How will China's current African adventurism compare with earlier European colonial efforts?

The answer to this question lies in the difference between how Westerners & Asians see the World.

For Asians- Indian, Russian, Japanese & of course, the cornerstone of resurgent Asianism, China- the
central defining feature of civilization is Stability. Democracy, Human Rights & all the associated
nonsense have nothing to do with it. Isolated from foreign influence, all Asian societies, over the past
century, have evolved to suit a doctrine of Stability. Even in open India, you can easily differentiate
between the Westward-looking ever-whining Liberals and the home-grown, ever-silent Right-wing.
For Europeans, the underlying philosophy is that of 'Growth', 'Hope' & 'Change'.

Both philosophies are exploitative, oppressive &, for want of a better word, evil. However, for the
African, the European narrative of 'Hope' is the far worse alternative. Here's a lesson for any
prospective leader, if in doubt- never go for the nice sounding one. It's a trap.

We're all living in Amerika

Amerika ist wunderbar

'Hope', 'Growth', 'Change'- all sound nice & in the hands of Western propagandists, they are very
powerful tools. But one must remember that, irrespective of ideology, all foreign influences are, in
toto, a net risk for the local people. Delusions of 'growth' & 'hope' are more dangerous than
others- especially because they promote a vision of an advancing society- & the easiest way to
'advance' a society is to ensure that it never gets off the ground in the first place. On other hand,
'stability' ensures a society ruled by an iron fist; the fist crushes- yes, of course- but it allows
regeneration, rest & recuperation for an ailing society.

Therefore while the West, both in the past & today, has focused on dismantling existing national
loyalties & allegiances- witness the redrawing of borders in the 'Scramble for Africa' & the never-
ending Civil Wars, China has focused on propping up governments in Kenya, Sudan & Angola.
While the West offers Africa nothing more than an unending stream of mercenaries, bounty hunters &
lawyers, China focuses on sending Engineers, Doctors & Soldiers.

....the phoenix will come if the nest is built;

teaching one to fish is better than giving him a fish...

While the West forces African States to use money printed in the West & use Western banking
facilities, China encourages them to invest in ports, mines &, of course, Chinese know-how & tech.

While the West pays rebel militias to enslave entire villages to rip into virgin forests & unexplored
tantalum mines, China 'encourages' governments to use Chinese companies to lease them for the next
two hundred years. And give Chinese companies contracts to build railways, ports, townships & cities.

While the West goes on & on in a circle while the Congolese Wars kill millions so that a bunch of
French cobalt-eating pigs can fatten in peace (ever seen a news report on the conflict? I thought not),
China quietly pays off the warring factions & ensures that at least part of the country remains open for
business.

While the West stomps on Indian & Pakistani UN peacekeepers unwilling to keep fighting in a
morally-bankrupt war the UN started, on behalf of people who don't even want us there, China votes
in our favour & tries to de-escalate tensions.
Just one more reason why India should wash
her hands of the farce known as the UN

While the West pours grain & guns into Africa in the name of their mythical god, godless Chinese
engineers build combine harvesters & milling factories to ensure that the Africans never need such
blood-soaked aid again.

While the West wrings its hands in impotent half-hearted repentance of enslaving half a continent &
fills its pockets with ill-gotten oil gains by cheering on Islamists, Chinese builds roads so that
government forces can shoot the Islamists.

While the West murders Africa's agriculture by flooding the markets with blood grain, & destroys
Africa's economy by pouring millions of ill-gotten dollars through Christ-loving, Africa-hating NGOs,
the Chinese Engineer labours day & night to ensure the Seed bank is built on time.

You see- the Iron Fist works. The Tyrant is your Friend. The Party is your Ally. If you want a vision
of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face- forever. And remember that it was the best
choice available.
...the evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and
the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the Black
people.

PS:- The West's Neo-Colonialism in Africa Unmasked

The nice thing about reading Chinese reporters is the matter-of-fact way they present their views.
There is none of a Westerner's rhetorical flourishes and little of an Indian Liberal's verbosity. The
mathematical, precise way Shou Wang Mai Tian goes about describing how African agriculture can be
restored should be compulsory reading in India's so-called journalism schools.

Why was Buddhism not demonized like other major Oriental ideologies in the West during the era of
colonialism?

NB: A proper analysis of this question can easily fill a dozen books. To be frank, I am not aware of a
single case where an organized faith was successfully 'demonized' by the West to the point of
extinction. African local folk religions were one thing; Hinduism & Buddhism were quite another.
Furthermore, the only Western power with a demonstrated track record in successful cultural
genocide & mass ethnic strife was Imperial Britain, and even they had a rather spotty record against
religion. Of course, cultural wars are not yet over- but even so, this is a very controversial topic to say
the least.

I will be only discussing the British Empire. They were the only ones who tried on a large enough scale,
and also succeeded to a limited extent.

Now for the answer:-

It was.

The first thing anyone should remember while oppressing someone else is to pick your battles.

The First Rule of War:- Win.

The Second Rule of War:- If you can't, ensure your sons do.

The second thing- especially important while talking about the British Empire- was to remember your
priorities.

The Imperial British had one & only one all-consuming priority in the World- to defend &
exploit the Indian Subcontinent. Everything else- Sri Lanka, Burma, Yemen, Singapore- were nothing
more than padding to cushion any prospective attack upon India itself. While reading any British
historian, do note the seemingly ridiculous things they write about America, Asia, Congo & the World
Wars. And keep in mind the very inconvenient truth they are trying to ignore- that the British Foreign
Policy, for the better part of two centuries, was nothing more than a huge morally bankrupt attempt
to justify the oppression & colonization of India.

I don't know whether such an attitude is even concious- but it is something very interesting.

Anyway:-

Divide & Rule only works if you have two or more factions to pit against each other. If India had been
a purely Hindu state, there'd been no sense in inventing Wahhabism. If India had been a purely Islamic
State, same thing...It was the very fact that India had a very large Muslim population that required the
British to demonize Hinduism, the majority power, & encourage the rise of Wahhabism.

Behold! The joys of Western Civilization!

In Sri Lanka- the only major Buddhist colony of Great Britain, it made little sense to demonize
Buddhism in the Eighteenth Century. The population was a mostly monolithic whole of Sinhalese
Buddhists. The Tamil minority who allegedly had 'been living there for millenia', were either still home
in India or in temporary fishing settlements in the North. When you read some of those old 60s-70s
reports of Sinhalese politicians (or is it Rajpakase's speeches two years ago? I get confused) vowing to
drive the 'alien' Tamils into the sea, do remember that for the Sinhalese, the Tamils are aliens- no
more native to Sri Lanka than Electricity or Gunpowder.

Things changed once the Sinhalese revolted, early in the Nineteenth Century. They were crushed
of course; there have been few finer- & blood-thirsty- armies in the World than the Bengali-Oriya-
Assamese Sepoy Army of the East India Company. So kids, any time some alcohol-soaked Punjabi or
moustache-twirling Rajput talks about their so-called Martial Race valour, remind them that it were
the fish-eating, bespectacled, soft-speaking, effeminate East Indians who crushed their glittering
manly armies.
Kenya, Burma, Libya, China...What shore hasn't known our blood?
The Sahib sleeps in his Bungalows but the Sepoy dies and dies in the ditch.

However, the British faced a major problem then. As Genghis Khan once said- 'Conquering the World
from horse-back is easy. It is dismounting & governing that is difficult'.

Whether it was actually real or merely a form of demarcating themselves from the Tamils in the North-
or simply to cushion the blow of their defeat at East Indian hands, the Sinhalese Chieftains had eagerly
snapped onto the Aryan-Dravidian nonsense & were describing themselves as 'Aryans'. Those morons
still haven't learnt. Go to Sri Lanka & see for yourself.

I have already spoken elsewhere about the importance of culture in a society, and the necessity of
breaking this concept of culture for any invading army. You see- the Liberals are wrong; they have
always been wrong.

God is Real.

God is the ringing of the temple bells. God is the call of the Azan. God is the smell of the Earth during
the monsoons. God is the poetry written by your ancestors. God is the taste of spices in a curry. God is
in the words of your mother-tongue. God is the memories of your childhood. God is in the dirt of your
land, God is in the salt of your blood, God is the God, your Lord, & you will have no other Lords than
him- or else you will die.

You are a lie. You, my friend, are nothing more than a sack of rotting meat-doomed to be either
worm-food or oily smoke. It is God which is real. It is God which has always been real.
There is only the God-Emperor, and He is our Shield and Protector!
For Humanity and Him who is enthroned on Earth!

I am grateful to Sunny Gilli for pointing out this brilliant post by Ron Maimon: Ron Maimon's answer
to For nonbelievers, what is the strongest argument you have heard supporting religion/God?
Conversely, for believers, what is the strongest argument you have heard refuting religion/God?. Do
read it. It is the most brilliant write-up on the delicate relation between the individual, culture & 'God'
that I've seen in my life; and it is even more praiseworthy for its sheer beauty in its conciseness.

For the Imperial British, thus it was necessary that they break the Sinhalese's God. And they did
this.

First, they exiled almost all East Indian troops settled in Sri Lanka; a fact made easier by the 1857 revolt
where practically every single Bengali, Oriya & Assamese soldier rebelled. The current Indian Army- &
its underlying concept of the 'Martial Races'- was originally based entirely on the premise of which
ethnicities were least likely to rebel.

Then, came the dismantling of Sinhalese trade infrastructure. They did this through widespread ethnic
cleansing & cultural genocide. Even now, you'll see that the Sinhalese are mostly concentrated in the
Highlands, while the coasts, especially in the North & East, are primarily of Tamil & Malay stock.
Demographics never lie. History books do.

Yes- 'Malay' stock. Most of Sri Lanka's muslims are actually descended from Malay settlers, brought in
to balance rising Hindu Tamil power.

You'll also notice that the Sinhalese, being tied to the ground, are more focussed on agriculture, while
the Tamils- being more dissociated from the land itself- tended to go for more trade-related or
governmental pursuits. Also, note the population distribution. The Sinhalese have been almost wiped
out from the North & East- the primary sites of the Sinhalese Revolt of 1802, while it's been the Tamils
who have been on the receiving end on the South-East where their ancestors made the mistake of
listening to too many French 'liberte-equalite-stupidite' dilettantes. Note how Sinhalese & Malay
resettling has affected Demographics in that corner.

Now, that we've dealt with the land & blood part of how the British tried to kill Sri Lanka's God,
we come to the crux of the matter. Killing the 'God' part of God- or as the question says,
demonizing Buddhism.

The suppression of Buddhism in Sri Lanka was roughly parallel to how the British went about the
business in India pre-War of 1857. The Buddhist monasteries were taxed to ridiculous extremes while
Churches spouted all over the place. School students were forced to get baptized on graduation- &
jobs were ear-marked only for baptized students. For quite some time, non-registered marriages were
not allowed; and registration was only possible if at least of the partners was Christian. As we all know,
in the vast majority of cases, if one of the parents is Christian, the family ends up converting in the
long run.
Missionaries yesterday. Rebels today. Hell forever.

Around the same time as the rise of Swami Ramakrishna Paramahansa, rose the Buddhist Revivalist
Movement on Sri Lanka, which quite successfully challenged each & every one of these discriminatory
practices. However, now we notice the vital distinguishing feature between the demonization of
Hinduism & the demonization of Buddhism.

For Swami Vivekananda, Hinduism was a vast all-consuming force that was, in itself, superior to
every other school of thought. He may have never said it out loud- but I bet anything that was what
he believed- & with good reason; all said and done, Hinduism is the most free-thinking, enlightened
& civilized of the Great World Religions. On the other hand, Sri Lankan Buddhist Revivalism was a
completely home-grown philosophy, meant only for Sri Lanka and nowhere else. Also- unlike India,
hotbed of sedition & anti-colonialist thought, the Sinhalese were a very subdued, quiet people. Owing
to the pro-Christian education- which had been avoided in India thanks to the sacrifices of the
revolutionaries in 1857, most Buddhist Sinhalese remained uneducated, inward-looking &
philosophically stunted. While Hinduism could send entire armies of students, barristers &
industrialists into the World (an Anglo-Saxon World obviously), Buddhism could send none.
For the Indian is a man just like us, with abilities
far beyond us in fields we once though our own...

And thus Hinduism had to be demonized, had to be crushed, had to be insulted with the entire might
of the Empire. Books had to written, temples had to be torched, political parties funded in opposition,
nations founded to oppose a once-degraded faith, the World's first Nation torn to pieces & millions
butchered to satisfy the hubris of a Dying Empire.

Buddhism simply fell through the cracks. As Empires died & Cultures clashed, Sri Lanka &
Buddhism remained ensconced in a shell of simmering ethnic hatred, Ignorance & petty jealousy- all
sleeping the deep deep sleep of a backwater island nation.

They won't wake up till they were rocked out of it by the roar of bombs of the Tamil-Sinhalese Civil
Wars.

What were the battle tactics used by the Mongols in an urban warfare setting?

Tactical brilliance rarely accounts for much in Human history. Tactical brilliance is the preserve of
the daring ones, the brave ones, the ones who serve as cannon-fodder in wars. History awards the
cowards, the schemers, the vermin of society- not much of 'tactics' there. Instead, I will tell you about
the essence of what urban warfare actually means & why Mongols were so good at it.
Answering such questions is always interesting as it allows me to peel back the veneer of civilization
that appears to cover modern Humanity & expose the facts for what they are. I will tell you what you
really want to know, OP. What you really want to know is the history of atrocities upon civilians
throughout the history of War.

Pretty sick of you now, isn't it? Anyway, glass houses & all that...

Let us, for the sake of argument, accept without question that all Humans are monsters & are
constantly searching for opportunities to hurt their fellow man, woman & child. Let us also assume
that these particular Humans are part of a victorious army & can defeat any force opposing them. Ask
yourself- who dies?

The answer is- the people who don't run.

Urbanites, being usually richer than their rural counterparts, are loath to abandon their riches- & thus,
often have ended up abandoning their lives instead. Further, the average urbanite's skill-set is geared
exclusively to an existence in regions with very high population density, and thus, they know on a
subconscious level that their life will be effectively over within a few days of leaving the safety of the
city. Lastly- 'War' is civilization. Savages don't wage War. Nomads don't wage War- or at least, 'War'
as we know it. Before cities, before villages larger than a single family, Total War was a mystery to
Earth.

What we call 'Urban Warfare' is nothing more than the practice of slaughtering the settled
civilian population, & the latter's (usually pathetic) attempts to fight back. We merely refuse to
see this partly because of our nonsensical talk of civilization- & partly because of what I call 'hyper-
organized religion'.

One great mystery in the history of the World has always been- why did Hinduism & Buddhism
survive the Three Monotheistic faiths? In practical terms, it shouldn't be possible; Pagan faiths are
philosophically, militarily & theological weaker than monotheism. Of course, part of the reason is
because India & China were historically little more than seething masses of ever-warring tribes-
impossible for anyone to conquer in totality. Till date, the only 'Hindu' region within India to actually
go the way of Iran or Turkey was Baluchistan. Border regions like Punjab & Sindh actually had Hindu
populations in the realm of 30%-40% before Partition. Furthermore, even Afghanistan had a
significant Hindu population before Batu Khan's industrialized Mass murdering of the locals. I don't
think the Pashtuns are an Aryan race; they just don't fit in between Indians & Iranians. Hazaras are
clearly Mongol descendants...

Anyway, back to the topic.

By 'hyper-organized religion', I'm referring to these faiths hat have constantly been obsessing
about philosophy. Of course, the Greeks may have started all the brain-wracking about theology- but
among World faiths, there are only three that have taken this nonsense to such ridiculous heights.
Hinduism, Buddhism & Christianity have a wealth of theological material that is simply stunning in its
width & breadth of thought. Islam, though initially limited in its acceptance of such a concept, later
took this up as enthusiastically as the other three. By the time of the Ottomans & the Mughals, their
preachers were as bird-brained as the rest of us...

On the face of it, it seems ridiculous. Why waste so much of a culture's energy on frivolous debates?
Why debate non-entities in whether Christ's poverty was a divine trait or a human one? The answer is
pretty esoteric; I won't be surprised if you don't believe it but here it goes- such nonsense is how an
uberculture avoids slaughtering itself in peacetime.
The innate desire within Humans is to slaughter, ravage & kill. The ultimate end of 'culture' is
to curb these impulses within one population so that they can wielded effectively against
another. That is the simple reason behind every single thought Mankind has ever had- race,
religion, ideology, everything. Thus, a 'hyper-organized' religion, by virtue of wasting so much of its
constituent cultures' energies, allows them to wield their power effectively against aliens. Such a
philosophy also encourages the rise of cities- a geographical point where a culture can centralize its
resources to more effectively forge these into fighting machines. Thus, the Romans, though inferior in
every way to the Gauls when it came to metallurgy, war & 'freedom', were ultimately victors. This is
why the Chinese 'sheep', as described so eloquently by some Chinese general whose name I forget,
were so successful against the Nomadic 'wolves'. This is why the Dark Age Christians won out against
the Vikings & Pagans of the North. This is why the Liberals will ultimately lose against the Fanatics.

Thus such a concept of creating, defending & destroying cities led to the formation of what we call
'urban warfare'. Thus, there is only one single central over-arching theme in all Urban warfare-
end the occupied city's culture. How you do it- physical genocide, cultural genocide, spiritual
genocide- is entirely up to you...

We ignore this because the past two centuries have been anomalies in Human history. The reason for
the prosperity of Western Europeans, the dominant peoples of the past 200 years, is purely because of
their success in maintaining colonies. Such a concept allows them to leech their society of war-
mongering misfits & acquire greater wealth- but also prevents a state of Total war- the destruction of
the opposing cultures. Their success has fostered a global culture of shying away from civilian
casualties- purely on the basis of colonial/ capitalistic- or as we pretend to call it- 'humane'-
argument. Peoples affected by this world view- East Asians, Aryans, Slavs, Hispanics, 'secular' Arabs-
demonstrate such traits- unlike the ones who weren't- Central Africans, Fundamentalist Arabs,
wannabes like Pakistanis etc. This is the 'civilized' people's our greatest strength as well as our
greatest weakness against the 'barbarians'.

Then how does one take cities? What is the best way to conduct urban warfare?

First:- Do not take cities. Do not conduct urban warfare.

Offer the people mercy, and you will save yourself a lot of pain- if & only if you commit cultural
genocide. Cultural genocide united India. Cultural genocide won America the Cold War. Cultural
genocide ensured why Islam, not Mongols, rule half the Earth.

The Mongols did most of their conquest through peace, not war- but in their mercy, they ignored the
first rule of warfare- 'slaughter' your foes- physical, cultural, spiritual, anything. Mongols even went
across their first Great Khan's tenet not to betray their culture- but then again, a pagan culture was
always weaker than a monotheistic culture.

A second corollary to this is to force 'peace' upon the urbanites- by breaking their morale to fight.
Timur did this to Delhi by smashing the garrison outside the gates. Urbanites have grown up eating
honey- as Mao once said, they cannot brook want, sorrow or suffering. The Delhiites- unlike the
Lahoris before them or the Rajputs after them- and as stupid then as they are now, opened the gates
& offered Timur the Slime honors, instead of waiting for the Sultan's armies to return from the East- &
were fittingly butchered for their treachery.

The Untermenschen of Delhi have always been a disgrace to India...

Second:- Famine.
A city is its people. Kill its people, & the city dies. And the best way to kill the people is to cut off their
food supplies. Such an act will force the surrender of any large population. Active warfare has always
been a spectacularly bad idea throughout history. Pyrrhus of Epirus died when a roof tile fell upon him
during a siege. Emperor Shershah Suri died while an anti-sapper tower collapsed while he was
inspecting the guns.

The sensible thing to do was always to starve the people into surrender. Famine was the primary
weapon the British Empire used in its wars in India. Famine was what brought Rome down, not the
screeching of some unwashed barbarians. Famine was what drove the Mongol war machine. Its foes-
dependent on the Earth, shriveled & died. The Mongols, atop the very horses which served as their
sustenance, endured. Till that, Mongols- along with the once-indomitable Vikings- are the only race
known to have taken Russia in winter.

Third:- Disease.

Risky. Very risky. The Mongol hordes, living under the open sky, were usually spared the cross of
Disease- thanks to the blessings of Lord Tengri, who we Indians call Indra & betrayed by starting this
ridiculous talk of Bhakti. Any culture that starts ISKCON is automatically inferior militarily &
philosophically to the one that wrote the Vedas & worships a god described as the 'Destroyer of Stone
Forts'. Here's another trivia question- know what's common between Indra & Yahweh?

Everything. The prevailing view is that the Abrahamic faiths are completely alien to Indo-
European faiths. I personally think it's bullshit. The parallels are as disturbing as they are
incredible...

Anyway, back to the point.

Historians will tell you other seemingly 'logical' or 'scientific' reasons about the Mongol resistance to
disease- but damn them. Most of them are Liberals anyway...

Nevertheless, there is an influential theory that the Black Plague was sparked off due to Mongols
catapulting plague-ridden bodies into Cherozm, Crimea. We also know that the Mongol incursions in
India were associated with outbreaks of plague which thankfully never reached the horrors Europe
experienced, mostly because India never really fell to the Mongols and due to the superior standards
of medieval Indian medical science & sanitation. The marmot, common as a pet and as a food source,
among Mongols even now- is a common vector for plague, and chances remain that the Mongols
may have been spreading the Plague inadvertently- but I call this theory nonsense.

