections, Nehru was the party’s star campaigner, enthralling crowds with his Hindustani oratory. Patel had an iron grip on the Congress party itself but he was many miles behind Nehru as a popular leader. The Sardar himself conceded this: at a massively attended Congress rally in Mumbai, he told American journalist Vincent Sheean, “They come for Jawahar, not for me."

3) Patel bears as much responsiblity for Partition as Nehru

Whatever be the wrongs of Partition, it was a decision taken jointly both Nehru and Patel. In fact, if anything, Patel was far more receptive to the idea and Nehru only came around much later and far more reluctantly. VP Menon, the architect of the Partition Plan, informs us that as far back as December 1946, Patel had accepted the division of India while Nehru would only acquiesce six months later. Abul Kalam Azad, a staunch critic of Partition right till the very end, was disappointed with Patel’s support and writes in his memoir, India wins Freedom, that he was “surprised and pained when Patel in reply [to why Partition was needed] said that whether we liked it or not, there were two nations in India”.

4) Patel did not want the Babri Masjid demolished

In 1949, a mob descended upon the Babri Masjid and, after chasing away the muezzin, installed an idol of Ram Lalla in order to claim it as a temple. Within a month of the incident, Patel shot off a letter to the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, GB Pant warning that “there can be no question of resolving such disputes by force”. Patel opined that “such matters can only be resolved peacefully if we take the willing consent of the Muslim community with us”.

scroll.in/article/685571/four-facts-about-sardar-patel-that-modi-would-find-disappointing&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

Anwaar, Dallas
Order by Previous days letters
 
 
SMTWTFS
1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: