< Entire post a must read on the <b>Religion of Cowardice</b> (aka pacificism=Gandhism=anti-Hinduism)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement, Part - I </span>
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhiâs quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this dirty policy in 1908. At that time the South African government imposed an unjust tax of £ 3 on every Indian living in South Africa and Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter. But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with Gandhi. In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion, made some critical comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore, he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which made the Muslims furious.
A few days later, <b>on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhiâs house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam.</b> According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhiâs life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime committed by the Muslims. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92259[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thoroughly explains why Gandhi then started seeing all Hindus as "cowards" even as he understated his beloved islamaniacs as being no more than "bullies". Sorry, but by far most Hindus are *not* cowards.
I don't know why Gandhi, instead of responding to his being terrorised by islamania by plotting complete revenge, chose rather to plot complete annihilation of all Dharmics at the hands of islamic jihad. Did he want others to be reduced to his own level, that all Dharmics give up resisting and capitulate, just as he did? And I see the answer to this is an incontestable Yes - as also clearly stressed in these later paras of the same article:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement, Part - I </span>
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
[...]
The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrific their lives in flames. In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.
Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, <b>Gandhi wrote that âHe would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sisterâ</b> (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).
(What? Like Gandhi himself did? He wants his cowardice to become standard behaviour even for those not suffering from the same? Total loser.)
       From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest. And that was the basis of Gandhian nonviolence and secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, once said âGandhi was really a Mohammedanâ (D Keer, ibid, p-237).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92259[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Beyond disgusting. It may take two buckets to finish processing this junk.
I take back anything I ever said that was positive about Gandhi. I was unforgiveably wrong. All I can see remaining to his 'credit' is that he had a way with words which gave them popular appeal. Otherwise he was little more than a cowed terrorist-lover, who was trying to cover the blood (of others) he helped spill by mouthing deep-sounding platitudes which he attempted to pass off as Hindu Dharma. Worst of all, instead of realising he was the last person in India who should be leading Hindus in any capacity, he still vainly took to power.
Weaker people exist and fear is a natural part of life - and <i>as long as they are not cowards who will sacrifice others in order to save themselves</i> - all Hindus have a duty to look after them, but they should NEVER be allowed in charge. Otherwise they inevitably turn all of a strong wholesome society into a weakminded one that reflects only themselves.
People who are cowards, anti-Hindus, "pseculars" should never lead Hindus. The consequences are unimaginable misery, as happened when Gandhi was accorded any position of importance. In contrasting him with Aurobindo I find that even light takes significant time to cover the distance between the two.
Hindus should only ever allow Kshatriyas - those who are capable, just and have a powerful and daring mind that cannot be daunted - to become our leaders. Our choice in who we look to for leadership is *our* responsibility. But if we pick our leaders well, and then <i>protect them</i> even as they protect us, we may find we will thrive very easily.
It does not matter what the world thinks or says about us (after all, many will be only too happy to have us extincted), but Hindus should completely cease to think psecularly or even secularly: think only of Dharma and Dharmics first. Ever. When our collective existence and success is made foremost in our minds, we will act accordingly. And when we do that, we stand more than a fair chance to defeat all terrorisms and to no longer live the desperate lives of self-defeatist people trying to survive for a little while longer under increasingly compromising circumstances, but to become a *live* people again.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement, Part - I </span>
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhiâs quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this dirty policy in 1908. At that time the South African government imposed an unjust tax of £ 3 on every Indian living in South Africa and Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter. But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with Gandhi. In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion, made some critical comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore, he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which made the Muslims furious.
A few days later, <b>on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhiâs house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam.</b> According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhiâs life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime committed by the Muslims. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92259[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thoroughly explains why Gandhi then started seeing all Hindus as "cowards" even as he understated his beloved islamaniacs as being no more than "bullies". Sorry, but by far most Hindus are *not* cowards.
I don't know why Gandhi, instead of responding to his being terrorised by islamania by plotting complete revenge, chose rather to plot complete annihilation of all Dharmics at the hands of islamic jihad. Did he want others to be reduced to his own level, that all Dharmics give up resisting and capitulate, just as he did? And I see the answer to this is an incontestable Yes - as also clearly stressed in these later paras of the same article:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement, Part - I </span>
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
[...]
The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrific their lives in flames. In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.
Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, <b>Gandhi wrote that âHe would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sisterâ</b> (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).
(What? Like Gandhi himself did? He wants his cowardice to become standard behaviour even for those not suffering from the same? Total loser.)
       From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest. And that was the basis of Gandhian nonviolence and secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, once said âGandhi was really a Mohammedanâ (D Keer, ibid, p-237).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92259[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Beyond disgusting. It may take two buckets to finish processing this junk.
I take back anything I ever said that was positive about Gandhi. I was unforgiveably wrong. All I can see remaining to his 'credit' is that he had a way with words which gave them popular appeal. Otherwise he was little more than a cowed terrorist-lover, who was trying to cover the blood (of others) he helped spill by mouthing deep-sounding platitudes which he attempted to pass off as Hindu Dharma. Worst of all, instead of realising he was the last person in India who should be leading Hindus in any capacity, he still vainly took to power.
Weaker people exist and fear is a natural part of life - and <i>as long as they are not cowards who will sacrifice others in order to save themselves</i> - all Hindus have a duty to look after them, but they should NEVER be allowed in charge. Otherwise they inevitably turn all of a strong wholesome society into a weakminded one that reflects only themselves.
People who are cowards, anti-Hindus, "pseculars" should never lead Hindus. The consequences are unimaginable misery, as happened when Gandhi was accorded any position of importance. In contrasting him with Aurobindo I find that even light takes significant time to cover the distance between the two.
Hindus should only ever allow Kshatriyas - those who are capable, just and have a powerful and daring mind that cannot be daunted - to become our leaders. Our choice in who we look to for leadership is *our* responsibility. But if we pick our leaders well, and then <i>protect them</i> even as they protect us, we may find we will thrive very easily.
It does not matter what the world thinks or says about us (after all, many will be only too happy to have us extincted), but Hindus should completely cease to think psecularly or even secularly: think only of Dharma and Dharmics first. Ever. When our collective existence and success is made foremost in our minds, we will act accordingly. And when we do that, we stand more than a fair chance to defeat all terrorisms and to no longer live the desperate lives of self-defeatist people trying to survive for a little while longer under increasingly compromising circumstances, but to become a *live* people again.
Death to traitors.