The Mongols must have known what they were doing. Unlike what many think, the ancients weren't
idiots. I won't be very surprised if Genghis Khan's troops spent a lot of time disemboweling marmots
in the months leading up to the Siege of Beijing.

Fourth:- Active, street-to-street fighting.

At this point of time, it doesn't matter what you've done. you have lost. You will need at least ten
times the number the defenders have. You will lose at least fifteen times the number the defenders
do. You will lose many of your best NCO-level officers & maybe a general or two if unlucky. You will
destroy your army's war potential for weeks, if not months. You will ruin the city for years- & if you
have support within the city, may be for centuries.

The Mongols, being a cavalry-centric army, faced extra difficulties in such horrifying scenarios, and
avoided them like Hell. Contemporary writers speak of the Hordes' seemingly whimsical nature,
coming & going at will- but this was more often than not, rooted in solid hatred of anything
resembling closed quarters fighting. Hand-to-hand fighting has always been a stupid idea- especially
when it comes to cities, where even a tiny accident can spark off a riot or a fire which will kill off most
of your army.

The Mongols instead did what every sane army has done- rolled out the artillery. The most recent
episodes of 'tactical urban warfare' by conventional armies- & probably what inspired your question
was conduced by NATO in Iraq & by the warring factions in the Serbian Wars. Neither the Serbs &
their enemies, nor the hordes of NATO are what you'd call 'good' armies. Now if you're going to
start on NATO's invincible god-machines or their endless treasure chests, please spare me. I'm not a
war-loving kid obsessed with weapons. Go away.

Sensible urban warfare is what the Croats did against the Serbians in Krajina & the Pakistanis did in
Bangladesh. Flush them out through famine, and butcher the civilians in the open. And they did this
under the very eyes of the UN & NATO. The Brave ones die. The Vermin survive.

Hulegu Khan spent weeks bombarding Baghdad with some of the greatest catapults built in history.
The Emperor Akbar was known for his artillery corps, the same for Napoleon. The Wehrmacht's ace-in-
the-hole were its mobile artillery; the Soviets, their traditional artillery doctrine. Often outnumbered,
lightly armored & poorly trained with melee weapons (save the lance), the Mongols' best bet was to
use their superior engineering skills, greater experience & discipline in warfare & access to
some of the first gunpowder weaponry in the medieval age to devastate cities & 'encourage'
them to open the gates.

Else, they will ride off...

'At this point of time, it doesn't matter what you've done. you have lost'. There's a reason they used to
be so successful. Tactical brilliance wasn't it.

Why did Veer Sawarkar form Hindu Mahasabha if he was atheist?

Culture is the physical manifestation of an individual's spiritual immortality. We humans- despite our
mortal bodies, crude natures & flawed minds- are luminous beings who can exist for millennia, travel
across oceans at will, and speak to entire generations at once- under the right conditions. For this one
& only one condition must be met- the individual must overcome their delusions of mortality &
instead identify with an immortal reality.

Once that is done, all else follows.

vidyamkavidyamkayastadvedobhayamsaha
avidyayamrtyumtirtvavidyayamrtamasnute

The primary fallacy the average Atheist makes in the course of their reading is their belief that they've
somehow slipped off the chains of religion's delusion & developed some sort of individualistic
freedom. That's nonsense. The only thing they've done is exchange one set of chains for another.
There is absolutely no difference between the rituals of organized religion & the Flag marches of
Communism- or for that matter, Liberal Socialism. There is no Heaven- religious or liberal. There was
never any heaven. Merely duty- never-ending thankless duty, as part of a unknowing, all-
knowing greater being with no sense of individual good, evil or even indifference.

That is what the Bhagavad Gita actually says.

That is what Liberals don't understand. Human beings want to, have to be part of a greater whole. This
sentiment is the very basis of Humanity, its civilizations & its ethos. Religion- like all ideologies, is
merely another set of lies meant to justify the existence of yet another unjust, exploitative society
(because all 'societies' by their very collective existence, are unjust & exploitative of the individual. But
that is okay- because Human Beings either want to exploit or be exploited themselves. Even the oh-
so-holy Liberals are bound by their own set of untruths, and thus must constantly be justifying &
arguing over a group of nonentities. They do not see that their stand of absolute knowledge is no
different from that adopted by the Christians & Muslims when they were persecuting/ being
persecuted by the Pagans who preceded them.
Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without
mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

There is not a single argument Liberals have that hasn't been raised ten thousand times earlier-
by St Thomas Aquinas, by Lao Tzu, by the Buddha himself, by the Mahabharata. There is not a single
argument in the God Delusion that hasn't been discussed far more exhaustively, dedicatedly &
comprehensively in the Tripitakas. There isn't a single criticism of the Bible that wasn't known to or
countered by St Thomas Aquinas.

The individuals concerned- St Thomas Aquinas, the Buddha- were not only far more intelligent,
learned & enlightened- than your Liberal thinks, they were, in all probability, some of the most
intelligent beings to grace this species. The idea that they were foolish enough to fall under some
sort of superstitious nonsense is ridiculous. They- we believe because we choose to. We chose to
in order to defend our chosen group. The virtues or sins of this group- whether this group be
Christians, Hindus, Muslims or even the people known in certain circles as 'Sickulars'- don't even figure
in this equation.

“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that
the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind
itself is controllable – what then?”

Thus we clearly see that the tribe is the fundamental necessity as well as the ultimate goal of
Human existence. How this tribe defines itself is called 'culture' & this 'culture' in turn can be defined
by multiple factors- race, religion, the Communist Manifesto, the Mein Kampf, Nietzsche, the God
Delusion- & of course, organized religion. Any tribe, by virtue of the numerical superiority &
philosophical strength it provides to its members, is superior to any number of individuals &
thus, dominates the latter through slaughter & plunder.

Therein lies the crux of why the three great Monotheistic faiths- Christianity, Islam & Judaism- have
destroyed virtually every single pagan faith in the World- save for in India & China. Paganism is
simply not robust enough an ideology to effectively bind a people together. It is too
individualistic, offers too many choices, has too many freedoms. Don't mistake 'freedom' for 'the lack
of oppression'. Murdering babies (though that might've been pure Roman anti-Carthiginian
propaganda) or burning widows (which was the British digging up nearly extinct traditions as anti-
Hindu propaganda) are oppression- but they do not connote a lack of 'freedom'. By the mere allowing
of choice within one's spiritual- & thus cultural fabric, paganism weakens the tribe- & thus paves the
way for its own demise.

Then why did India & China survive? The answer is simple. What is the biggest factor that sets
India & China apart from the World?

Quantity has a quality all of its own

And thus our hordes have given these two civilizations the immortality not even Eternal Egypt or
Mighty Rome could aspire to. Like dragons, we outfought our pagan foes. Like monkeys, we cheated
the Mongol tumens. Like rats we out-bred our 'civilized' monotheist oppressors. Thus we survived.

But this state of affairs could've never continued for ever. Fertility rates fall. Schools open & teach new
lies in place of old ones. People, in their eternal search for suffering, hanker after new, more horrifying
tortures. What people forget is that by leaving their religion, they are effectively abandoning their own
culture- & thus, the very basis of Human civilization. True- they do gain a 'better', 'softer' society, a
society more amenable to individualistic bliss- but such a state of affairs can only be temporary
before such hedonistic loosely-bound members are swept away by hard-unthinking orthodoxy.
Hindus- long protected from the depredations of Islam & Christianity by their vast population,
multifarious ethnic divisions & warlike nature- by the early 1900s were open to such de-culturalization
thanks to several events not under this answer's purview.

Thus, it was evident to any well-read Indian by the early 1900s that India, as a concept, was doomed
to extinction. All said and done, India is a Hindu concept- created by Hindus, populated by
Hindus, & defined by Hindus. Don't give me that 'secular' nonsense. Hinduism, like all Indo-
European faiths, does not correlate morality with divinity, and thus shows a tolerance for other
religions unknown to any faith currently existing on Earth (yes, even Buddhism)! Christians would've
got by with their belief in a mythical Jerusalem. Muslims would've gone on praying to a Arab stone.
But India is India! We are neither Israel or Arabia!

And thus was born Hindutva. Racial pride- for a made-up race no one believed in. Cultural pride- for
a non-existent culture in a land with millions. Civilizational pride- for a civilization that had long
passed into legend & fallen into barbarism. Religious pride- for a made-up religion that had to be
carved out from the very forces it meant to oppose.

I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance

What Savarkar being a Atheist- a real Atheist, unlike the anti-national conformist phonies of
Quora & the Indian Liberals- realized was that Hinduism was unlikely to survive for long-
merely on account of being a pagan faith. And with Hinduism would've gone the very essence
of India. Think of it yourself. There are thousands of Dance traditions in India. How many of them are
Islamic in origin? How many are Christian in origin? How many ragas have the Communists authored?
What good have the hordes of the Indian media done for Humanity? After one thousand years, what
good would a bunch of shouting news anchors have accomplished?

And yet, we play the same raga Bhairavi the Emperor Samudragupta once played on his Veena a
thousand years before the first ship sailed around Africa, the same raga Ustad Bismillah Khan
performed every day on the ghats of Varanasi until a few years ago.

Thus Savarkar remade Hinduism. From Christianity came the purpose & violence of militaristic
organization. From Islam, came the stress on ideological purity & defensiveness. From Judaism came
the emphasis on free enterprise & racial-religious existence. The World's oldest religion was reforged
in the very image of the newest- in order to withstand a new crueller, more ignorant Humanity. What
he did was no different from what Ataturk did when he rebuilt a new Turkey form the ashes of the
Ottoman Porte or when Mao took the most bitter, war-torn people of the World & recast them into a
united China.

He was a Nationalist. Everything he did was for the Nation. It is for posterity to judge his actions, not
us- but to judge his intentions or his character? To be judged by intellectual pygmies who haven't had
a single original thought of their own? Veer Savarkar deserves better.

Who was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?

The most cold-eyed, practical ubermensch of our times.

We did not win the war with prayers, but with the blood of our soldiers.

I can give you a run-down for who he was & what he did & all that Wikipedia nonsense, but that's just
not my style. Instead I'll tell you the real little secret behind the idea of Ataturk- an idea,
mentioning which in Turkey, will get you a one-way ticket to a Turkish jail- pretty much the same thing
as Hell...

The idea of Kemalism had its origins in 1648 when the Treaty of Westaphalia was signed. Broadly
speaking, it forced sovereign nation-states to mutually recognize the concept of Nationhood &
National borders in order to secure legitimacy in the eyes of other Nations.

But, Trilochana, you say- this is a good idea, isn't it?

To this, Papa Tikip says- ostensibly so, yes. But ask yourself, what is a nation?
Ask yourself- What would Genghis Khan have done?

To the Liberal American, a nation is a melting bowl where people of all ethnicities, races, religions etc
can live in peace as long as they follow some sort of bastardized Anglo-Saxon puritanical IRS-worship.

To the Conservative American, a nation is a land of Jeezus-worshipping, homophobic, xenophobic cult

that ought to be White- or constantly apologizing for not being White.

To the average Indian, a nation is a group of warring ethnicities banded together by common
xenophobia & a schizophrenic attitude towards our past Anglo-Saxon masters. Explains why Indians
love Russia more but do better in the US (coasts)...
This self-hating wannabe-White is the exception to my coast hypothesis...

But Americans & Indians are exceptions in this wide World of ours. For most part, a nation is a place
where the majority has absolute rights to oppress, rape, torture & murder minorities in peace.

....either they kill him or they injure his nose, his eye, or his ears, or he calls him to account, his wife, his
sons, his brother, his sister, his relatives by marriage, and his family, whether it be a male servant or a
female servant. Then they revile him in public and treat him as of no account...'Civilization'?
Roflmao...We haven't changed in over 5 millenia...
The problem with Asian, East European & African countries- the constant series of revolts, riots, & the
grim spectre of unrest that plagues non-Western nations and causes every single Western writer to go
about preaching about the White master race (read between the lines of every guardian article, see for
yourself)- is actually very simple. We merely happen to be following Western rules in a non-
Western world.

The great appendix to the nonsensical Westphalian idea of Statehood was Woodrow Wilson's theory
of Nation-states. In Wilson's defence, he actually thought it to be a good idea; it was a good idea for
Europe- where centuries of ethnic cleansing & genocide had created a nice patchwork of monolithic
ethnic blocks throughout the continent. The one exception to his plans were the Germans who, pre-
1945, had the irritating (to the Anglo-Saxon World) of spreading everywhere like flies- from Alsace to
Wallachia.

So, the Allies genocided the Germans everywhere outside 'Germany'.

Ever seen some of the huge Churches in the Balkans & Poland? More than half of them have little in
common with what the Slavs have built. It's pure German stuff. Well, ask yourself- where are the
Germans? If you bother to read up on the Crusaders, you'd find that most of these 'French' Crusaders
actually had all sort of Germanic names. Well, where are they all now?

"All nations are the same"- Hermann Goering

Turkey (& Russia & India & other savage barbarian peoples like us) had one great problem during the
twentieth century. We simply hadn't committed enough genocide (though in India's case, it's
debatable who would've been genocided. Too much diversity, no clear majorities. I know of the 75%
Hindu nonsense; but most Hindus don't want to be Hindus anyway).

The end of World War 1 saw the spectre of a Turkey not even a tenth of the size of the Ottoman
Empire. You see- Turks had always been a minority in Turkey itself. There are only so many people
who can ride on a caravan. They dominated the Slavic, Greek, Pontic (They were not Greeks. I know
what Wiki says. I don't care. The Romans didn't call them Greeks. What was good for the Romans is
good enough for me), Armenian, Arab residents of Anatolia & the Balkans- but never in history, were
they ever anything more than a particularly energetic & capable minority. They didn't even take the
Islam thing seriously for most part.

Demotic Greeks in yellow. Pontics in orange. Cappadocians in green with individual towns indicated.
Shaded regions do not indicate that Greek-speakers were a majority.

And we're not even talking about the Arabs, Armenians, Kurdis, Arabs, Alawites etc etc...

The entire West was an Armenian front. South was Kurdish. That Levantic extension was Arab/ Alawite
territory controlled by the French. The Anatolian Heartland itself had huge minority populations of
Jews, Arabs, Druze and what not. You don't run an economically successful Empire by antagonizing
your member Nations; unlike what most Westerners think, there is a very clear difference between
Traditional Empires & Colonial Empires.

However, when World War 1 ended, Ottoman softness had no place in a World dominated by
Western hardness. Turkey had committed the greatest sin possible- they had lost. And thus were they
punished for their sins by the prospect of Armenian-backed Russian assaults, French-backed Arab
revolts, Western-backed Greek wars & of course, the sceptre of Communism. Even worse, several
Turks had fallen under the spell of British-style Wahhabism & were actively preaching religion-
anathema to Ataturk. There was no god at Gallipoli. There is no god anywhere. (Some will call my
writing victim-blaming. To these people- downvote, block & report me. I don't care. Go away).
So much god in this picture. Roflmao...

Multi-ethnicity is one of the greatest challenges a Nation-State can face. It doesn't work. Period. It
might work in America where they put everything in a belnder & create some sort of fetid stinking
nonsense, or in India which is the greatest exception in the history of everything- but it usually never
works. A Wilsonian Ottoman Empire would've been no different from the horror that is Sub-Saharan
Africa- or even South Asia. Dozens of small nations, divided on basis of religion & race, constantly
warring, murdering & conspiring against each other- all thanks to botched borders drawn
(intentionally) by Westerners. They- Turks, Greeks, Pontics, Armenians- everyone'd have been
permanent basket-cases, mere resource sources to be exploited by Western industrialists,
markets for Western weapons & playthings for the Al Saud in the South.
Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians,
Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national
relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because
Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities.

It would've been sheer horror. And Ataturk did what he had to do in order to prevent this from
happening. It was a question of slaughter or be slaughtered- the old human story. Indra and
Vritra. Cain and Abel. Beowulf and Grendel. Thor and Jormungandr.

Ataturk slaughtered his foes. Ataturk won.

He raised the sceptre of the Turkish-backed Third Reich & ensured French silence & compliance when
he cleansed Arabs & Jews from Antioch.
He played White Hall against India Office & lifted British protection from the Wahhabi Turks.
He pitted the Armenians against the Kurdis, and swooped in when the former had been laid low.
He conspired with the Bolsheviks against the Fascists & the Imperialists against the Christians (or at
least those who believed the nonsense), and destroyed the Greeks.

Thus, he made a Turkey for the Turks. And Turks to populate his new Turkey.

This is the deep, dark secret of Kemalism. National existence. At all costs. At whatever cost. God, Race,
Rights, Freedom- everything is dispensable, as long as the Nation survives. The Nation. Always the
Nation. Greater than foreign laws. Greater than mere ideology. Greater even than the sum of its
People.
It's all very well- but if you drop that flag, they'll nuke you. Better a clean fall than a messy radiation
death...

This is what Liberals don't understand. This is, in itself, the very essence of modern Nationalism- the
ability to sacrifice all at the altar of National existence. Ataturk cared nothing about Religion. He cared
little about Race. He, in all likelihood, harboured no delusions about the non-existent differences
between Human Beings. He, more than any Western leader- Churchill, Hitler, FDR, understood the real
simplicity of Human Brotherhood- All Humans are Monsters. For him, every single death, every
single horror, every single sacrifice was done purely for Hope, the Hope that one day, a better Species
will walk on this Earth and that one day, this species will have no more need for Sacrifice again.

When the Turks start their mindless hypocritical chanting of 'Kemalism'

(Those frauds elected Erdogan & support ISIS, fie upon them!) or when the West gnashes it teeth about
Armenia (even though they were some of the most enthusiastic killers in the whole grim business!), they
fail to understand the very essence of Ataturkism- the idea of bringing peace- no matter how
blood-stained & immoral- to a World that neither wants nor deserves it.
Peace at home, peace in the world

This is real beauty. This is real horror.

I am horrified when I read details about people trying to revise history, especially Nazi Germany. Is it
likely that many people of future generations will not believe in Nazi atrocities?

Revising history is one of the most common methods how the Farm maintains control of the Sheep.
Your fear is perfectly valid. Within five hundred years, few will believe in the reality of the
Holocaust, & Israel & NATO will have as much historical relevance as Carthage or the Kushanas.

Less than three hundred kilometres from my home, there are settlements of a tribe called the
Santhals. Once they lived over the entire Dandarkaranya- one of the largest Forests of the World,
spreading over five Indian States. It was one of the last places in India to be 'civilized'- given the
dubious benefits of urbanism, organized agriculture & centralized government; as late as the 1400s,
'civilized' Oriya & Sultanate armies were battling for supremacy in the place. In the late 1800s,
however, the Santhals were nearly wiped out from Orissa & Andhra Pradesh- simply because they had
the gall to oppose the usurious 90% tax rates, regular rapes & murders, the dreaded Sunset laws, and
the many other crimes being committed by the Officers of the British Empire.
You:- Maybe they were just bringing 'civilization' to the Santhals?

A few decades ago, when I was in school, I had noticed something funny. There were reams of papers
in our history books of some remote people called the 'Jews', slaughtered by some more remote
people called the 'Germans'. Such an act was called a 'genocide'; and the incident itself was called a
'Holocaust'. Despite the grandiose name though, it was evident that 'genocide' was in no way a
complete act. The Jews survived; it was evident that the completion or failure of 'genocide' had no
relation with its moral brutality.

Innocent Oriya student as I was, I'd been compelled to ask how what happened to the Jews at the
hands of the Nazis was any different from what had happened to the Santhals, my brothers, at the
hands of the British. Both had been oppressed. Both had been massacred. Both had been forced into
labour centres & concentration camps.
Papa Tikip:- Lies, Lies & Goddamned lies. The Santhals had been 'civilized' long before the first ship
sailed out of Calcutta harbour!

But the Jews won the genocide lottery while Santhals were relegated to the status of unpersons
in World History. My teachers couldn't give a proper answer back then.

Now that I am less innocent & more cynical, it is evident that what happened to the Santhals was the
norm, & what happened to the Jews was a once-in-history exception. This is was not because of
some special regard the Allies had for the Jews- indeed, the West has been among the most
enthusiastic murderers of Jews throughout history. If it had not been for the necessity of creating
some sort of great moral justification for opposing the Nazi campaigns- campaigns no more morally
bankrupt or ethically twisted than what the Allies had been up to themselves in the non-White lands
of the World- the Jews would've been happily consigned to the dustbin of history by the Allies. Even
now, Israel owes more to the Apocalypse-obsessed wannabe-suicides of the American Right-wing
than to the overeducated hordes of Liberal Europe.

Genocide pays. Every single time.

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

The mark of a genocide is that the society drops completely out of Human existence. What the Nazis,
foolishly, thought they could do with weapons, pure demographic certainty will accomplish in time.
Israel's population growth is nowhere near replacement levels; the 3 per woman figure trotted out by
Israeli politicians is in fact a figure heavily influenced by the so-called Traditionalist morons- who are
all Israel-hating, welfare-guzzling, anti-nationalistic, god-obsessed freaks who eschew military service
& national pride in favour of actively sabotaging their country from the inside. They also have a
fertility rate of 7 per woman; they will be the majority within a few decades. Good luck to the IDF then.

These days, population- not weapons- determine victory.

The situation is even worse in the West. With Jews under siege in Europe, where the long simmering
anti-Semitic sentiment among Christians & the callow mindless economic bungling of the Liberals will
soon (and has) combine spectacularly with the rage of the unemployed Muslim misfit youth, the onus
for 'defending' Israel will lie more & more on the US. But then again, the pro-Israeli lobby is already
on decline over there...

To maintain any sort of historical authenticity over an incident, it is necessary that the
benefactors of that history maintain a certain level of power over the Sheep. Unlike what it
commonly pedalled in the classrooms of the so-called Free World & believed by the Sheep learning in
those institutions, all thought-even their own- are but an expression of propaganda in favour of their
own culture. As such the 'truth' as defined by them has no more or no less 'reality' than the most
obnoxious lies of the Fat vermin ruling North Korea.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

In either case, the sole purpose of history, barring a few isolated circumstances, is to harness the
power of the unthinking, unwashed for the purposes of Total War. Primitive societies- like the tribal
militias of Congo, the Nazis of the Third Reich or the Wahhabi hordes of the Levant- leverage
this sense of historical authority by means of juvenile expressions of sacrifice & cultural
superiority. Sophisticated societies, instead, leverage this on the myth of 'Goodness' &
'Righteousness'- much as the Chinese tried with the foreign invaders during the so-called Boxer
rebellion very successfully. For the current American Empire, it is necessary that their citizens remain
ignorant of the pure Evil associated with their land so that their tax dollars can continue to fund the
mass-murdering juggernaut that is the American Foreign Service.

Even in cases where the West has 'owned' up to its sins- consider the chest-beating associated with
Vietnam, there is absolutely no debate about the cases where the West was victorious. There is
absolutely no debate about the high-handed actions of NATO in Guatemala or Serbia or the Congo.
Or the fact that the US had come to the cusp of Thermonuclear war with India in 1971 because we, in
ignorance of the holy tenets of 'Freedom' & 'Democracy' had dared interfere with the workings of a
Holy American Empire-backed genocide in Bangladesh.
"I want the Indians blamed for this, you know what I mean? We can't let these goddamn, sanctimonious
Indians get away with this. They've pissed on us on Vietnam for 5 years, Henry (Kissinger)" - Richard
Nixon, Grand Elector of the Holy American Empire.

The average America's reaction to such claims is not merely disbelief but a sort of unaccepting
physical horror no different from that seen among the shocked Party members dying of heart
attacks on the floor of the Supreme Soviet while Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin. Similar
reactions are also noted every time someone brings up the continuing spectre of French exploitation
of Africa- as the debates between Ms Chiron & her detractors on Quora provide clear proof, or the
British cultivating Wahhabi fanatics in Arabia- to the extent where all the 'teachings' by Al Wahhab
may be nothing more than a huge British-made fraud, or the famous war famines of India- which, over
a period of 100 years, killed more people than both World Wars.

Even a mere 40 years, the British were yet again involved in genocides which remain not only
unknown to the general Western public but also to the very people who shared borders with the
victims. The forced displacement of the inhabitants of Diego Gracia- leading to complete cultural
genocide of the Chagosi, their financial ruin as well as the slow, gradual death of the People
themselves- is even now an unprintable chapter of World history. And given the fact that Diego Gracia
is the Free World's first line of Battle against the Indian Armed Forces, it'll be a cold day in Hell before
the Chagosi get anything resembling justice.
"We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will
remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls...Along with the Birds go some
Tarzans or Men Fridays ..."
- Baron DH Greenhill, war hero, defender of 'Freedom' & 'Human Rights'

Things get even more hilarious when it comes to Kenya. Yes, you read it right. Hilarious. There comes
a point when an absolute nihilist like me can't deal with the horror Western Officials have
dished out in the Tropics and must take refuge in mindless laughter.
“They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force--nothing to boast of, when you have it,
since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others.” - Joseph Conrad.
"Only ninety-five whites were killed in the [Mau Mau Rebellion], thirty-two of them civilians. During that
period, more whites were killed in traffic accidents in Nairobi alone...According to their own estimates,
the British security forces killed 11,500 Mau Mau. For every wounded and captured man, there were
seven dead. The number of civilian deaths was never reported. 80,000 Africans were imprisoned in
concentration camps, where many died. A strip forty-eight miles long filled with barbed wire and mines
was built by forced labour in order to cut the guerrillas off... Other forced labourers built 800 fortified
villages, into which the Kikuyu people were forced to move."

-Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing.

"In 2005, I provided a detailed account of this system in Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in
Kenya. I discovered that British forces wielded their authority with a perverse colonial logic: only by
physically and psychologically atomising almost the entire Kikuyu population of 1.5 million could
colonial authority be restored and the civilising mission reinstated.
I used archival evidence collected in Kenya and Britain, along with witness testimony that I collected
from hundreds of detention survivors.

A number of former detainees told me that electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire.
As I wrote: "Bottles (often broken), gun barrels, knives, snakes, vermin, and hot eggs were thrust up men's
rectums and women's vaginas. The screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau
suspects, ostensibly to gather intelligence for military operations, and as court evidence." At the time, the
British government sought to circumvent international accords. Forced labour was constantly imposed in
the camps. Kenya's defence minister had said of the use of detainee labour: "We are slave traders and
the employment of our slaves are, in this instance, by the Public Works Department."

- Caroline Elkins, responding to Criticism to her book, Imperial Reckoning, in the Guardian by
Niall Ferguson.

And yet, we find that Caroline Elkins is a no-namer whose book was panned by critics, rejected by
nations, and will not enjoy a tenth of the adulation given to Ferguson, doyen of historians across the
World! Lindqvist too, all things considered, is a crank who will never enjoy any sort of serious attention
from any of the so-called great intellectuals in the so-called great colleges doting this wide World.
"I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to.
because the Party does not wish it"

Thus, we have seen it can be comprehensively, if not completely, proved that all History is nothing
more than an opinion pushed by the prevailing Empire- in this case, the endless armies of the
West. But similar, we must remember that absolute power, no matter how seemingly absolute, is
destined to fall. In case of the West, while they face challenges little different from what previous all-
powerful Empires have faced- profligate wastage of resources, massive immigration, falling population
amidst growing hedonism & societal unrest, they also face the sceptre of nuclear war as well as
growing uncertainty over resource control in an increasingly globalized World.

In this context, it is assured that succeeding generations might come under the control of a regime,
whose existence is not dependent on the some of the sacred cows of the current West-ruled World-
the sacredness of the so-called anti-Fascist cause, the immutability of the nonsensical Nuremberg
trials, the righteousness of the Breton Woods agreement- & thus will have little cause to push the
Holocaust narrative onto the World's conciousness. Further, it is highly likely that any future Empire
might well be Atheistic or even Pagan, in which case, they would have zero reason to believe the
Biblical bullshit about the Apocalypse & the 'Promised Land'. If this future Empire is Muslim- well, we
all know what a farce 'secularism' ultimately is...
Lions led by the Donkeys...It might just be Israel's Epitaph one day....

History, as Julian Barnes wrote, is where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of
documentation. After a few hundred years, there will be no American Empire- the greatest guarantor
of the Holocaust story. And further, all documentation- be it Hitler's Mein Kampf, or Stormfront's anti-
Semitic rants, or the Wahhabis' calls to slaughter Israelis, or National Geographic's painstakingly
researched documentaries on the horrors of the Second World War- will be worth as much as- or
even worth less than- a single copy of Germania.

And then you'll find that the Holocaust has as much relevance to Humanity as the movement of
the Sea Peoples.
...they make a desert, and call it peace...

Is China playing a centuries-spanning "long game," using wisdom from Warring States literature, to
position themselves as the future lone superpower of the world?

No, it isn't. It is trying to subvert the current American World Order- but that's the rational & virtuous
thing to do after all.

But there's nothing like your mythical 'Long game'; in fact it smacks too much of the old British
stereotypes about the 'Chinese Devils' for my taste. That guy in the article, Michael Pillsbury, is a war-
obsessed danger to Humanity.

Which group is worse: Boko Haram or ISIS?

At this juncture, it's undoubtedly Boko Haram.

I don't know how many times I have said this:- the ISIS is finished. Gone. Dead. They are shuffling
along like a headless chicken too dumb to know it's dead- but they've lost all their teeth- if they even
had any in the first place.

It's stupid for an insurgency to make a grab for less than complete, legitimate power. It's stupid for an
insurgency to go mano-a-mano with Empires- or even Nations like the Kurdis- with resources far
exceeding theirs. It's stupid for an insurgency to mess up its propaganda campaigns & lose sight of
claims of its ideological superiority. (Ref: Trilochana Rout's answer to How can we destroy the Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)?)
ISIS is finished.

In case of Boko Haram however, we face a real challenge.

Take out a map of Africa's religious distribution. Look at what is roughly the 10 degree Parallel.

The entire middle of the Continent- up to 10 degrees north & south of the Sahel is a gigantic war-zone.
Religion is only a part of the entire horror.
This is the Sahel. Coast in Arabic. Whenever you see a place called something like 'Shore', 'Meeting
ground' or 'Border', rest assured it's been a war-torn hell-hole for most of its existence.
Conformism is Bliss. Resist any sign of assimilation.
The natural inclination every intelligent organism possesses is the urge to kill, which far
surpasses the ordinary urge to breed within most living beings. Hate & Xenophobia are as
fundamental building blocks of Human Civilization as Fire & Iron- probably more. Chimpanzees know
nothing of metal & yet butcher their own in full-fledged ethnic wars regularly. In all cases,
Conformism is the path to 'civilization', not xenophilia.

Yes, Chimpanzees have culture, you speciest maniacs! You thought no fur & two thumbs made you
special, you stupid naked ape?

Anyway...

The Sahel is where Arab (or people who think of themselves as Arab) meet Blacks (or people who think
of themselves as Black), Islam meets Christianity (& pagans; but we pagans have been pretty much
walking corpses for the past two millenia. Ignore us), where the desert meets the Tsetse fly, the Arab
Slave-trader meets the White Colonial officer, the nomadic raider meets the settled farmer.

It's where the Roman met the Parthian, the Han met the Mongol.

It's where Cain met Abel.

It's where the first nomadic cattle-herder met the first settled farmer. The nomad's goat ate the
farmer's crops. And blood flows.

I don't know much about Nigeria; practically all my reading about Africa has been about Islamic Africa,
the South & Central. But it really doesn't take a genius to figure out what went wrong with this
country. It's got all the classic signs of a post-British Colonial disaster- just like India & Israel.
Read up on the Partition & you'll find that a brainless ball slicing India apart with an wooden ruler is
pretty much what happened in reality. Radcliffe, the butcher of India, had never been to India in his life
before, & didn't speak a word of any Indian language or even deigned to meet an Indian representative-
Congress or Leaguer- throughout what was, for all practical purposes, his holiday in India.

First:- It had a huge religious- & thus, correlating to an Ethnic divide. Look at the map. You see- the
Liberal fad about Freedom of Religion is nonsense. Religion is, in most cases, a question of Ethnicity.
That's why I don't agree with Liberals & their preaching about religion being the 'Root of all Evil' , as
Dawkins put it so very ineloquently...

Second:- It was ruled by the British with their usual Wahhabism-spreading insanity. (Ref: Trilochana
Rout's answer to Can anyone give a comparison of the Middle East before and after the discovery of
oil?)

Third:- It pretty much never had a chance. Before leaving, the British rigged Nigeria's elections to
ensure a pro-British Northern party's victory. If you read up on Nigeria, you'll notice that the 'demand
for Independence' as they call it was almost entirely localized on the Coasts; the North seemed pretty
happy with their British overlords & Wahhabi preachers.
(Ref: Britain rigged election before Nigerian independence).

If you want to know more about this, just read a good book. But Papa Tikip knows that the average
Quoran is little better than the Fbites he or she mocks- & must be fed information in nice, little bite-
sized pieces. So, just read this instead:-User's answer to Did Europeans purposely divide Africans to
cause as many ethnic conflicts as possible? .

But, Trilochana, you maniac, just what has all this to do with the question?

To answer this, Papa Tikip must first go back to the wisdom of the ancients & then onward:-

First:-

"What is a true bastion of iron? It is the masses, the millions upon millions of people who genuinely and
sincerely support the revolution. That is the real iron bastion, which it is impossible, and impossible, for
any force on earth to smash."

- Mao.
The greatest Nation-builder in a century of great Nation-builders

Boko Haram is a full-fledged Ethnic war by Northern Sultans, who ruled the Southerners through War
& Slavery before the coming of the Whites, in a way the ISIS- with its Chechen core & Qatari dollars-
can never be. The first Ethnic War was stopped in its tracks by the Tsetse fly back in the 900s; but now
with modern medicine & modern Wahhabism, it has been reborn in a form more violent & brutal than
ever before. And to counter it, we don't have war-hardened Middle Easterners but (relatively) peaceful
Nigerians. No force on Earth can stop the will of the people- in this case, the Northern Islamists of
Nigeria.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Second:- They have absolutely no one capable of countering them. They're funded by the Wahhabi
hordes of Saudi Arabia & Qatar, bolstered by every warmongering NATO-approved mercenary who
helped butcher Gaddafi's Libya, and trained by the best wackos from Sudan to Pakistan. Even the
West is in their favour. Don't believe me? Still think that people like me are the Great Enemy whom the
Free World must destroy?
"Americans are good people. They have no aggressions against us and they like us as we like them. They
must know I don't hate them. I love them.… Americans don't know about the outside world. The majority
have no concern and no information about other people." - Muammar al-Gaddafi.

(Ref: http://scgnews.com/is-the-us-government-funding-boko-haram-bringbackourgirls)

(Ref: CIA Covert Ops in Nigeria: Fertile Ground for US Sponsored Balkanization)

Even if the West does not intentionally aid the Boko Haram (we Indians hear that 'intentionally'
disclaimer a lot...), its actions in the Congo this decade have been disturbing to say the least. Goodluck
Jonathan would've to either an idiot or a lunatic to let the International (read- Western) 'peace-
keepers' into his country. He didn't; good for him & Nigeria!

Third:- There is no scope for the proper leeching of Nigerian society. I have described again & again
how every society to ever exist remains in a constant state of conflict until the purging catharsis
of war & civil strife quiet it down. The West was lucky enough to own plenty of slaves to bleed &
slaughter; and it still didn't quiet down until the World Wars. The Soviets, the Chinese & Indians bleed
themselves. The Iranians did as well.

Both Nigeria & the Middle East haven't finished this phase in their societal evolution yet.

However, while the West does show a modicum of understanding for the travails & views of the
average Middle Easterner- Saudi, Qatari, Kurdi, Sadrite, Druze, anyone; their attitude towards
Africans has, as far as I've ever seen in my life, ranges somewhere between humouring a
petulant child to chastising an ignorant one.

It's actually very disturbing when you think about it...African Wars seldom end- mostly because the
outside World simply doesn't want them to end. Somebody in the outside world always has a stake.
When I read about the millions slaughtered in Kenya & Congo, I cannot help but feel grateful to our
leaders, scientists & bureaucrats for giving our armies their nuclear swords.

Nothing scares off the warmongers better than the promise of Global Apocalypse...

The final argument, forever and ever. Amen.

Fourth:- As I mentioned earlier, the sole reason the Islamic invasion into Africa ever stalled was the
Tsetse fly. And Malaria. And a host of other terrible diseases that make their home in the regions
around the Equator...When it comes to war between Man & Microbe, the two most challenging
battlegrounds are Africa & India (The Subcontinent). But while we Indians are defended by our vast
bureaucracy & armies against the scourge of disease, things are not the same in most parts of Africa.
Unless you have a huge dedicated effort such as Kick Polio Out of Africa led by a giant like Mandela,
your efforts will stall & be nullified in the course of time.
The last ubermensch of our times...

That is exactly what happened in Nigeria. Islamists in Northern Nigeria regularly murder & threaten
anti-polio activists on a scale not even equalled in the most lawless regions of Pakistan. Thus, not only
do they raise the sceptre of a resurgent polio, but also a more mutated, virulent one. And it gets
worse.

Ever heard about the Hajj?

Good luck sleeping tonight...

I want to attack Great Britain and become the King. How can I defeat the British army?

Joke questions are seldom useful and always infuriating. Thanks for asking for an answer- but I'm
neither a weapons geek nor a military fan. I can't give you the sort of answer you want.

I had seen this question about a week ago when I read Carter Moore's answer.
It does answer the question extremely well, and I suggest you read & upvote it & thank Moore.
Moore's answer is also good in the sense that while a joke answer in itself, it provides a plausible &
reasonable solution to your quandary. On bizarro-Earth of course- but you haven't specified the
planet, have you? Also, Moore himself is at pains to point out that the sequence of events he has
specified can never come to pass- & that is without counting the resistance to the occupation
by the people of Great Britain.
Warning- you won't be facing tea-less savages this time around.

There are 70 million potential rebels on that island. More than NATO or the might of the US or the
British Armed Forces, they are the biggest challenge any neo-William the Bastard must overcome.

I have already said this again & again- military might, in this day & age, are inconsequential
when it comes to 'conquering' Nations.

You want to attack Britain? Be my guest. Go to the nearest park & stand on the grass. It'll harm the
British taxpayer (gardeners cost tax money) & the British people (the gardener is going to get early
onset scoliosis thanks to your juvenile acts).

You want to defeat the British Army? It's impossible- unless you are the President of Bizarro-US of
A on Bizarro-Earth. And even so, you'll have 70 million potential rebels to deal with. NATO- France,
Germany, Italy etc- & the joke known as the UN will never oppose Bizarro-USA in this case; might is
right after all- but wiping out 70 million people is hard work, bad press &, most importantly, terrible
economics. Concentration camps & Thermonuclear are usually a losing proposition when it comes to
labour needs...
Though it will be interesting to see how the inventors of the Concentration Camp behave when the
tables are turned on them.

At present, there is only one possible way for you, OP- a nameless nobody to actually conquer Britain-
& it requires you to be an ubermensch of a level not seen on Earth since the death of Ho Chi Minh.
Also, this will only work if you are a White Anglo-Saxon working class Englishman of preferably 'pure'
stock & humble means (Church of England, but atheist would probably do fine. It's England, not
America.) You also have to be part of a grass-roots extremist organization since your teens, but
also have a good working knowledge of the Classics. The Ancients, after all, were much superior to
us.

This method will also work if & only if the non-White population of Great Britain is about 25% or so; a
high Muslim population would be preferable. It'd be hard work riling people to active violence against
Hindus & Buddhists. This state of affairs, in all likelihood, will never come to pass unless there is some
sort of huge geopolitical change in the near future, and even then it will take decades, if not centuries,
for demographics to change to that extent. I hope you OP are still a baby- or some sort of AI,
otherwise you'd be too old to 'inspire' your hordes when your promised time comes. Anyway...

I don't think the present trend in extremist Islam is going to end soon. at any rate, the Saudis will be
pumping Wahhabi preachers into Londonistan for the next 30 years at least. The (assumed) rise in
Muslim population, the subsequent increase in welfare needs, the constant loss of jobs to Asia,
growing geo-political irrelevance, the expected increase in terror attacks due to the high Muslim
population, the usual inherent racism within any human society, the expected increase in the number
& vocality of White Nationalists, and of course, the mindless violence present within the soul of every
British Chav- will all conspire to start a Nation-wide conflagration that you, OP, can use to surf
your way to the corridors of power- much like that two-bit wacko, Nigel Farage.
If this mindless creep gets votes, so can a Nazi Anglo-Saxon uberrobobaby.

How you keep your mindless hordes in order, how you climb up the totem pole, how you avoid the
brickbats of Britain's mindless liberals & of course, the rest of the World, how you escape the tender
attentions of the British Intelligence- is all up to you. I'd suggest you read up a bit on the Time of
Troubles & the nasty business in Ireland...but if you really are an ubermensch, you'd probably know
that I'm talking nonsense; what you are doing would be completely unprecedented in Human history.

Another thing- I personally hold that history is cyclical. If something has happened, it will happen
again. If it hasn't, it hasn't happened for a reason- & no force on Earth & Heaven can change
that.

Good luck.
PS: You will lose. There's no way you can defeat the British Army, its NATO allies- & most importantly,
the people of Great Britain. Thanks for the credits. Bye.

Why are so many Muslims from Europe and the USA joining Al-Qaeda and ISIS?

NB:- Someone said that I have a habit of rambling for too long. I'm sorry- but I can't help it. Read the
stuff if you want to or leave it. Another accused me of historical revisionism. To you, Mr Democrat, go
away!

Now for the answer-

Ennui. Pure ennui.

Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing, and dancing sooner than war.

-Homer.
Summer. Harvest. War. Everything the Greeks ever bothered about.

Many would have you believe that the reason is because of the 'atrocities' by Assad, the Iraqis,
America, whatever- or even because of the inherent violence within Islam itself- but I'd say that's not
the primary reason. Violence & Oppression are by no means something unknown to Humanity-
especially the people of the Middle East- & while Islam is probably the most violent & oppressive of
the Great World Religions, there are millions of muslims who manage to get through life without
having the urge to eat human hearts or practice sexual slavery.

People who actually read up on these things will notice something very interesting about Islamists.
The vast majority of unarmed malcontents- rioters, vandals, the vermin of everyday society- are young
men from the lower classes.
Some will have us sympathize with this young man. I say- we sympathize -& then shoot him. No reason
to show weakness. Weakness is Death.

On the other hand, armed Islamists- your run-of-the-mill Jihadi- is almost exclusively from rich
families, upper-middle class, hard working people with hopes of 'betterment' and 'progress'...
He was a rich, spoiled drunk brat who should've offed himself with drugs long before 9/11.

(Ref: Context of 'Before September 11, 2001: 9/11 Hijackers Drink Alcohol and Watch Strip Shows,
Especially towards Eve of Attacks')

But Trilochana, you liar, you say- what about Kasab? What about those starving scarecrows in
Boko Haram? What about them?

Well, Papa Tikip doesn't really have a proper answer to that. Frankly, an answer is wasted on the
hordes of intellectuals on Quora. The more time I spend in this narcissistic hell-hole, the more I
sympathize with Mao's decision to off the intelligentsia of China...

Anyway, let's see what I can do-

To paraphrase Mao- You lot think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. You think the sky is
only as big as the top of the well. If you surfaced, you will have an entirely different view.

Kasab was a moron from a poor family who spent his days scavenging for food in a Saudi-funded
Wahhabi mosque. Even so, despite the anti-India rhetoric fed to him by his Pakistani rulers & the anti-
Hindu rhetoric fed to him by his Saudi-trained mullah, the boy stayed in his little hovel- until he was
approached by certain (cough-ISI-cough) individuals who promised to pay his family lots of (cough-
Saudi-cough) money if he would help them slaughter lots of us Kaffirs.

In most cases with Jihadi outfits- Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban- the foot soldiers are drawn in
for ethnic reasons far more than they are drawn for religious reasons. When the Kashmiri
'independence' movement was in full swing, almost all Jihadis running around in Kashmir were local
Kashmiri malcontents. Now, while we do have certain ne'er-do-wells who routinely spit upon the
Republic (even here on Quora), the vast majority of Kashmiri 'freedom fighters' are actually Punjabi.
The local kid will trun up for a bit of stone-throwing & attacking inanimate symbols of the Republic-
like that military memorial in the picture, but they usually don't have the time & stomach (it's the
stomach; the guy has to earn & feed his family) for a full mano-on-mano with the Kashmiri police (95%
of them Muslim themselves FYI).
This man works 16 hours a day. He has little time for the police & no time for terrorism. Taxes & Kids
come first.

Alright- back to Western Muslims trekking to the middle of ISISstan...

One major thing that would strike, & does strike, most new Indian expats- Hindu, Muslim, Sikh,
Christian, Jain, Buddhist, Ba'hai, doesn't matter what religion- is the vast number of unemployed &
unemployable Muslim youth in the West, especially in Europe. These kids are from Muslim families
drawn into Europe during the 1960s & 70s- part of the post-War boom when industrialization meant
enough jobs for all & Cold War politics meant lots of visas for pro-NATO Muslim nations.
Unfortunately for these kids, the 80s led to the collapse of manufacturing & the Soviet Union- forcing
a shift in focus to Services as well as greater competition from the White natives.

Simultaneously, the end of the Cold War also encouraged migration from Soviet-bloc countries- most
importantly us (don't give me that crap about NAM or whatever; we were a Soviet-bloc nation & proud
of it!) & the Chinese (though they were mostly on their own bloc). Asian cultures, far more
competitive, ruthless & achievement-oriented than Western or Muslim cultures, posed a
challenge that the West- especially Europe- is still struggling with. Whites, with their greater
wealth, presence in educational institutions & mere racial discrimination, managed to a large extent.
Native Muslims couldn't.

The 80s & 90s also saw the proliferation of thousands of Wahhabi mosques & Wahhabi preachers in
Europe- thanks to the efforts of His highness King Salman of Saudi Arabia (the new king; the God-
Emperor of Mankind help us all). Also, the 90s marked 20 years since the start of migration in the late
60s. The current decade marks 40 years.
Your tax dollars at work, friends. Use a carpool. Protect the environment!

People who have read some of my previous answers will recognize my 20-year theory at work; the
time it takes for a young man to grow into adulthood. (Trilochana Rout's answer to Why wasn't Saudi
Arabia turned into a British or French protectorate or colony after World War I when the British and
French carved up the Middle East into zones of influence?) Also bear in mind that the first Islamist
incidents in Europe started being reported in the 90s.

Thus, the average European Muslim is a young man who has grown up hearing Wahhabi hate speech
against Kaffirs, has little secular education, is virtually unemployable save for menial industrial work
(no longer present in Europe outside of Russia &, to some extent, Germany) & absolutely zero hope for
the future. It's a hyper-authoritarian, sex-starved, hyper-religious atmosphere- inflamed periodically
by the latest Riyadh propaganda as well as White Liberal rants (against Israel, us, China, doesn't really
matter).
The only people the BBC hates more than Indians are the Israelis...

You find a very similar atmosphere in India & China- well, most Asian countries- but here in Asia
proper, there is a real hope for advancement if one works hard- & thankfully, there are no Saudi-
funded temples or monasteries in existence. There is absolutely no hope for anything in Europe's
Muslim ghettoes. Britain is a dreary depressing soggy place most of the time; in those ghettoes &
slums, it must be hell. No wonder those old Colonialists were so eager to get out of the place!

As I've pointed out earlier, the old Imperialists share a lot with the kids joining the ISIS (as well as the
Nazi SS to a huge extent); both are from 'hyper-authoritarian, sex-starved, hyper-religious' societies,
both are hard-riding, slave-trading, raping, pillaging war-mongering maniacs, both considered
themselves as better than their victims.
King Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud & Major-General Percy Cox (probably) fraternizing over a discussion of their
dead enemies.

To the British 'officer', the Indian Hindu was an uncivilized pagan good only when dead or enslaved.
To the Islamist 'terrorist', the Indian Hindu is an uncivilized pagan good only when dead or enslaved.

Well- where the hell is the difference?

(Ref: Trilochana Rout's answer to Can anyone give a comparison of the Middle East before and after
the discovery of oil?)

This no-hoper moron kid from the British (or German or French, doesn't matter) Muslim slum is going
to look at his no-hoper life, at the gigantic odds stacked against him, at the rainy hell-hole he lives in-
& then turn his gaze to the sun-drenched plains of the Middle East where there are lots of guns,
Toyota technicals & sex slaves to go around. The place is pretty much a huge real-life GTA with the
promise of Heaven (and another 72 sex slaves) at the end of it.
Our propaganda is simply not as good as theirs! Accept that fact!

And your great plan to convince this kid not to take the next flight to the middle of Hell is show
them pictures of how evil those freaks are? Are you kidding me?

Okay- guys, males, this is about you. Remember when we were young? Remember how we used to be
when we were teens? Why do you think Asians are obsessed with Genghis Khan? Why do you think
Whites are so obsessed with Alexander the Great? Don't tell me you were not; that's bullshit! Don't
think like a frog! Think like Mao; think about the heart of your culture, your race!

We- Asians (by 'Asian', I'm including Muslims in Asia proper too- India, Indonesia etc) & Whites- at least
had computers & Dennis Ritchie to distract us. We had dreams of Caltech & Harvard to occupy us. We
looked up to Donald Trump (in my defence, I was young back then) & Bill Gates (no matter what his
business policies have been, this guy is a hero of our times).

Who the hell is that British Muslim brat going to look up to? How the hell are we even going to
solve this problem?

All talk of understanding, discussing & whatever goes straight out of the window when you look at
this with a cold eye. And then you realize this horror has no end in sight.
Notice that the US' more industrialized, more grounded, meritocratic society means that fewer American
Muslims journey to the Middle East. Well done, Yankee. Russia is an anomaly; most 'Russians'- Chechen
Islamists- haven't been to Russia for years since Kadyrov came to power. Russia has few Liberals & zero
Saudi-funded mosques. Do the math.

PS- People wishing to read an elaboration on the 'Because' theory of societal collapse will do well to
read this: Quora User's answer to How will America collapse?

How does ISIS manage to sustain their attacks on cities like Mosul and Kobani despite the presence of
U.S. airpower?

Because when faced with an enemy that is competent & determined enough, no amount of air
power is going to make a difference.

Modern warfare is a question of utilizing a State's population efficiently. In these days, proper use of
propaganda & goodwill among the People is far more important than any amount of technological or
political superiority. With the West's overwhelming strength- unparalleled among any Human Faction
in Human history- it is extremely easy for the American Empire to destroy, plunder & ravish entire
continents. But when it comes to 'ruling' the conquered nations, it falls short.

"You can kill ten of our men for each one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we
will win"

- Ho Chi Minh
ISIS will fall. Its Fall and eventual destruction are as inevitable as the sun that rises each morning.
(Ref:- Trilochana Rout's answer to How can we destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)?).

But it won't be because of American air strikes. In fact, apart from some cases, American air strikes are
actively encouraging the existence of ISIS.

ISIS arose entirely due to discontent among the Sunni population of Iraq. It was nurtured & grown
thanks to the proliferation of Wahhabi thought in Iraq & Syria due to the Saudi dollars & preachers
flooding into the two nations. Despite its impressive core of Chechen fighters & captured armour,
its strength is ultimately dependant on the servility & service of the population it rules.

First- Mosul is a 'fake' city. Back in the 80s, Saddam Hussein wiped out every single Kurdi within the
city, changing the centuries-long demographic pattern of the area within a month. The city was then
resettled almost exclusively by Sunni Saddam loyalists as well as his Officer core. Thanks to the
American invasion & the subsequent pandering to Shia interests in Iraq by NATO, both the fanatic
Sunni tribal elements & the (relatively) secular Ba'athist military remnants were ready to declare for
anyone who opposed Iraq, America- & ultimately Iran.
Notice how the demographic layout is skewed along Kirkuk & Mosul- the main sites of Saddam's anti-
Kurdish pogroms. Kirkuk managed to hold out thanks in part to its relatively large Shia, Christian &
pagan minorites- whom Saddam was loath to target during the anti-Kurdi campaigns.

Enter ISIS.

OP, you've got it wrong. ISIS isn't fighting for Mosul. ISIS is Mosul. No foreign force on Earth can
drive them off from the city, and the rest of the Sunni territory between Aleppo & Baghdad- especially
when said 'foreign forces' are the hated American Imperialists & their NATO lackeys. Until the people
tire of them- & they will tire of them- the ISIS is there to stay. But as long America keeps on
bombing the Sunni triangle, their resolve to oppose you- & by extension, stick with the ISIS- will not
falter.

Second- Things are different in case of 'border' towns like Kobane.

Kobane is the primary logistical node for any army between Aleppo & Raqqa.

You'll notice that Kobane sits right at the junction where Syria juts into Turkey. Holding Kobane is vital
in terms of stemming the flow of Turkish Kurdis into Syria & Iraq to help their beleaguered brethren,
maintaining supply links between Aleppo- where the Syrian Army faces off against the hordes of
American-supplied Jihadi hordes- & the Euphrates valley, homeground of ISIS, and lastly- maintaining
the supply routes to the ISIS from Turkey.

The Turkish government supports ISIS. Fine allies, you Yanks have...

Unlike in case of cities like Mosul & Raqqa, American air strikes in 'border' towns like Kobane &
Baghdad are extremely useful for the defending Kurdis & Iraqis. Kobane & Baghdad are not
Wahhabi/ Salafist majority towns; the People themselves are opposed to ISIS & will have cause
to welcome American air strikes (in moderation; the West is known for overkill & friendly fire-
especially when it comes to brown people).
Intifada of 1991, encouraged- & later betrayed by the Americans.

Never think of these people as insane fanatics. They have a method to their madness- & their
method is exactly the same as any conventional army's when faced with great odds. They will 'sustain'
their attacks as long as it suits their aims (mostly for propaganda reasons), American air strikes or not.

PS- The battle of Kobane is nearly over; victory for the Kurdis. Hurrah!
Baghdad with its ethnically divided population still remains in chaos.
 See the old ethnic pattern in 2003 & compare with the strictly localized distribution in 2009.
Unmistakable signs of large-scale ethnic cleansing. Well, where were the Americans then? No wonder
the Sunnis were so eager to throw their lot with the maniacs in ISIS!
4.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
21
Share

Add Comment
 Debo Dasgupta
October 7, 2015 ·
6 upvotes
Tatiana Estévez cc Marc Bodnick

Hi Tatiana, I see the above poster has been banned and having gone through a few of his answers I
perhaps see why.

That said this guy definitely brought fresh and alternate perspectives to the answers and forced one to
reevaluate one's personal stance thus forcing one
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
6

Emmanuel-Francis Nwaolisa Ogomegbunam

October 18, 2015 ·
1 upvote
There's a certain poetry to his writing style? Alas lost!
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered February 6, 2015

Is 9/11 going to be all from the extremists? It's been several years and I'm less impressed. So has
extremism stalled?

Wow.

You Americans should be thanking your stars that you're lucky enough to be protected by your vast
oceans. I shudder to think what would've happened if your nation bordered Hell like ours does...

List of terrorist incidents, 2015

This, as far as I can see, excludes the hundreds of people dead in 'conventional' Islamist attacks since
January 1, 2015 in Mauritania, Mali, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea, Kurdistan, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Kashmir etc etc...
3.9k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
45
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Updated February 8, 2015

Were allied soldiers in World War 2 given illicit drugs to get through the hell of war?

Since I'm already out to piss off as many people as possible on Quora, such a question is pure
gold for people like me.

I usually don't read the other answers on a page before answering a question- but I did make an
exception this time. As usual, I noticed a lot of anecdotes & politically correct feel-good stuff- but no
real- ahem- 'thirst for knowledge' as they call it.

Alright, listen up!

Warfare is the art of breaking your opponent's will to fight. Death & destruction- either on your side
or your enemy's have little to do with it. And even the best of us are nothing compared to what we
can be- on Speed. Herodotus writes about Scythians burning Hemp bushes before a battle & inhaling
the vapours. Tacitus mentions Germans using what we'd call hallucinatory drugs (though Germania
isn't what we'd call an unbiased source). We all know of Viking berserkers foaming at their mouths &
fighting like wild beasts in a trance.
The first thing written by Man is an account of a dude on drugs killing one who was not. Don't
believe me?

He, who is the Lord of all the world that moves and breathes, who for the Brahman, first, before all,
found the Cows;
Indra, who cast the Dasyu (Vritra) down beneath his feet, him girt by Marutas, we invoke to be our
friend.
He has bestowed the earth upon the Arya, and rain upon the man who brings oblation.
Drive all our enemies away, Drinker of Soma, the Western, Mighty Conqueror, and the Eastern, Slayer of
Dragons.
Drinker of Soma, drive off our Northern foes and Southern, that we in thy wide shelter may be joyful.

- Indra slaying Vritra, The Rig Veda, Early Bronze Age.

PS: There are some who consider this to be proof of caste discrimination in Bronze age India. That's
nonsense. Vritra- & his Dasya armies- are clearly mentioned to be fire-breathing supernatural entities
who 'ringed the Earth with fire' & 'drank her rivers & clouds'. There is a very clear demarcation
between Humans (Aryan, Tribal & Mlechha alike) & Demons.

Fittingly enough, Indra 'bestowing' the Earth upon the 'Arya' (while high on Soma) also ties in nicely
with the events during World War 2...
One thing that always confused me about World War 2 was how soldiers could stand up to the horror
that was the Eastern Front for so long. There's propaganda of course, and the Commissar/ Gestapo
wacko at the back would've been a big factor but history tells us Humans are usually miserable weak
creatures who are afraid of death & despair...

Then how does one survive when it is raining Fire & Death? One does what Indra did when faced with
the Father of Dragons (& the Sea & Fire). One drinks Soma.

'Armoured Chocolate': Chocolate-coated Meth, Standard issue to Armoured Units

'Flyer's Chocolate': More Meth with the same chocolate, Standard issue to Pilots. (This pic is some funny
boy's version of the real thing. I'll tell why we have so few surviving samples later).

Letters from German author Heinrich Böll feature accounts of a pill administered by Nazi health
practitioners that was promoted as an "alertness aid." Böll later received international notoriety as the
most famous post-war writer and won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1972.

What Boll was referring to was the German version of Speed: Pervitin. Introduced in 1938 by
German drug-maker Temmler Werk, Pervitin reduced inhibitions, induced Euphoria & made soldiers
more compliant to authority. The Allies executed thousands who were simply too drugged to
protest their superiors' orders.
We even have letters from miserable wretches suffering from withdrawal on the Front.

"It's tough out here, and I hope you'll understand if I'm only able to write to you once every two to four
days soon. Today I'm writing you mainly to ask for some Pervitin... Love, Hein."

- Some long-dead Wehrmacht trooper in the Sixth Army, Stalingrad 1941.

"I feel...cold and apathetic, completely without interests,"

- Another long-dead Wehrmacht soldier in Poland demonstrating Pervitin withdrawal symptoms, 1940
Hitler himself was doped up on Pervitin, Cocaine & what not throughout most of the War. No wonder
he was a mess of a general!

And now, as I have promised- why haven't we got more samples of these Nazi drugs? The answer is
simple. With typical German efficiency, the potency, reliability & safety of this Nazi stuff was far
beyond anything the Allies could produce at the time.

So, the Allies ate all of it.

The Soviets used something they called- & still call- 'Vint' (Screw). Incredible addictive, damaging &
cheap, it was created by Japanese Chemist Nagai Nagayoshi back in the 1800s- and was standard
issue under the name 'Shabu' to the Kwantung army (or the guys who would become the Kwantung
Army) during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905.
One good thing about Vint-inspired massed Banzai charges is that you don't have to spend so much
on the victims of Vint-addiction after the war is over. I wouldn't be surprised if all those Kamikaze
pilots & Banzai-charge infantrymen were high during their attacks. It'd also go a long way in
explaining the suicidal mentality of Imperial Japan. I don't remember where- but I'd once read an
account of Chinese commanders- Nationalist & Communist alike- expressing astonishment at how
reckless the Japanese were.

Again- these are Chinese commanders talking about how 'reckless the Japanese were'.
On the Western Front, the primary consumers, producers & distributors of War-drugs were the
Imperial British. They'd faced drug-using soldiers in Yemen & Afghanistan earlier, and knew just how
powerful these things could be. I'd reckon a major factor in Imperial Britain's success during their 200
year long War on the Khyber was the fact that all of them were high; the Muslims on Wahhabi
fanaticism (Can anyone give a comparison of the Middle East before and after the discovery of oil?),
Sikhs & Hindus on racial hatred, the Whites on Drugs.
"British troops used 72 million amphetamine tablets in the Second World War and the RAF got through
so many that “Methedrine won the Battle of Britain” according to one report."

"Until the Korean War, Benzedrine was used extensively...by the British Armed forces and it was an open
secret that many pilots engaged in a boot-legging operation to supply troops in Africa, Europe...and the
Pacific...The amount of Benzedrine supplied to United States servicemen by the British has been
estimated at nearly 80 million tablets & pills, and probably another 80 to 100 million were supplied by
United States Medics...In addition, Amphetamines were easily obtainable from military medical officers &
aides."

This is excluding the supply of 'other drugs' like Qat, Barbiturates, Heroin as well as cocaine in some
cases. This also excluded home-brewed, or rather, field-brewed addictive substances made by the
militaries, as well as the stocks captured from the Nazis. This also excludes the drugs pushed through
by the soldiers' families. The biggest export from British-occupied Yemen during the time was Qat-
sparking off a drug epidemic that still affects Yemen today. Even now, rarely do we find any Allied
aircraft wreckage in the North-East that does not have stacks of amphetamines in them. I remember
reading an India Today article trying to put it in pc speech; 'Medical supplies including amphetamines
& heroin', they'd written. Yeah, right- 50 kilograms of 'medical supplies including amphetamines
& heroin'...

A major factor why we know so much about drug usage within the Axis, and not within the Allies, is
that the Allies simply ignored the problem outright- when they weren't busy covering things up.
The Germans got off lucky in the sense that practically all their Youth- addicted or otherwise- were
dead. The Japanese, however, had impressive de-addiction programs lined up as early as 1951.
Dainippon Sumimoto, responsible for creating most of the Shabu, spearheaded the effort- Japanese
efficiency at work again!
 Unfortunately for many of their soldiers, the Allies- Britain, America & USSR- have never been known
for efficiency. The French got off lightly- in part because of their early surrender as well as the fact that
most of their army was Muslim & eschewed narcotics to a large extent, but the drug supply had been
on a scale vast enough to ruin Yemeni agriculture forever & spark off Afghanistan's Opium crisis. I
also don't know of any large-scale de-addiction programs in the Allied states- even though with
a known production of over 400 million doses after 1942 for the Western Front alone at the very least,
there must have been millions of addicts after the war ended.

Is there any record of 'excess' deaths within the US & UK in the two decades after World War 2? I
don't know & I can't find any details...

These days, Americans have something called War on Drugs. War on Drugs. ROFLMAO.
33.2k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
123
Share

Add Comment
 Cem Arslan
March 26, 2018
There's propaganda of course, and the Commissar/ Gestapo wacko at the back would've been a big
factor

Geheime Staatspolizei weren't responsible for order-keeping at the front. The closest thing the
Germans had were the army’s Feldgendarmerie, and those guys were your typical military police, not
the
… (more)
Reply
Upvote

Ciprian Elliu Ivanof

February 18, 2015
The psychological and social aspects of addiction might account for the relatively minor addiction
rates for veterans in Allied armies.
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 27, 2015 ·
1 upvote
Can you please elaborate?
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Ciprian Elliu IvanofThis is a bit of mostly unfounded speculation ... but addiction has two parts. The
physical is somewhat variable from person to person but is acted on very differently based on
circumstances. The psychological side is very different.
Addictive personality In most of the West, addicts are exposed to drugs on their own initiative despite
efforts to restrict a lot of drugs. We may guess that the people most psychologically desperate for
them are the users. In WW2, the soldiers came from a broader section of society and probably
included mostly people who weren't drawn to drugs. A similar experience was Vietnam. Lots of US
soldiers were exposed to drugs in Vietnam but few continued to use them after they returned to the
US.
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered February 5, 2015

Why wasn't Saudi Arabia turned into a British or French protectorate or colony after World War I when
the British and French carved up the Middle East into zones of influence?

There are two major impetuses behind every colonial adventure in history.
The first & obvious, more overt one, is simple- the establishment of economic centres. No need to
expand on this.
The second, arguably more important one, is- a safe place for the leeching of a society.

Every civilization requires a certain level of bloodshed before it can mature. I've already discussed this
phenomenon at length- so I'll keep this short. Societal unrest is a factor, not of governmental
oppression or resource shortage, but merely of the excess energy & mindless hedonism of the
'extra' males in the system. Thus, it is imperative for any successful society to have some sort of a
'safety valve' to kill off this extra population in order to preserve the greater society until birth rates
fall.

The development of modern medicine & mechanized agriculture was a disaster in the sense that it led
to a massive increase in the number of excess males in society. Western nations were lucky enough to
export these potential murderers, rioters & rapists to their colonies where they could murder, riot,
rape & make themselves useful to the Empire. Others, however, had a problem.

Countries like China & India are Worlds unto themselves; the amount of cultural, ethnic &
linguistic variation between individual Chinese/ Indian states/ provinces is at par with sovereign
European nation-states. Thus, the sheer size & variability of these societies fosters a violent/ expansive
enough environment to absorb this excess population.

Unfortunately for other nations, they are too restricted in size, population & scope to do the same.
Thus, every year, they produce a vast crop of young impressionable boys all too eager to get
themselves killed off at the first opportunity. That by itself, isn't a problem- but they insist on
killing bystanders, & destroying cars & shops as well...thus retarding the development of the society-
and preventing modernization/ development/ a fall in birth rates. So, one observes a vicious cycle
which repeats every generation- approximately 20 years.
('Flawed Democracy', are we? We, as a nation, have done more to advance the cause of Freedom &
Democracy than any NATO state! Yankee, go home!)

Look around you. How many 'democracies' do you see outside of India & the past/ present
Imperialistic Empires?

The best way to deal with such a situation is to let it be. After a few decades of this process, the bad
blood in the society gets drained, & they settle down for a few more decades until the cycle starts
anew.

It is impossible for Saudi Arabia to 'settle down'.

Anyway...

There are four major reasons why there was no establishment of 'direct' British rule over Saudi Arabia.

1- Economic: Saudi Arabia is a useless wasteland. There is no scope for agriculture, little potential for
industry, few minerals, a restive population which has made hardly any worthwhile contribution to the
Human race throughout history. They cannot be taxed- as they earn nothing, they cannot be used for
labour- as they'd kill themselves off with useless tribal vendettas, they cannot be used for wars unless
it's under the command of their own tribes- as that lot can't soldier to save their lives. The entire Arab
peninsula is a black hole and a net detriment to Human Civilization. Why would anyone with half a
brain bother colonizing the place?

This pretty much knocks everyone out of the competition- French, German, Belgian. However- the
interesting thing about the Imperial British was their penchant for mindless violence all over the
World. Why would've anyone attacked Yemen before the construction of the Suez Canal? Why attack
Afghanistan with the full knowledge that it'd infuriate Europe? Why march into Tibet knowing that
there was no way your troops could survive the winter? The Economic argument is the weakest of the
four I'll present- precisely because it's apparently the strongest.
2- Foreign: Conquest of Saudi Arabia at the end of World War 1 would've been a disaster in terms of
British trade income.

The problem here is that most people- Westerner & Asian alike- don't realize how things were in
those days. There was London- and there was Calcutta. The entire British foreign policy was
completely geared to the defence of its trade links to India. Everything else- Suez, Singapore,
Malaysia, Kenya- was meant as a passage-way, defensive fortification or a meat-shield to defend the
Jewel in the Crown. Saudi Arabia would've had no place in their fortifications.

Also, by the late 1800s, London's primary allies in India were Islamic fundamentalists. Both
Wahhabism & Deobandi Islam (Wahhabism's precursors & ideological creators) were painstakingly
nurtured by the British to serve as their local opposition to Hindus, Shias, Sikhs, Buddhists &
Nationalistic Sunnis. It was Divide & Rule on a scale greater than anything ever seen in history &
judging by what happened to that poor pilot, it hasn't ended yet. Islamists have traditionally loathed
Nationalists; there was this post about the Tuaregs I saw on my feed yesterday. Well- the primary
opposition to Tuareg nationalists fighting for independence from Mali are Tuareg Islamists, fighting
for their fictional Caliphate...Either ways, by conquering Saudi Arabia, Britain would've sacrificed the
sole faction in India that actually wanted them there.

And then there was Ataturk. The Father of Turks. One of the Great Nation Builders of the Twentieth
Century and a true Ubermensch. Post Great War Britain simply didn't have anyone who was his
intellectual or ideological equal; the entire history of twentieth century Britain is plagued with
mediocrity & petty violence. Winston Churchill, for all the acclaim he gets, is nothing compared to
John, Duke of Marlborough. Ataturk had blackmailed, cajoled, threatened the French into giving him
Antioch & half the Syrian coast- & then proceeded to kill every single Arab & Jew he found there.

Believe me- no one spoke a word. No one. Says a lot about what happened in Europe in the 30s &
40s...Britain already had Kirkuk & Mosul with all their oilfields. Why antagonize a Titan without reason?

3- Civil: Can anyone give a comparison of the Middle East before and after the discovery of oil?

Britain's undoing has been its shifting of focus from its colonies to the Home Islands. The
natives of the British Isles have always been a meeker, softer, weaker race than the colonials-
and the sufferings they'd experienced during World War 1 had severely impacted their desire to wage
war- sad times for a country that once fought Napoleon & his allies on three continents.

The gradual decline of power of the trading lobby & increasing industrialization at home reflected a
marginalization of the Colonial nabobs. The wealth of the Nabobs had always been a source of
contention in British society- Arthur Wellesley was a so-called Sepoy general, most of the ships of
the Royal Navy were focussed on defending the Bombay-Liverpool route. Curbing the spread of
the India Office's influence was only part of this trend. Compare the disasters during Crimea, the
invasion of Persia over to Mesopotamia & you'll notice a growing trend where British Indian Officers
are increasingly stripped of power & position.

Do you seriously think Singapore would've happened with Colonial officers in command? Khyber- a
war-zone for the past 3000 years- is War. Dandarkarnaya- where Aryan & Tribal have been clashing
for the past 6000 years- is War. Trench warfare & Pax Britannica are glorious- but they're not 'war'.
India Office & Raisina Hill won the Middle East. They lost London.
4- Sociological: The biggest strength & the biggest weakness of an Empire are its excess males. Left
alone, the latter can ruin nations. Used properly, they can win an Empire.

Britain, circa 1914, had no excess males. British India, with its war-like population, non-existent
administration, constant disease outbreaks & simmering civil/ ethnic/ revolutionary/ marxist wars- was
heading for a population crisis. The British Empire simply lacked the population base needed to
sustainably run a colony. They couldn't even run Kenya in the 60s!

Saudi Arabia- with its high birth rate, violent culture & polygamous society, was the worst possible
enemy an aging, war-torn Britain could've faced- in a world where Marxist/ Socialist governments
were rising all over, Japan had taken over half the Pacific & Woodrow Wilson trying to make
Roosevelt's White Fleet a force with real teeth.

Why would they attack Saudi Arabia when they were on the cusp of losing everything they had?
14.2k views ·
View Upvoters
 Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this
Upvote
·
69
Share

Add Comment

Abhishek Banerjee
February 6, 2015
 If I'm counting correctly, the British and friends fought Napoleon and friends on four continents:
Europe, Africa, North America and Asia.
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 6, 2015 ·
2 upvotes
There was no Alliance- French warfare in the New World.

The French did fight against Haiti & there was skirmishing between the Americans & the British- but
neither was a part of the Napoleonic Wars proper; and arose solely because of the economic & social
problems the Wars had created in Europe.
Reply
Upvote
·
2

Mohamad Karimi
March 14, 2018
One of the best, most informing answers i read in a while!
Reply
Upvote
Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered February 4, 2015

Specific Video Games Released in 2015: What is supposed to be the next big video game in 2015?

Personally, the two games I'm waiting for are these:-

1- Total War ATTILA

The darkest & most realistic Total War game ever, it places the player in Late Antiquity. As the Western
Roman Empire slowly dies and various Germanic tribes threaten the imperial borders, a new enemy
arises from the steppes of the east, bent on destroying everything and everyone that stands in their way.

With its new destruction mechanics and modelling of climatic changes, it brings a level of gruelling
immediateness to Turn Based Strategy gaming. You can actually go around slaughtering civilians on the
battle map, and the game shows in horrifying detail what sieges do to cities.
Release Date:- February, 2015. Pre-order it. Even if it ends up being a dud like Rome 2, you'll end up
buying it anyway- so why wait?

2- No Man's Sky

Every planet procedural. Every planet unique. Every planet unexplored.

What's there not to like?

 Release Date:- Sometime in 2015. It's PlayStation exclusive so- sorry, PC gamers.
3.6k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
9
Share

Add Comment
 Chaitanya Ramesh
February 9, 2015
I'm looking forward to Atilla too, but I'm not so sure about it.
Wasn't Rome 2 a disappointment?
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 9, 2015
Yes, it was, but it's not like we can do anything. TW is still the best in its genre- but many- including
me- are getting frustrated.

If Attila sinks, I won't buy a TW title ever again.

Reply
Upvote
 Anand Raghav
June 27, 2015
Actually, by the time they finished with the patches, Rome 2 was a far cry from what it released as. It's
quite good. If you want a more challenging experience, there's always mods - Divide et Impera comes
to mind.

It has nothing on Attila though.

Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered February 3, 2015

In the age of musket warfare, why did the first row of soldiers not carry Roman-like large shields?
Would these have blocked incoming volleys?

They did.

The first thing I thought of when I read this question was this:-
An interesting variation was the Gun Shield. The example below was commissioned by Henry VIII after
reports of similar weapons being use in 16th Century Italy. Alas, we have no existing examples from
Italy itself.
How effective were these? Debatable. But even so- why wouldn't a wise Commander make this
standard issue among his troops?

Some might say it's because guns were simply too powerful, or because it would make the front ranks
sluggish & slow, or because it made them a bigger target. All these might have been true for some
extent- but I've rarely seen tactical brilliance translate to strategic changes in history. Furthermore,
what about the time when guns were 'new' technology? Why wasn't there any sort of arms race of the
sort we saw between Tanks & Anti-tank missiles?

Instead , I believe the reason was because:- Such a move would be completely contrary to the
doctrine of gunpowder warfare.

Guns are very old technology. The Chinese were using those things nearly 25 centuries ago (read any
Chinese text of the times). Alexander fought against Indian soldiers wielding 'thunderbolts &
tempests' (Apollonius). The Kushanas may have used some sort of proto-guns during their conquests
in Central Asia. Depictions of gun-like weapons in Europe actually predate Roger Bacon's studies
(originally thought to have been the first record of gunpowder in Europe).

Then why didn't the ancients use more guns in their wars?

Turns out that we modern idiots have been underestimating the potential of Archery for centuries. The
bow & arrow allow for a level of sophistication, versatility, & agility not afforded even by modern
gunpowder weapons. They don't require Line of Sight either; and so are safer to use. Very little chance
of the thing malfunctioning or jamming or blowing up in one's face- pretty dangerous the last one.

Anyone who has played Shogun 2 online can attest to the fact that few players bring a gunpowder
unit to the field when they can use an archer unit instead. That's actually what used to happen in real
life as well- even with the exceptional tanegashima muskets used by the Japanese, the best guns of
the times.

Then why use guns?

Simple- the man in the video, Lars Andersen, is a real hero who has dedicated his life to the perfection
of his art- just like his predecessors in England with the Welsh longbow or the Mongols with their
Composite horn bows. Archery is an art to be used only by craftsmen and artists- and very few of that
sort exist within the vulgar Human species.

Guns, however, can be used by any moron of a peasant with three fingers and half a brain. Three
hundred ridden down by Knights? Meh, send in the NCOs (or whatever they were called back then) to
beat more into signing up. Three thousand blown up by cannons? Meh, drag the home-owners into
the army while marching throught the next town. Thirty thousand smashed to pieces by the armies of
four separate countries? Meh, one night in the brothels of Paris will make up for our losses. And what
about Three hundred thousand dying of Stalin & Winter in Russia?

For the Fatherland! For Nationalism! For this weird symbol I copied of that Hindu prayerbook!

The very concept of Gunpowder warfare- Muskets, Cannons, Trenches, Tanks, ICBMs- is the
philosophy of wielding the State's very population as a weapon. It is the philosophy of sacrificing
every vestige of the State's industry, youth, agriculture into a great nothing so that the next
generation can have the hope- no matter how fleeting or fake- of a World without sacrifice. It is the
policy of drumming up enough empty propaganda into the minds of stupid teenagers so that they
would cheerfully walk into machine-gun fire & not protest in front of the factories when their
corporate overlords slash their wages again. And again.

War is Peace.

There is a reason why the concept of mass Musket warfare was born in Western Europe where the
Black Death had fostered a new age of Private enterprise, Middle Class, Nationalism and Strong
Centralized Government. Eastern Europe wouldn't see anything of the sort until Napoleon would force
modernity upon it at the point of a bayonet.

Musket- or rather, gunpowder warfare, is a question of industrialization; and any sort of

Industrialization is a question of slaughter. The lucky slaughter their slaves in their colonies.
The laggards, the misfits and the losers have to drag their bloody nations ahead, one agonizing year
after another, upon the skulls of their own children.

"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten
years. Either we do it, or they will crush us."

-Joseph Stalin, said on 4th February, 1931. In June, 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Carrying a huge metal shield to defend oneself? Ducking when bullets & cannon balls are flying
overhead? Shying away from incoming volleys?
What do you think we are? Barbaric Romans without any ounce of Patriotism?
 5.1k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
44
Share
 Add Comment

Hamvira Mohapatro
May 14, 2018
Abhilash Mohanty

What do you think of the archery part??

Reply
Upvote
 Anudeep Ravi
February 3, 2015
The only reason I can think of using Matchlocks is for Super Heavy Infantry. For the Run of the mill
armies, Bow Ashigaru with a Few samurai are Enough.

And what are these thunderbolts and Tempests you speak of?
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 4, 2015 ·
2 upvotes
including Anudeep Ravi
They die too quickly & fire too slowly for my tastes. Besides even a little bit of kiting over rough
ground makes them useless. Super Heavy infantry should be countered with monks, not guns.

'Thunderbolts & Tempests' probably refer to incendiary weapons, most probably using gunpowder as
a base. We'd
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
2
Anudeep RaviMonks are too costly and need too much Infrastructure for my tastes adding some Bow
samurai should even them up in melee and Increase damage.

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 30, 2015

When the US helped the Mujahideen shoot down Soviet planes in Afghanistan, how come the missiles
were not used elsewhere, especially by Osama Bin Laden's organization?

OP, what's your race? Just curious...

Anyway- there are three things you ought to know:-

1- The Al Qaeda is not the Mujahidden.

2- The Al Qaeda is meant more as a central hub for an umbrella of terrorist organization rather than a
terrorist organization by itself.
3- The Al Qaeda didn't get involved in the War for years after the end of the Civil War. There may have
been individuals involved in the nation throughout but it was never anything concrete- at least as far
as anyone outside any Intelligence Organization would know.

Now that we've dealt with the important part, time for your question:- how come the missiles were
not used elsewhere?

It's now that my asking your race becomes really important. If you're a Westerner or a Pakistani,
OP, close this tab & go away. My answer won't interest you or your ilk. No, seriously- just go away.
It'll be better for us all.

Back in 1999, Pakistan had started a massive operation during winter where they occupied the guard
bunkers on the ridges occupying NH-1, the, for all practical purposes, only supply route between
Kashmir Valley & Leh. They faced no resistance in doing so; all Indian troops were miles away.

However- I do wonder how many men they lost simply occupying those empty bunkers. The heights
above Kashmir Valley are the highest & coldest battlefields in the history of Mankind. The
Indian army is known to have lost soldiers to the cold- in the middle of 'hot' summers; it's long been
usual for both us & them to vacate the heights during the 9 month long winter...

The Pakistanis not only scaled the heights in the middle of winter, but also occupied those
bunkers- far away from supplies, aid or warmth- for weeks. At nearly 5500 metres. In
temperatures as low as -25 degrees Celsius. With winds at near-permanent cyclone-level
strength.

Guys, when we call the Pakistanis insane, we really do have a point. It's just not propaganda- unlike
what the molly-coddled Westerners think. In all likelihood, they lost more men to the weather than
they did to us- and that means those madmen were constantly circling corpses & men in & out of the
ridge throughout the winter...

If this isn't madness, I don't know what is.

When clear weather finally arrived (-10 degrees Celsius, monsoon-level winds), Indian troops started
scaling the heights- & were attacked by the Pakistanis. As it'd been a very short time since the historic
Lahore Bus trip & since the Pakistani army hadn't really been known for such suicidal tactics like
freezing themselves to death over winter in a clearly hopeless stand-off, reconnaissance was started-
because the alternative was a bloody frontal assault on fortified positions over near-vertical heights of
nearly a kilometre at 5500 metres.
Sensibly, our troops sent a fighter- a MiG27. It should've been a safe trip; the Pakistani army itself- let
alone the LeT maniacs the army though it was fighting- didn't have SAMs capable of operating in the
conditions there back then.

Our MiG was shot down.

It might seem strange now- but back then, there seems to have been almost incredible sense of
incredulity & disbelief among our Army staff. It's highly likely they probably thought they'd lost the
Fighter to the weather; they sent a slower, heavier MiG21 next- armed with some better
reconnaissance gear. It was a clearly inferior plane militarily- but better for data sensing- which just
goes on to show how confident our troops were that there were no SAMs in the region capable of
shooting down a MiG over Kargil...

Well- that was shot down too.

We know what happened next- a bloody frontal assault on fortified positions over near-vertical
heights of nearly a kilometre at 5500 metres. I have often praised the Indian army in my previous
answers; please understand it's not propaganda or mere nationalism. The Indian army is simply that
good. They can probably defeat any other force in the World in a fair fight- & in most unfair fights as
well. The deciding factor at Kargil was not military tactics or geopolitical strategy, it was the sheer war
ability of our ground troops.

Now- there are, as yet, absolutely no public details of what the army actually suspected- yet I
personally think that Stingers were involved. Back in 1999, the Pakistanis didn't have any
appreciable SAM capability in Kasmir valley, let alone the heights of Kargil or Siachen. No one did, not
even the Chinese. I doubt anyone except NATO had an SAM capable of functioning at those heights &
conditions.

The missing Stingers of Afghanistan have been a pretty disturbing topic over the years- but what I
personally believe is that the West, in its supreme disregard of any non-Western life, is clearly ignoring
the obvious weak link. The Soviets didn't lose Afghanistan because they were losing; they were
arguably in a better position than the American Empire was against the VietCong- & America was
winning in military terms in Vietnam. The chances of any wise Mujahidden commander 'stockpiling'
those things when he could've significantly increased the life expectancy of his soldiers- who were, in
most cases, members of his own family/tribe- by using them, is actually pretty low.

These are human beings, people. A lot- yes, this sounds terrible but someone has to say this- a
lot of people don't really consider the Muslims to be real human beings. Which is pretty sad
when you really think about it. Not even the Liberals going on and on about 'secularism' & 'rights'
think of Muslims as real people; in fact they're the worst offenders in this case.

Anyway...

There's one obvious weak link in the chain- the people the CIA actually handed the Stingers to-
the ISI. 'Missing Stingers because of Afghan stockpiles'? Yeah, right- why the hell wouldn't a Mujahid
not have cashed in any Stingers he may have had left for cash to buy seed-grain & cattle? Afghanistan
was at peace; the Civil War didn't begin until the Pakistanis started pawing for influence. It's far more
likely that the ISI kept half those things for themselves from the start.

In addition, those things- like all American tech- are delicate stuff. No one outside of a proper
modern military can maintain those things- & the only 'proper, modern' military between us & the
Turks are the Pakistanis. The Iranians- who cleared minefields by running 8-year old kids across them-
 don't count. The Mujahid who has sell his cow for money to repair his AK-47 'stockpile' a Stinger?
ROFLMAO!

The American Empire likes to pretend that their Stingers were stolen & in the hands of the evil
Afghans & the Iranians (why the hell would a Sunni Pashtun fighter travel across Afghanistan to sell
weapons to an Iranian Shia fundamentalist instead of simply popping up in his ISI contact's office, I
have no idea. Maybe an American can enlighten us...)- but we (most likely) know the truth.

Two of those American Stingers currently lie entangled in the wreckage of two Indian planes in
the wastes of the Karakorum.

5.8k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
113
Share
 Add Comment

Debodip Gupta
February 6, 2015 ·
1 upvote
Sorry to burst your bubble guys but the Indian jets were most likely brought down by Anza
MANPADs- these are a Pakistani copy of a Chinese MANPAD- the HN-5 which in turn was copied
from Soviet 9k32 Strela-2/SA7.
Link:
Anza (missile)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 6, 2015 ·
5 upvotes
Anza is a copy of a Chinese copy of Soviet Streal- which are low altitude MANPADs. Their track
record- or rather, the Strela's track record in the Hindu Kush & Hindu Raj were terrible during the
Soviet War.

I've pointed this out in my answer too. Nothing we or the Chinese or the Russians have works r
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
5
Debodip GuptaAll MANPADs are inherently low altitude. Pakistan has been producing this from 1989
onwards isn't it possible for them to make some improvements? As for the stinger - the reason i
believe the Pakis did not use this is simple- it's darn expensive both to use and maintain. These
missiles have inbuilt batteries who's lifespan is not more than 5 yrs. I do not think Pakistan had the
technology to maintain these- they would have copied them if they could understand the design. Plus
the MiG-21 was probably on a low altitude bombing/reconnaissance mission.
After this fighter was shot down IAF changed strategy and brought the Mirage 2000s with Laser
guided bombs into play(these smart bombs can take out targets from high altitudes and thus avoid
MANPADs).
Bottom line- We can only guess what happened. :)

Natalia Nezvanova
January 30, 2015 ·
6 upvotes
including Trilochana Rout
 Stingers are not the only MANPADS. The CIA allegedly bought Strelas and gave them to the
Mujahideen (via the ISI) to maintain plausible deniability.
Reply
Upvote
·
6

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 3, 2015 ·
2 upvotes
'Plausible Deniability'? I'd be very surprised if it fooled anyone east of the Trieste for long.
Reply
Upvote
·
2
Natalia NezvanovaThe CIA officers allegedly used the ISI to deliver weapons to the Mujahideen. There
were no CIA officers on the field with the Mujahideen. The CIA also feared that the Soviets would
invade the NWFP of Pakistan if it became too obvious that the ISI was helping the Mujahideen.
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 29, 2015

Can anyone give a comparison of the Middle East before and after the discovery of oil?

'The comparison requested is of the following parameters : Social, economical, cultural, political and
military'
The terms in which this question has been couched sounds suspiciously like the topic of a College
essay in some Western Liberal Arts school.

Besides- I'm not even the right person to answer this. I know a lot about Classical & Modern Arabia,
but relatively little about early Modern Arabia. Whatever I will write here will be entirely a factor of my
knowledge of Indian & European history, & how it affected the Arab World in general & 'Saudi Arabia'
in particular. And what's more- I don't write exhaustive analyses like the sort you want.

Thus, I won't be answering this question in the style asked for- & instead discussing the original
reason behind the problems in the modern Middle East.

As always, we begin on the premise that the Past has given birth to the Future- and thus, we
must look to the ancestors for guidance yet again.

An army without culture is a dull-witted army, and a dull-witted army cannot defeat the enemy.
-Mao Tse-Tsung.

A nation's raison d'être is its culture. Culture- as defined by the ideology, religion, history- of a
people is the most potent weapon they can wield against their enemies. Thus,we find that, taken in
context, the history-less American Empire is far weaker than its purported Spiritual successors- the
Imperial British & the Romans.

The corollary to this is that any Nation capable of 'forging' its own culture enjoys a huge
advantage over its rivals. The concept of 'Bushido' was effectively created anew by the Ishin-Ishi at
the end of the Boshin War in Japan; we have little idea of how the original version worked- it'd
died out by the time of the Hagakure, much to the consternation of its author.
On an even greater sense- a nation that is capable of forcing an alien culture upon another
nation is at the peak of its existence and capacity, and thus, truly deserves the title 'Empire'.
Rome was capable of this. The Mauryas were capable of this. So were the Ming & the Showa
Japanese.

But all of these were nothing; in power, in ability, in decadence, in corruption, in brutality, in hatred;
nothing at all- compared to the one true Empire of Human history.

The Imperial British.

But, Trilochana, you ask- why is a certified Mongol fanboy like you eulogizing the British
Empire?

To this, Papa Tikip says- read my answers again. I have respect for the Mongols. I have nothing but
sheer terror when talking about the British.

No one really thinks about the Imperial British; and for good reason- the Imperial British are all
dead. Dead fighting the Imperial Japanese Navy in the Straits of Malacca. Dead in the snows of
Khyber. Dead in the deserts of Asia & Africa. Dead fighting the Wehrmacht.

The Wehrmacht- finest fighting force ever produced by Europe. They conquered the Continent, did
feats not even Napoleon or John Churchill could, laid waste to Empires & didn't even lose a hundred
thousand. Until they ran into Stalin- a true ubermensch- they had no equal under the sun.

The Imperial British matched them in quality, but not in numbers. And thus they're all dead now.
And the present British Race is nothing more than the dregs of what it was, nothing more than mere
mortals. Good for them too- for the Imperial British had as little in common with us Human
Beings as the gardner has with his garden.

To the Imperial Briton, the World was a garden- to be pruned at will, carved as he saw fit, a thing of
enjoyment for him & him alone- god damn the millions dead left behind. They were a reptilian race,
with little idea of mercy, honesty & faith. And they were supreme Sociologists, able to treat
mighty Empires as if the latter were retarded children...

To this day, the average Westerner or Russian thinks of them as harmless tea-drinkers. Asian Liberals
consider them gods. Asian Nationalists hate them; even I'm guilty of this at times.

Fools! All of us! The only rational emotion any of us should be feeling while talking about the
Imperial British is sheer unadulterated terror. One day, I'm going to talk about what they did in Sri
Lanka, in Malaysia, about the Great Game, in Africa, in India- but not today.
Now, OP, we come to the real story...

Oil, you say? Oil? This is where we go wrong. We focus on the machine & forget the Man. Man is far
superior to Machine...
The watershed of the Middle East- social, economical, cultural, political, everything- were two Civil
Wars.

The first, smaller one was fought between the House of Saud and their rivals- especially the House of
Rashid.

The second, far greater one was fought in the gentlemen clubs of London, shikar lodges of Central
India, and ballrooms in Paris. It was fought between India Office of the British Raj & the Foreign Office
of the British Empire.
One of the most hilarious things one can read online are the usual arguments & rants about Radical
Islam that repeatedly pop up in the wake of a major terrorist attack on the West. However I've never
seen a corresponding response in any Western forum when it comes to attacks in Asia. Does any
Westerner even remember Beslan? What about the attack on the Indian Parliament? Anyway...

In this case though, the liberals & Muslims crying 'Islamophobia' have a point. The entire business of
Islamic Radicalism was carefully nurtured, delicately cultivated & painstakingly transported into the
heart of Islamdom by none other than the Loyal Servants of the British Crown in the India Office.

Wahabbism might've been founded in Saudi Arabia- but its true birthplace was India.

"I can remember...being absolutely baffled when a local (Afghan) Khan told me...to look out for what he
called...the Fanatic Camp" (referring to the cantonments of the Khyber Rifles of the British Indian Army)
- Charles Allen, quoting a Nineteenth-century Irish trader, Hidden Roots of Wahhabism in India.
To understand this we have to look at the natures of the two distinct breeds of Britons who inhabited
the Imperial Era British Empire.

The First group were- let's call them the Lilies of the Field- the nobility, the scions of rich houses, of
trade, first sons of industry- born in luxury, transferred directly to positions of power, people who
neither gilded nor spun.

The Second were the- Naboobs, why not- second sons, wastrels, men who couldn't sit still, men with
unnatural levels of aggression, petty criminals, the outcome of an exploding English population.

The First Group ruled Britain, created the Foreign Office, earned nothing but grew fat on the
riches of the East. The Second group died, and died, and died again in order to procure riches
for the enjoyment of the first.

And thus rose the India Office- voice of the resentful Naboobs.
The Lilies were a cultured race who knew little of the cruel realities of the Colonies & the terrifying
cost of their luxuries. The Naboobs knew nothing but War, Death, Loot- & tribute, hated tribute to the
Lilies. A sense of shared blood & the mystique of Empire kept them from attacking the Lilies; indeed if
the Lilies had promoted a certain level of social equality- as they ended up doing after WW1-
Wahhabism may have died out in the 1800s. But they didn't.

By the 1870s, political & social one-upmanship between the Old-school Lilies & the Colonial
Naboobs had exploded into a virtual Civil War. Both camps competed for prestige, political
control, foreign trade and f course, personal wealth.

The Naboobs had the advantage of the limitless slaves they owned in India, Malaysia, Oceania (of
course, they didn't call us 'slaves'. We were 'indentured labour'.), their natural industriousness, their
hunger for success, their war-like nature & contempt for the laws of Man. From their capital in Delhi,
they governed all imports into London.

The Lilies had the advantage of their ancestry, the lop-sided biased laws in their favour, the unfair
balance of payments in their favour, ability to dictate terms to the Naboobs, the natural servility of the
Naboob when faced with a Lily- and their iron hold over every single thing exported from the shores
of London.

They fought & fought & finally ended up in the Arab peninsula.

The Lilies, true to their nature, threw in their lot with the cosmopolitan, civilized, tolerant,
open-minded Al Rashidi. Not much is known about them- but one thing is certain. They- like
practically all Muslims of the time- were arguably the most 'liberal' religious group on the planet then.
At one point of time, they controlled all of modern day Saudi Arabia as well as most of Yemen. Their
attempted conquest of Kuwait- and thus, link up with the Persian Shah, failed because of an
intervention by the Royal Indian Navy.
The Naboobs chose the Al Saud- a smaller, more tighly-knit, more violent, vicious, business-minded,
xenophobic tribe. There's actually a sort of terrible parallel between the hard-riding, hard-living, slave-
trading, megalomanic Colonial British & the Wahhabi Al Sauds. The Raj Officers actively promoted an
interpretation that would encourage a culture of violence & martyrdom within the Saud- but retard
any sort of social progress- thus, keeping the Arabs open for military recruitment. Is it any wonder that
Saudi Arabia is such a terrifying land today?
'Lord Curzon and his senior officers had their own glorious reception from the sheikhs of al-Khalifa.
What happened was that Sheikh Isa ordered his children to carry the white men on their own shoulders.
But the Lord refused for anyone to touch him or carry him, and the sheikhs of al-Khalifa had no choice
but to carry the lord over his throne made from gold and silver, which Curzon brought especially from
India. '
-Robert Lacey, The Kingdom

Under Naboob influence, Wahhabism- originally a redneck petty cult grew into a horror we still suffer
today. Indian Islam was just emerging from a massive shock- where an attempted pan-Indian 'Jihad'
(the War of 1857) had just failed & the reconstruction led to the emergence of an educated, powerful
Hindu bureaucratic elite. However, while this discontent had led to social & educational reforms within
the Shia community, the Sunnis had turned to the Deobandi school.
The Naboobs, ever concious of the need for Divide & Rule, had fostered the Deobandis as a weapon
against Hindus, Sikhs- & interestingly enough, the Shias who were suspected of maintaining links with
the Persians. The transfer of vast number of Deobandi Clerics to the Al Saud was as much to counter
Persian influence as it was to encourage an interpretation of Islam completely at odds with the
versions followed in Iran...

"We must put an end to...Islamic Unity...We must ensure...there never rise again unity for the
Muslims...be it intellectual or cultural..."
-Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India.
So, there you have it. Wahhabism is a manufactured religion made in the smoking rooms of India
Office, by people whose declared aim was to keep Islam divided & primitive for ever, to keep Arabia a
cesspool of sectarian & divisive thought, and to foster a culture as violent & barbaric as possible to
ensure a stable source of military power in the very backyard of the Ottomans. Al Wahhab? Don't
make me laugh. His 'works' are, in all likelihood, forgeries planted by Raj agents. I only wonder how
much Curzon paid to buy his sons & followers...

When the ISIS claims that the Wahhabis are not true Muslims, they are so right that it's
hilarious!

In the end, the victory of the Al Saud was never in doubt. They had it all- a more martial religion, a
culture that promoted barbarism & glorified warfare, training from the most powerful army of the
World (the British Indian Army) as well as an irrepressible sense of cultural superiority they'd copied
from the Naboobs. The Lilies, as World War 1 would go one to show- simply lacked the stomach for
Total War.
 "Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me
and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for
you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands
me!"
- Sultan Abdul-Aziz Al Saud to Sir Percy Cox, British High Commissioner, early 20th Century.

If you want a picture of what the British Raj really was like, just take a look at the Al Saud family. The
women have to wear a few more clothes in general & the overall decor is more ugly- but from the
right perspective, they're pretty much the same culturally...

PS- OP, read this too:- https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/2925835/397151.pdf.

It's a bunch of plagiarized crap from different books like all PhDs in the Arts; however it gives a pretty
good view of the tactical view of the Great Game in Arabia. Of course, it lacks any sort of Global
strategic analysis- not even a mention of the Deobandi school- which inspired Wahhabism in the first
place.

Only goes on to show that no one really cares for history these days...
11.2k views ·
View Upvoters
·
View Sharers
· Answer requested by Subrahmanya Hegde
Upvote
·
149
Share
·
2
 Add Comment

Vishal Kale
January 30, 2015 ·
10 upvotes
"But all of these were nothing; in power, in ability, in decadence, in corruption, in brutality, in hatred;
nothing at all- compared to the one true Empire of Human history."

True. Completely true. The true story of the Raj has never been told in the West.... so terrifying in its
brutality, so unbeli
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
10
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 30, 2015 ·
11 upvotes
including Vishal Kale
Better not use any harsh words though...This place is filled with conformist admins who will allow any
sort of hate-speech against you (especially if you're Asian- Indian, Russian, Iranian etc)- but will
immediately collapse any answer of yours if it goes against the prevailing thought.

Two of my ans
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
11
Pradeep KrishnaI don't know that quora too was indulging in this bad censoring stuff Shame on them
And kudos to you for fighting back

Abhishek Singh Bailoo

February 11, 2015 ·
2 upvotes
Write a blog using material from this answer. That will be most interesting. However, it is not an
answer to the question.
Reply
Upvote
·
2
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 12, 2015 ·
5 upvotes
An answer to this is simply not possible- unless you're writing a book of some sort. Instead I've
corrected OP's point (The Civil War, not the discovery of Oil, was the watershed in Arab history), &
given a brief account of how Wahhabism changed the social structure of the place.

It's the best that c

… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
5

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 27, 2015

If the Middle East is allowed to just go to shit and the West doesn't interfere, how long would it take
for various regimes there to achieve peace?

1 day. Russia invades and Putin sets up puppets who ruthlessly crush any form of dissent.

If they don't, it'll be the Chinese, and things will be even more peaceful. There's no peace like the
peace of the Grave.
2.4k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
28
Share

Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 26, 2015

How can we destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)?

Don't bother. The ISIS is already dead.

"When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state."
The single greatest resource a terrorist/ revolutionary/ non-conventional military force can possess is
the support of the People. Empires are powerful; with their inexhaustible supplies of men, money &
machines, any rebel going up against them is, in 99 cases out of 100, staring at total annihilation. This
is true even in cases where the Empire is constrained in its actions & forced by either internal (Oil
importers) or external factors ( The Al Saud) to hold out from crushing the Rebels completely.

Thankfully for most rebels, the vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists
chiefly of the vulgar (Il Principio, Niccolo Machiavelli). People are so fickle of mind, ignorant of virtue &
envious of their betters that they, in most cases, insist on opposing their Superiors again and again &
again. Thus, no aspiring rebel will ever lack for malcontents to seduce.

But then, Trilochana, you ask- what makes you say that rebels are weaker than the Empire?

To this, Papa Tikip says- what do you think is the primary weakness of the Rebel?

It's the People themselves!!

Every man takes the limits of his field of vision to be the limits of the World
- Arthur Schopenhauer.

People eat. People sleep. People fuck. People shit. People protest & grumble & oppose. As long as the
Rebel doesn't have to answer for any of these demands, the people will remain focussed on directing
their anger at the Empire- which does supply these needs. But what happens when the Rebels come
to power? The onus of supplying these needs shifts to the Rebels- along with the all the demands &
desires & debates of the People.
Unless the rebels are true ubermensch- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Ataturk, Washington,
Nehru- the Rebellion will collapse.

There are no ubermensch within the ISIS. Only ordinary mortals- and the worst sort of raping,
murdering, thieving mortals.

But what about Stalin, Trilochana? What about the Cultural Revolution? What about Saigon
burning? What about the Red Terror? What about Ataturk crushing Armenia? What about
Washington slaughtering the Native Americans? What about the Nehru & Kashmir?

An answer to this? There is an answer. But I'm not going to give it to you. Find it for yourself. Till then:-
 By conquering the Sunni triangle, by taking the responsibility for millions of civilians, by sacrificing the
anonymity of the Balaclava for the Pomp of the Pelisse, ISIS has opened itself to the censure of the
World, the jealousy of its fellow Sunni extemists, the sights of Iraqi, Syrian & Kurdi guns- but most
importantly to the avarice & petty hatred of its own 'subjects'.

Remember- the strength of the terrorists is the strength of the ant which bites an elephant. It is our
fear, our hesitation, our doubts that give them strength. Their strength, like all strength, is an accident,
arising out of the weakness of others (Joseph Conrad).

Al Maliki couldn't order his troops to carpet-bomb Raqqa because of the civilians there when the
civilians, however nominally, were Iraqi citizens. Barzani couldn't order his troops to take Mosul
because Mosul was, however nominally, Iraqi territory. Hezbollah couldn't enter Iraq to help out the
besieged Shia because Iraq was, no matter how fragile, an independent Nation-State.

By declaring itself a State to itself, ISIS unleashed all three from their self-imposed bonds.

Of course, by acquiring a State, ISIS has opened the doors for recruitment for every nutjob who
dreams of an Islamic Caliphate- but at what cost?

Al Qaeda hates them and wants nothing to do with them.

No Sunni locals want to join ISIS because they know first hand what failures they are.
No Chechens- ISIS' original fist- journey to Iraq any more because Putin has finally bestirred himself.
No Pashtuns travel to Iraq as Pashtunistan drowns in an orgy of genocide, civil war and drone strikes.

All ISIS now primarily gets are:-

1- Fat rich Saudi/ Qatari kids who've somehow managed to escape the Mutaween's & the Saudi
Army's border patrols. This lot have glutted themselves on their parent' hard-earned wealth &
unearned State handouts, haven't worked a day in their lives &, barring a few, have never touched a
gun.

2- Fat poor Western kids who've somehow managed to escape Western immigration controls. This lot
have glutted themselves on their parent' hard-earned wealth & unearned State handouts, haven't
worked a day in their lives &, barring a few, pretty much die of all sorts of terrible diseases like Delhi
Belly.

Let's face it, people. I spend a lot of time preaching Revolution but even I'd admit that their water
filtration systems are better...

ISIS is over. Two more years- & it'll be back to the Kurdis & Syrians & Iraqis running around
swatting 'stateless' terrorists like usual.
7.2k views ·
View Upvoters
·
View Sharers
Upvote
·
72
Share
·
1
 Add Comment

Jyotsna Yaduvanshi
January 29, 2015
Have you used the term Ubermensch for Nehru? My heart is saddened at this.
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 30, 2015 ·
1 upvote
Please clarify.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Jyotsna YaduvanshiNeitzscheian Ubermensch conjured an idea of a man beyond men, who lays the
foundation of a new society which is starkly different from the preceding one. Which is not build on
the same priciples of egalitarianism and morality. I dont think Nehru could be called such a man.
Nehru was largely believed in egalitarianism and social justice through redistribution. Something,
Neitzsche would baulk at.

Natalia Nezvanova
January 26, 2015 ·
1 upvote
Excellent analysis.
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 28, 2015 ·
1 upvote
 Thank you.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 26, 2015

How is military power measured and is the UK's military powerful?

Such questions are interesting to debate but unfortunately, can never be answered in a truly accurate
sense. Like always, we need to take inspiration from what our honourable ancestors have said about
this:-

Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one; it is man and not materials that
count.
The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the United States reactionaries use to scare people. It looks
terrible, but in fact it isn't.

A force is only as powerful as its people's willingness & ability to wield it.

The people of England- in addition to their impressive conventional & nuclear power- wield the ability
to drag the Americans into every little skirmish they fight on account of something called NATO. Thus,
they have the ability to not only bring about the extinction of the Human species but also the
destruction of all multicellular life on Earth within a few seconds.
 The people of England do not possess the willingness to wield their great & terrible military power in
the cause of Total War. They baulk at casualties, are afraid of minor power failures in the absence of
Russian oil, grumble endlessly if the imports of Ceylon Tea are delayed for a day, and have a morbid
fear of the sceptre of Nuclear Winter.

Thus, their total Military Power is minimal to the point of being non-existent.

That's an honest answer you'll probably not find anywhere else on Quora. If you didn't like it & instead
prefer a conventional, ordinary, dishonest answer, there's this:- Global Firepower Military Powers
Ranked for 2015.

Stop being so stuck up about Tanks & Planes & stuff, people. Military Power doesn't really matter in
the current age any more...

"Even if atom bombs were so powerful that they would make a hole right through the earth, or even
blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major
event for the solar system"

- Mao Tse-Tsung.
3.3k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
30
Share

Add Comment
 Achilleas Vortselas
January 27, 2015 ·
3 upvotes
including Trilochana Rout
"Thus, they have the ability to not only bring about the extinction of the Human species but also the
destruction of all multicellular life on Earth within a few seconds."

Not true. In the 80's it was calculated that a total nuclear war would end up killing around half the
world's population but ma
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
3

Anudeep Ravi
January 26, 2015 ·
6 upvotes
including Trilochana Rout
Nuclear winter is feared by people who will lose the most from it.

Is it any wonder the west is terrified?

Reply
Upvote
·
6
View More Comments
Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Updated January 28, 2015

Is the Iraqi military going to be able to hold back ISIS?

NB:- People, some of the pictures I'll be posting will be very graphic and/ or offensive. If you don't like
it, please feel free not to read. Unlike what many have said in the aftermath of the Paris incident-
Without the Freedom to Offend, Freedom of Expression has no meaning. I am not Charlie. But
they'll always be in the hearts & prayers of all lovers of Freedom forever.

I'm also trying out a personal experiment of my own right now. For that, I'll be as jingoistic & anti-
West as possible in this answer. If you think that's not cool, please read the second line of this post.
Thank you.

Now for the answer:-

Easily. Very easily. They're not even going to break a sweat.

The content & quality I see on Quora when it comes to questions like this- especially when it comes
to questions like this with all sorts of veterans & analysts & bureaucrats answering- is actually very
strange.

It's inconceivable that all these guys are in some sort of giant conspiracy of silence; that'd be
ridiculous- but then the only alternative is that Messrs. Marine & Messrs. American Foreign Service
Officer actually believe the stuff they write here...

I don't which one is more disturbing...Anyway.

There are certain things one must remember while reading about Iraq:-

1- Mass murder is not cool. Not any more. Not with all the media coverage & internet. Propaganda
only goes so far; you'll always have college kids yelling at your troops these days. Gone are the times
when the British could strafe Indian villages & stuff Kenyans into concentration camps. Gone are the
days when the Americans could fire-bomb Japanese civilians & German hospitals on basis of half-
baked propaganda. And no, I'm not talking about the Holocaust. If you really think the Allies gave a
fig for the Jews, you're sadly misinformed. Everyone back then , except Indians & Chinese,
hated the Jews. 99% of all World War-2 Allied propaganda is entirely focussed on defeating the Nazis
& Japanese as individual Races, not saving the Jews or the Chinese.

So much for the Greatest Generation...

It's a Brave New World- & even the terrorists know it. Not even the craziest Jihadi actually believes he
can murder all Kaffirs. He's going to try- no doubt about that- but he doesn't actually believe he'll
succeed. You can only kill so many Yazidi pagans before even the Saudi Mutaween maniacs start
having doubts about your sanity.

2- You should read Mao. Mao was the ubermensch- Washington meets Kipling meets Marx. He took
the most cynical people in the World and gave them purpose. He took a warring, divided land &
forged it into steel that could break the Yankee hordes. He was the greatest of the Great Nation-
builders of the 20th Century- Ataturk, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh- and he did it while marching through snow
storms on a ration of a few mouthfuls of rice gruel.

But no- the sheep will talk about 'Human Rights' & sparrows...There's no hope for such creatures!

Lose land to keep people, land can be retaken; lose people to keep land, land and people both lost.
The revolutionary war is a war of the masses; only mobilizing the masses and relying on them can wage
it.
Deep down, the Westerner despises the Asian. I'm not talking about individuals. Don't get me wrong;
an Asian & a Westerner can be best friends- we're basically the same inside & no matter what the
haters & racists say, Humanity is one huge Family.

But there can be no peace between two separate civilizations.

3- The brave guys always lose.
Increasingly, it's becoming apparent that societal excellence & cultural growth are active liabilities in a
nation's development. For the first time in history, you have a situation where the Empire is so
powerful that it's able to effectively clamp down on each & every sort of free enterprise. Everywhere.
At the same time. Always.

The German warlord Arminius defied the Romans. Roman General Belisarius out-fought the hordes of
the Caliphate. Indian Emperor Ala-ud-din Khalji smashed everything the Mongols sent his way.
Napoleon brought the British Empire to its knees. Stalin found a nation using wooden ploughs & left
it the first Space-faring Superpower in the history of Humanity.

But that's just not possible any more!

Look around you- all Asia- India, China, Russia- combined can't challenge America & its Euro/ Saudi
lackeys. And worse- we can't even unite; we're too mistrustful of each other! The Tutsi can't end the
mess in Central Africa because of 'Freedom'. Goodluck Jonathan can't move against Boko Haram
because of 'Human Rights' (& the liberals rail at me when I support the guy). Ukraine is a mess
because of 'Democracy' (or is it NATO missile shields? I don't see much difference myself).

We're looking at a massive global decline in stability (because no Empire lasts forever obviously!)-
without any hope of another power centre rising. I know the stuff being said about China & India- but
that's nonsense. We're too small, too alone & too mistrusted. There's no way either we Asians can
have the respect America or the British had among the small fry...

But, Trilochana- you delusional lunatic- you ask, what does all this have to do with the Iraqis?

And once again, Papa Tikip, has to explain it in simple English.

The Iraqi Army is a Shia militia. Period.

It's raised across all the tiny Shia neighbourhoods in Iraq, trained by Washington, Housed in Baghdad
& ordered by Teheran. They don't give a fig about 'Democracy' or 'Freedom'- nor should they. I'm
from the largest Democracy in the history of Mankind & I'm no fan of what the West is up to. Few
Indians want anything to do with Western-style Democracy. Yankee, go home.

Now- Saddam Hussein was a Sunni. Not that any of that mattered at the start when the Ba'athists
were bringing the joys of Secularism, Feminism & Socialism to the Arabs. But Americans- & their
Euro/ Saudi lackeys loathe Socialists.

One of these days, NATO is going to invade Sweden...Anyway-

Long story short- Saddam, a die-hard Secularist at first- ended up becoming a run-of-the-mill Sunni
tyrant who made life Hell for his Shia subjects. In the Iraq War, Americans naturally gravitated to the
Shias- more in number & natural enemies of Saddam's Sunni supporters. There were the Kurdis to
consider as well- but for the sake of brevity, let's not talk about them in this post.

Unfortunately for the Americans, the Shias remember well who started the sectarian mess in the first
place. Al Sadr fought a bloody war against the Americans- which he won. NATO had to transfer vast
amounts of material & machines no questions asked. And even then, Al Maliki maintained a hotline to
Teheran- no sane Asian leader would ever trust an American.

However, to the Shias' horror, Westerners have very different ideas about what makes a 'country' than
us Asians. For some reason, they put great stock in something called Westphalian sovereignty and the
Sykes–Picot Agreement.
Don't ask me why. The only possible explanation is that there's an innate urge in every Anglo-Saxon
soul to create mayhem & death every time he or she enters Asia as a political/ military agent. I'm not
kidding. There's absolutely no other explanation for India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, Sri Lanka,
Afghanistan-Pakistan etc etc. Don't tell me it's real politik; it's not. It's pretty much mayhem for
the sake of mayhem- nothing else.

The poor Iraqi Army was forced to be stationed in the middle of Sunni territory, a place where
everyone from the oldest grandmother to the youngest baby wanted them dead. They weren't
allowed to unleash their weapons because 'mass murder is not cool any more'. Their weapons-
American/ NATO-made- failed within the week, as everyone knows that Western-made weapons
always miraculously fail outside the West. They were not allowed to start their local 'Al-Shock, Al-Awe'
doctrines because that would've pissed off the Americans' Wahhabi friends in Saudi Arabia. They had
zero air-cover for their supply lines- and they had to depend on supply lines because no self-
respecting Iraqi Sunni tribesman would give them a glass of water.

Did I say tribesman? Actually, he was a tribesman by day; at night, he was part of one of the local
Sunni militias, at war with Baghdad.
Of course, it's understandable why a Sunni Iraqi would never see eye-to-eye with his Shia
counterpart- but what I can't explain is why Washington didn't start any agreements with the
Sunnis. It just doesn't make any sort of sense. The only possible explanation is that- as I said
earlier- there's an innate urge in every Anglo-Saxon soul to create mayhem & death every time
he or she enters Asia as a political/ military agent.

Anyway- then started the mess in Syria, and for some reason every single Westerner started throwing
money at the FSA even though everyone with a higher-than-room-temperature IQ could see that the
FSA was nothing more than your usual Jihadi Sunni sectarian terrorist organization. And just when it
seemed things couldn't get worse, came ISIS- with their Toyota Technicals, their Chechen light
infantry, their Saudi/ Qatari-funded dependable Russian arms. Is it any wonder the Iraqi Army fled?
You know things have got crazy when Iranian propaganda cartoons start making sense to you...

I see a lot of anti-Iraqi sentiment on Quora by arm-chair generals who should know better.
Fine- the Iraqis should've fought. But what when they ran out of water? What about
ammunition? Where would've they got their food from? The T-90 is solid Soviet engineering & it
guzzles a litre of oil for every kilometre. How much does one of those fancy wasteful fragile American
tanks consume? Those things don't run on air!

Will? What will? How much 'will' does a starving soldier in a dead tank have when faced with
barbarians who behead women & children?
For the past one year, the Iraqi army has been defending against the ISIS, the Al Qaeda, every single
maniac the Sunni World can throw at them at the gates of Baghdad. Every day, they're dealing with
suicide bombers, car bombs, sabotage, murder, assassinations. That's not the work of a shoddy
military without 'will'. That's not the work of a people who lack 'mental strength'. That's not
the work of a force without 'discipline'.

And it's just not the ISIS.

The equipment stolen is not rugged, simple Soviet tech. This is American engineering. You're not
supposed to simply get into those things & drive them off. How is the ISIS running those vehicles?
The Iraqis are trained. Kurdis are trained. But not the Sunni tribals. I've told you about how American
equipment is unreliable & fragile outside the West. Well- then ask yourself. How the hell are the ISIS
still operating those things?

Remember, Westerners, we Asians are dying everyday to defend your rights, your freedoms,
your lands. Think about that next time your soldiers give weapons to the Pakistanis, or train Saudi
soldiers, or fund the FSA.

Glory to the brave men of the Iraqi National Army.

 3.8k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
53
Share

Add Comment
 E. Shami
October 4, 2015
Interesting point of view.
Reply
Upvote

Milind Ravindranath
January 28, 2015 ·
5 upvotes
Gosh your answers are complex : it'll take me a while to process all of this, but the text flows
beautifully!
Reply
Upvote
·
5
View More Comments
Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered January 24, 2015

Why are aircraft carriers still being considered very important? Why are China and India working hard
to get them?

If you're reading this- no cookie for you. close this tab post-haste & go read one of the other
answers on this topic, written by real people who've worked hard to write real answers. I'm a
monkey banging a tin drum- funny for a few minutes but you're going throw me in the trash-can
soon.

I'll provide no detailed analysis, no exhaustive list of well-catalogued links, no well-reasoned

discussion of military hardware. It's me, my opinions & my rudeness, typed here within 30 minutes.
Don't like it? Go away.

Still here? Okay, listen to me rant.

Gangland Turf Wars. That's your answer.

An Aircraft Carrier is a massive waste of resources that has absolutely no relevance in Modern
Warfare. Not one of those things will last more than a week in case of a real war. Not one. Aircraft?
Denial of Area? Power projection? Are you kidding me?

This is the AGNI-VI, the Nuclear-tipped Fist of the Motherland.

It's also a 40 metre tall joke. You want to see real death-sticks?

When one of these things- even the joke we have- comes down, it doesn't matter how many ships are
there in your Carrier group. It doesn't matter how that single ship holds more planes than most
sovereign nations' air forces. It doesn't matter that your holds have the best Israeli drones money can
buy. It doesn't matter that your anti-missile systems are controlled by Aegis or Monkeyboy or
whatever Age of Empires crap exists.

Without the nuke tip, that's a multi-ton piece of metal coming down at a speed twenty-thirty times
the speed of sound. The last time something like that happened, the dinosaurs became extinct. Now
imagine one of our Thorium warheads on it.

No amount of Israeli tech will save you. God himself can't save your little ship.

But Trilochana, you say, what about the embargo on nukes?

To this, Papa Tikip says- have you read nothing? Do you understand nothing? What part of 'without
the nuke tip, that's a multi-ton piece of metal coming down at a speed twenty-thirty times the speed of
sound' don't you understand? You think your little Carrier group is stronger than the Yucatan
Peninsula?

Anyway, let's say that it's not us or the Chinese or the Russians getting involved. It's the old story-
America & NATO heroically bullying some small defenceless country as usual. Here's where the story
enters the farcical...

There's this little-known guy few have heard of. He was...misunderstood; some might even call him
'insane'. He had a nifty little quote:-

'Quantity has a quality all of its own'.

That's how sensible Third-World commanders fight. That's how any sane person fights against a
vastly-superior force. That's how Paul K. Van Riper fought against the might of the American
Joint Command in the Millennium Challenge 2002.

As things stand, no major nation can depend on its above-the-surface fleet to attack another
major nation. Not one- not even the US of A, overlord of all Humanity. Its ships will be decimated
by missiles, its planes will be shot down by AA batteries, there's no way its Fleet armaments & missile
batteries can successfully attack the land installations of one of the Asian powers. Of course, they can
solo New Zealand- but since when has Middle Earth mattered in World politics? Last time I checked,
Aragorn used a sword, not an AK-47. The only nations that would matter in case of a World War- the
only War deserving of Carrier deployment- are the 'Modern' armies of the West & the 'Colonial'
armies of Asia. They can't conquer us; We can't invade them. Case closed.

What would matter are Nukes & Subs. And- people. It's the hordes of cotton-shirted, rifle-armed men
& women we field that will ultimately bring us victory. Not those shiny aircraft carriers...

Then why are we Asians making Aircraft Carriers in the first place?

It's a good question. First things first- the generals- Indian, Russian, Chinese, Western- aren't stupid.
We (Asians) know we have no chance in an offensive war against the West. They (Westerners) know
they have no chance in an offensive war against Asia. Then why expend so much blood & money in
these floating death-traps?

1- Pride:- Why did the Nazis bother with a surface Navy when they knew that they can't compete with
the Royal Navy? Why did the Soviets bother with Fleets when the USN ruled the waves? Why are we
spending so much money on our Fleet when dozen big guns in the Straits of Malacca can neutralize
everything the Chinese can send our way? And please don't mention Pakistan. We destroyed Karachi
with a couple of merchant ships; comparing our Imperial Britain-trained wannabe-Soviet 'Colonial'
troops with that pack of American-trained wannabe-Arab 'Modern' maniacs is an insult.

A fairly big Navy is the best recruitment poster a national Navy can have. People win wars, & the more
Carriers you have, the more people you get into the real fields- artillery & research. No one actually
needs Carriers- but its the traditional coming-of-age ceremony for the big boys these days, so you still
have things like them.

2- Arms Race: Quick- How many Carriers will the Americans build to counter INS Vikrant? How many
aircraft will NATO build to neutralize Liaoning? How many Russian nukes will be pointed to the
emptiness of the Atlantic rather than American cities?

Every resource spent in countering a Carrier is something that won't be used against your real force-
multipliers- your missile silos & population centres. This is extremely important, especially for Asians
because the West's propensity for overkill severely cuts down on their resource supremacy compared
to us.

3- Business: How to best convince a gangster that we can save his arse when Karma comes knocking?
 In the near future, expect to see INS Vikrant & INS Vikramaditya sailing to defend some half-mad Arab
or African tyrant from getting his just desserts at the hands of Chinese-backed cannibal communist
rebels...

Self defence? Are you kidding me?

4.5k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
69
Share
Add Comment

Michael Forrest Jones

February 9, 2015 ·
3 upvotes
This is a Patriot missile.

This is an AEGIS missile. (Every aircraft carrier is accompanied by several ships that carry them. Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense System )

Your "death stick" is irrelevant.

 It would never make it over here, and never find its way to one of our carriers. It can do nothing
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
3

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 9, 2015 ·
11 upvotes
Good point. Now when I look back at it, I wonder why no one commented on this earlier.

I'm neither a tech geek nor a weapons fan; I pretty much consider weaponry to be inconsequential in
Modern warfare- & I'd subconsciously dismissed the entire thing in my mind so comprehensively at
the first reading
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
11

Prasant Roy
January 29, 2015
I loved your perspective on this.

Just a small correction, the missile in the photo is AGNI-V. As far as I know, AGNI-VI is still under
development.
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 29, 2015
Thanks for the correction. I will change it once I get a good picture.
Reply
Upvote
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 24, 2015

Who would win if Middle Earth and medieval Europe, Asia, and Africa went to war, given: Middle Earth
replaced the Indian Ocean; heroes are mortal; it’s the 1300s; no domestic wars; no magic; and Middle
Earth has beings like trolls, Eagles, and Ents?

Magic doesn't exist:-

We win. We have Subutai Khan. And reserves.

We will drown them in their own dead.

Magic exists:-

We still win. We have Subutai Khan. And reserves.

We will drown them in our dead.
2.3k views ·
View Upvoters
 Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this
Upvote
·
20
Share

Add Comment

Shawn Lu
February 27, 2015 ·
 1 upvote
Magic exists: You are screwed. We have Sauron. We have orcs. We will drown you in a tide of orcs.
Magic doesn't exist: We don't care. We have Legolas.
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · March 8, 2015 ·
3 upvotes
How many orcs? 100000? 200000? 1000000? We outnumber you anyway. Sauron surrendered without
a fight when the uber-moron called Al Pharazon attacked. You really think he & his armies will stand
against the genius of Genghis Khan, Ala-ud-din Khalji & Baybars?
Reply
Upvote
·
3
Quintin AshdrewThose numbers mean nothing when these people can play the long game. You're
saying that wise immortals like Sauron, Gandalf, Galadriel, Saruman and the Witch King cannot devise
a plan to outwit humans with the use of magic?
The Witch King alone waylaid the kingdoms by making sea storms and longer winters. Imagine all that
super power on ME side against the mere humans. Humans wouldn't be able to withstand the onset
of a balrog or any of the Nazgûl. They would be filled with fear and think no more of fighting but only
of death and fleeing. There's no way ME would lose with magic on their side.

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 24, 2015

What was the most lethal tank of World War II?

I will be answering this question in the style it deserves. Who cares for sedate posts when jingoism
does the job better?
The T-34.
The Tank that won World War-2 for the Allies. Pathetic Armour. Non-existent Communications. A
nearly useless Gun (in most cases). Terrible Optics. Ill-trained Crews.

This was the tank that created the Modern World. This was a tank for the losers- the uneducated,
unread dirty masses who made up the non-Western World. The tank that has defined every single war
fought since. The Tank made for savages, of barbarians, by heathens.

It doesn't matter how superior you are to us.

It doesn't matter how well-equipped you are.
It doesn't matter how rich you are.
We might stumble.
We may be ground to dust.

We may be humbled.
But we will never stop. We outnumber you. We outperform you. We are Right. We will make ten guns
for each you make. We will raise twenty Steel Mills for each you raise. We will launch a hundred ships
for each you launch. We will educate, train & inspire a thousand people for each of your citizens.

We will be triumphant!
 Onward, Comrades!!
14.2k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
89
Share
 Add Comment

Kelly La Rue
January 24, 2015 ·
1 upvote
Great pictures
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 24, 2015 ·
1 upvote
from Kelly La Rue
Thanks!
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Greg Chalik
September 30, 2015 ·
10 upvotes
I find your answer offensive, and tactically wrong.

"Pathetic Armour." - In 1940 it was excellent armour if one wanted to produce 10,000 units.
"Non-existent Communications." - based on the theory of tank employement AT THE TIME, and
manufacturing capabilities for producing radios for a fleet of 10,0
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
10
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 24, 2015

What was so special about Mongols?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There's nothing special about anyone. What you probably want to
know is how the Mongols became so successful. That's an entirely different question.

We can look at this through four different perspectives:-

Social: Pre-industrial warfare was a question of 'free' population. A society that could draft more of its
'free' population into war had a huge advantage over others. Unfortunately, for settled peoples, most
of their population was caught up in agriculture & business; and so sedentary populations had a
distinct vulnerability to nomadic tribes who could count as much as 40-50% of their population as
'war-ready'. Modern warfare only began in earnest with the fall in agriculture as an appreciable part of
National GDP & the invention of mechanized warfare. It takes years to train an archer; a child can use
an AK-47.

Pre-industrial sedentary civilizations had to be better at warfare, richer in wealth, more

organized, more disciplined than their nomadic cousins. Or they would die. When the Arabs were
nomadic barbarians, they were unbeatable. They settled in Baghdad, & promptly got the tar beaten
out of them by Indians & Romans even though neither Constantinople or Kanauj had the 'organized'
part down. The fact is - any pre-industrial nomadic faction, as long as it was big enough & organized
enough- was superior to a sedentary Empire.

As long as the Chinese could pay off one Mongol tribe against another, & foment unrest within
the society, everything was fine. The minute Genghis united the Mongols- and a homogeneous
area as big as modern India, things became bad for the urbanites.

Organizational: Nomadic tribes are driven heavily through personality cults. You can even see this
now among terrorist organizations, or even the more 'independent' parts of modern armies. A unit of
Special forces- or even the average Sniper- is a lot more personality-driven than a regiment of
Armoured Cavalry.

This is a very stupid method of waging war. It works sometimes- but that's all- sometimes.

Genghis- or rather, his blood brother Jamu Khan- changed this. The Age of Enlightenment concept
of 'General Staff'- where a young coterie of scholarly soldiers learned the concepts of military
administration, tactical planning etc- from a wizened general started with Jamu Khan. The
Mongol 'General Staff' took a rather more active view of war than the European 'General Staff' but
that's all.

Genghis' great reform was to allow commoners into his General Staff, allowing meritocracy,
personal ambition & individual initiative to play a greater role in his campaigns. It effectively
combined nomadic warrior panache with sedentary discipline & learning- the very factors that helped
the Goths defeat Rome & the Vandals conquer Africa.

Genghis' emphasis on meritocratic reform also enabled a more regimented, individualistic view
of war. Armies were standardized & compartmentalized; no longer could third-rate generals claim
victory on basis of their larger forces. It also enabled attachments of 'special' forces- Chinese siege
specialists, Korean naval experts, Armenian mountain specialists etc.

Tactical: Bhatkal's answer is very lacking in academic depth & filled with stereotypes- but he does
have the gist of it right. The composite bow was a major factor; so was the Mongol cavalry.

But there are problems with the usual narrative.

You see- practically every bit of contemporary Mongol literature focuses on the Charge. Charge &
Lances. Not the bow. Then come the guns. The guys who invaded Japan shot the Samurai poet. The
Assassins were bombed. Hulegu Khan ordered an artillery barrage on Baghdad.

Surprisingly, for all our obsession with them, we actually don't know enough about Mongol tactical
warfare to comment precisely about it.
 We know that they started the concept of Artillery barrages. We know that they prized
communication, formations, discipline, military drill, reconnaissance, terror tactics & logistical supply
depots. We know that they weren't barbaric murderers; they killed only if it was strategically necessary.

Luck: They were very, very lucky.

The Mongols didn't really 'defeat' China. They defeated a nomadic tribe that had, through decades
of merciless, pitiless warfare, killed off its males, bankrupted itself & ruined its economic base to take-
over the Northern half of China. Thus- the Mongols got hold of Chinese technology & tax-base
without losing as much men & material as the Jin did. In fact, the Stalemate in the South with the
Song wouldn't break for nearly a Century.

In India, they went up against Ala-ud-din Khalji, who pretty much murdered everything they sent his
way. And this while he was fending off all of South & East India & the Rajputs.

Mongol 'victories' came against an Islamic World in decline & a still nascent Europe. Genghis'
greatest victory was his conquest of Mongolia & the invasion of Xi Xia (you haven't heard of these
guys; amateurs talk about Khwarezm); the rest was simply an afterword.

As for why they disintegrated fast?

They were too successful.

Genghis' doctrine was based on meritocratic growth & individual initiative. He had to keep on
conquering- or keep fighting against an unbeatable enemy in order to keep his Empire intact.
Empires need enemies; they don't do too well in peacetime. Pax Romana had the Romans
feeding entire legions to German & Persian warhounds. Pax Britannica was two centuries of
people dying in African rivers & the Khyber Pass in futile wars that no one even wanted to win.

The American Empire is in danger- simply because it lacks the Soviets to fight against. We & the
Chinese are too weak; the Russians are long gone; Europeans are little better than slaves; the Islamists
don't even figure in the equation!

The Mongols died when they found that the World didn't have a good enough enemy to fight
them. Hulegu Khan had no enemies except his own brothers! Timur the Lame lost purely because he
won everything! They survived in China- where the Song outfought them on land & Sea for a century-
& in India where the Sultanate defeated them for 2 entire centuries till Babar- a full-fledged Mongol
himself- conquered India.

Vanished quickly? A Mongol ruled India till the 1800s!

9.9k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
108
Share
 Add Comment

Steve Speidel
May 25, 2015
As an example of the corroding effect of alcohol on the Mongol empire, consider Ögedei, youngest
son of Genghis and his successor, who died of alcoholism.
Ögedei had plenty of opponents left; perhaps later Mongols drank because they ran out of worlds to
conquer, but drink they did, by contemporar
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
 Akshay Vannery
January 28, 2015
beautifully written.
Reply
Upvote
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered January 24, 2015

Are there any terrorist groups that claim to be aligned with Shia Islam?

Not really.

The only sizeable Shia forces that can be evenly remotely termed as 'Islamic extremists' are Hezbollah
& the Al-Houthi front. But a more accurate description of them would be 'regional Separatist/
Nationalist groups' that just happen to be dominated by Shias.

Hezbollah is a recognized political party/ aid organization that includes Chrisitians, Druze & other
minorities in its ranks, tries to stay out of fights & acts more like a defensive militia than anything else.
The only 'terrorist actions' I can think of in their case are their attacks on Turkey- & that was against
Erdogan who's practically an Islamist himself. I don't consider the 2006 war in Lebanon or the current
Syrian war to be 'terrorist' actions. In Lebanon, Hezbollah was invaded; in Syria, they were invited as
private military contractors.

The Houthis are a pure Nationalist front no different from the IRA or even Garibaldi's troops. They
have never tried to strike non-combatant forces nor have they shown any inclination to poke their
noses in the affairs of the outside World. That may change when Yemen is pacified- but not yet.
Fact is- the heyday of 'Shia terrorism' was way back in the 80s; it's effectively dead now. You had
Hazara morons running around in Afghanistan attacking the Legitimate Socialist government & their
Soviet Allies. You had the maniacs in Iran who were stuffing kids into cinema halls & then burning
them alive. You had Baltistanis in Indian Kashmir, cannon-fodder in Lebanon, death-seekers in Bahrain
& morons in the Indian heartland.

Then something very bad happened- the Shias won (for most part).

You see- here's something you Liberals, you lot who blocked me on Quora because I went
against your mindless atheist rants- don't get. People don't rebel because they're being oppressed
or because they don't agree with the existing government or because the government lined their
fathers & brothers against the wall & gunned them down. Rajpakase's goons raped half of Sri Lanka &
still Prabhakaran got no help from his Tamil brethren. Gadaffi worked tirelessly for Libya & Africa, &
got his corpse raped for all his trouble.

Machiavelli writes:- "men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony".

(Of course, there are some who will want you to know that Machiavelli was actually a Republican who
was writing a satire- but that's nonsense. Whatever his brain might've told him, Machiavelli's heart was
with us tyrant-lovers...)

Revolution is a function of the excess testosterone in a society.

That's all there is to Rebels & Revolutionaries. Go burn your books & libraries. Papa Tikip has told
you all you need to know about Revolution.

A wise Rebel leader keeps his people down-trodden & suffering & in the Stone Age. A moron
educates the sheep, promotes feminism & gets murdered for his troubles.

In Iran, Khomenei defeated the Shah- but not the Shah's policies. He (the Ayatollah) worked tirelessly
for promoting healthcare, women's education & female employment.

But Trilochana, you say, wasn't Khomenei a vicious tyrant who made girls marry at 8, kicked out
women form the judiciary & government & ate babies?

To this, Papa Tikip says- Oppressing women is a cornerstone of Human civilization. Women's Rights
come inspite of society, not because of it. The present American-style Feminism is an aberration in
Human history. In fact, Khomenei by his actions, funnily enough, did exactly what Second-Wave
Feminism was campaigning for!

Women now had wider representation in schools & the workforce than ever. Modern healthcare
meant that there were fewer kids being born- & so fewer males & less testosterone than ever. Cue- a
distinct lack of Iranian terrorists.

But Trilochana, you baby-eating maniac, you say, what about the previous generation? The
ones who brought Khomenei to power? What about them?

To this, Papa Tikip says-

The Iraqis had guns & tanks & mines. The Iranians had people. Run enough 8-year old kids onto the
battlefield to clear minefields and you knock the fight out of a society for at least 3
generations.

And Khomenei- whatever be his sins- didn't start with the 8-year olds. He started with the
Revolutionary Guard. The problem of 'extra testosterone'? Solved.

Of course, your opinion may be different. To civilized American & their Euro-lackeys, Iran is a terrorist
state. I am a barbaric Third-Worlder; for commie barbarians like me, Iranians are normal people just
like Russians or Koreans or Chinese or Brazilians...

In Lebanon, practically the same thing happened. The Shias worked so hard that they inadvertently
ended up improving their society enough to ruin terrorism as a viable mode of politics. Terrorism is
expensive in terms of manpower; the average Indian soldier can take on at least 10 LeT morons by
himself in terms of firepower & training. The heavily-armoured Israelis can do better.

It's not that the Lebanese don't want to fight an offensive war; they simply can't. The ratios are not in
their favour. they have to hunker down & fight- just like us folk with normal armies.

In Yemen, the War has gone on for so long that the Houthis just don't care for the rest of the World
any more. They just want to get rid of the Saudi-funded, American-supplied, Al Qaeda-trained
maniacs in power & go back to their fields.

In Iraq, it's pretty much the same story. Al Sadr & his puppet Al-Maliki just doesn't want to fight any
more. They want to go home & farm their fields; they've fought for over 60 years without a single
break. They want out. ISIS can take over whatever hell they want; the Iraqi army- & the Sadr brigade-
just aren't interested any more.

In Bahrain & Saudi Arabia, the Sunnis have done a pretty good job of murdering the Shias into
submission.

In Syria, the Shias are the legitimate government with Secular law, Human rights, Feminism &
Freedom. Yankee, go home.

In Asia Proper, something very funny happened. You had all these Shias running around for Allah
& killing godless Indians & Russians & Kazakhs & Afghans- but turned out that 'Allah'- or at least the
Sunni version of 'Allah' wanted nothing to do with them!
 Sunni Pashtuns killed Shia Hazaras. Sunni Pakistanis killed Shia Hazaras. Sunni Pakistanis killed Shia
Baltistanis. Sunni Indian Muslims rioted- and while the BJP may go around claiming that the secular
Indian police doesn't protect Hindus during Hindu-Muslim riots, the truth is that they (secular Indian
police) has even less interest in saving Shias during Shia-Sunni riots- which are the most common
riots in India.

Of course, the Indian media isn't never going to tell you that now...

This has gone on for nearly 20 years now. Indian Shias have had the Allah-Jihad nonsense knocked
out of them; in fact quite a few of them vote for us Hindu Nationalist baby-eaters these days. Thanks,
Secular Liberals! Afghan Hazaras- Shias- barely have enough males to farm their land, let alone go
around killing people. The Shia Baltistanis in Pakistan are looking at institutionalized genocide. Serves
them right...

There you have it!

Anderson & Lakhani have it wrong. The Shias aren't inherently peaceful people; none of us are.
They've just had all the bad blood drained out of them through constant, unyielding, brutal,
decades-long war. The same thing happened in Europe during WW2. The same thing happened in
China during the Communist Wars. The same thing happened to Hindu India during the British Rule.
The same thing happened in America during the American Civil War.

There is Evil in all Human beings. Get it out- & you'll have peace.
41.3k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
88
Share
 Add Comment

Anudeep Ravi
January 24, 2015 ·
5 upvotes
"Shia-Sunni riots- which are the most common riots in India."

Sources for this?

Reply
Upvote
·
5
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 24, 2015 ·
9 upvotes
including Anudeep Ravi
I won't post any 'sources'- that's not my style & besides, I doubt there are government-approved
statistics on the religious-breakdowns of Indian riots. A more accurate description would be 'very
common'- but that doesn't suit my narrative here, does it?

Like always- never trust something. Especially

… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
9
Anudeep RaviSo MJ Akbar is Shia? I can't find it on google.

Abhilash Mohapatra
April 26, 2016 ·
1 upvote
A man is intrinsically good.

Of what I remember, this is what Rosseau thought.

 Now,let us ponder as to what makes a man corrupt? Many factors exist which I shall not discuss. Most
are out of scope for this discussion. I believe that Religion is a strong factor in a man's corruption,it
essentially dic
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered December 7, 2014

Why can't India wage an all out war against the Naxals using an army like SL did against LTTE?

Simple.

To comprehensively such any insurgency movement that has gone as long as Naxalism, genocide is
the only option an organized Nation-State has. Here's what typical Quoran Indians- Urbanites from
North India- don't understand- Naxalism is not an ideological movement.

In the two years I've been on Quora, I've only seen a single person who had any idea of what was
really going in Central India. That's how bad the ignorance is.

Naxalism is a combination of a lot of factors- ethnic, cultural, social- some of them dating back
hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Naxalism is the clash between the City & the Forest, between
Farmer & Hunter, between Aryan & Tribal, between Organized Government & Isolationist
Belief. The Historians & Media have just been giving different names to the same gigantic millenia-
long conflict.

We cannot win this unless we commit genocide. This will never happen as long as the Indian media
maintains larger offices than our Armed Forces in the Red districts. Never estimate the power of the
Indian Republic & its bureaucrats- the Naxalism problem will end next week if the Powers-that-be
want it to. It's just that the resultant loss in National prestige- & the harping by what passes as our
media- would not be worth it.

Much easier to consign 100 million humans to the Stone Age & offer regular sacrifices of CRPF to
keep the horrors slumbering.
3.8k views ·
View Upvoters
 ·
View Sharers

Hamvira Mohapatro and Shrinivas S upvoted this

Upvote
·
56
Share
·
3

Add Comment
 Vaibhav Dautkhani
December 10, 2014 ·
4 upvotes
Although I agree with you overall answer. I have a different perspective about Naxalism as a
phenomenon. I don't think that it is as complicated as you are making it out to be.

In my opinion it is all about natural resource and who controls them. The tribal rightfully own and
should control the fore
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
4

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 24, 2015 ·
1 upvote
Are there any more recent examples of successful counter-insurgency?
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Tristan Fernandes
January 23, 2015 ·
1 upvote
You seemed convince that hard military action is the only way to solve the naxal problem.
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 24, 2015 ·
1 upvote
Are there any more recent examples of successful counter-insurgency?
Reply
Upvote
·
1
View More Comments
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered December 4, 2014

Can lines drawn by men be taken so seriously (I'm referring to 205 nations)?

Thousands of people die everyday in order to preserve the sanctity of those man-made lines you
dismiss so flippantly.

Yes, those lines are very serious business.

1.9k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
14
Share

Add Comment
 Siddharth Agarwal
December 27, 2014
I think you didn't understood my question correctly. Thousands of people die because of that , that's
why i'm asking this question.
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · January 24, 2015
Imagine how many will die if not for them.
Reply
Upvote
Matt WestwoodUm ... none.

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

 Answered December 4, 2014 · Upvoted by Omkar Patil, Student at IIT Delhi

Is there anyone who is selected to an IIT based on 100% luck?

As far as I'm concerned, everyone gets selected into IIT purely on basis of luck.

I've heard that below a certain point, the difference between ranks becomes minimal- non-existent for
all practical purposes. The gap in marks between ranks, say, 2000 & 3000 may be as low as 4-5.

That's not even equivalent to 2 correct answers!

I'm sorry. But I don't think a mere 2 answers- or even 200- can correctly judge a person's potential. It's
a terrible system but unfortunately, we're stuck with it until we can find a better one.

PS- Reservations are here to stay. I suggest you guys stop whining about it all the time. All this teeth-
gnashing isn't going to increase your marks one bit. Believe me- I was about your age (12 iirc) when
the Mandal Commission came around. I remember the sheer rage & grief we unreserved groups felt
at the time- but nothing came of it except for a lot of burnt corpses. Nothing will come of it.

Just think you're competing for 50 seats instead of 100. The odds are more challenging- but then
again, it was your fault for being born in India. You get to play life on Very Hard Mode.

Best of Luck.
4.3k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
38
Share
 Add Comment

Vidyanand Wagh
December 16, 2014 ·
1 upvote
from Hamvira Mohapatro
After reading your answer, I seriously felt the need to discuss the following points with you:

The smaller gap in marks between lower ranks is due to the immense competition to get into an IIT.
Your statement says: "But I don't think a mere 2 answers- or even 200- can correctly judge a person's
poten
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered December 4, 2014

Should religious Q/A's be banned in Quora? Why and why not?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Enough of the nonsense that goes on on this site under the pretext of 'debate' or 'intellectual rights'
or 'freedom of whatever'. Few people here- theist or atheist- know anything about Theology or
Religious Studies, and so any thread here remains the province of dilettante 'intellectuals' & amateur
trolls.

Ignorance is Strength. Embrace it.

1.6k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
18
Share

Add Comment
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered December 4, 2014

What is your biggest fantasy (something you always wanted or would like to do but couldn't do so
because of any reason)?

Be the first to land on an Earth-like Planet.

Alas! I fear this dream will never come true. :(

PS- A back-up dream is to slay a Dragon. Of course, Dragons don't exist- & a squishy human going up
against a giant armoured fire-breathing lizard can only end in one way.
1.7k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
5
Share

Add Comment
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered December 4, 2014

What explains the changing tastes we enjoy in food?

Alcohol. Oil. Spices. Rip off everything from your tongue except the Umami receptors for some reason
(dunno why, ask a real doctor).
564 views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
1
Share
 Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered December 4, 2014

Is Hinduism the mother of all religions?

No, the so-called proto-Indo-European faith is the predecessor of all major religions existing currently
(except for Shintoism & traditional Chinese faiths).

Modern Hinduism is a descendant of Vedic Hinduism, which in turn, was a direct off-shoot of proto-
Indo-European religion. That makes it one of the oldest known religions at present- but by no means,
can you call it something like the 'Mother of all Religions'.
4.2k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
22
Share
 Add Comment

Jim Ashby
December 4, 2014 ·
1 upvote
Hi Trilochana,

I don't know of a direct link between proto-Indo-European (PIE) religions and Abrahamic religions. But
I suppose there could be an indirect link via regional offshoots, like Zoroastrianism.

There's some who believe Jesus spent time in India between the ages of 13 and 30 but there's not
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · December 4, 2014 ·
5 upvotes
including Hamvira Mohapatro
Yahweh, in all probability, started out as a War/ Rain god in the Classic Proto-Indo-European mould.
The reason why it's not a prevalent theory is simple- people don't want to believe in certain things.
When was the last time you heard 'Toxoplasma Gondii'? Do you even know why it's important?

Exactly
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
5
Jim AshbySo the answer is: "No. There is no direct link." You could have saved yourself a lot of
verbiage. I didn't ask if there were similarities or indirect links. It was prompted by your answer. You
DO remember your answer, don't you? Here, I'll reproduce it for you: No, the so-called proto-Indo-
European faith is the predecessor of all major religions existing currently (except for Shintoism &
traditional Chinese faiths). Modern Hinduism is a descendant of Vedic Hinduism, which in turn, was a
direct off-shoot of proto-Indo-European religion. That makes it one of the oldest known religions at
present- but by no means, can you call it something like the 'Mother of all Religions'. If PIE religion
was the "predecessor of all major religions existing currently" then what's its link to the Abrahamic
religions? I looked up the Proto-Indo-European religion wiki and it portrays a far more uncertain
understanding than you do. Perhaps you should edit the wiki. Here' read the beginning of the wiki:
Proto-Indo-European religion is not directly attested, but reconstruction has been attempted based
on the existence of similarities among the deities, religious practices and mythologies of the Indo-
European peoples. The hypothesized reconstructions below are based on linguistic evidence using the
comparative method. Archaeological evidence is difficult to match to any specific culture in the period
of early Indo-European culture in the Chalcolithic.[1]Other approaches to Indo-European mythology
are possible, most notably the trifunctional hypothesis of Georges Dumézil. [The underlined italics are
mine]
 Shubham Shinde
December 4, 2014
Is Judaism or the earlier semitic faiths also offshoots of PIE faith?
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · December 6, 2014 ·
4 upvotes
including Shubham Shinde
In an absolutely pedantic sense: We don't know.

The thing with history is that no self-respecting historian will ever give an absolute answer; what we
have instead are different interpretations of the existing data- all with varying degrees of probability.

When I first wrote this answer, I got almost

… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
4
Shubham ShindeThanks for a comprehensive reply! I have no knowledge about Judaism outside the
Old testament, Yahweh's tantrums were news to me. I'll look it up though. Regarding Indic faiths, I
found it that it's a general idea that Jainism existed as a Sramanic order prior to Parsvnath-Mahavir.
Though a connection with Indus Valley (as some Jains like to believe) seems too far-fetched, I find it
reasonable to believe the Sramanic order existed along Vedic, as an indigenous faith. What are your
thoughts about it? Or are the Sramans too new and the people are stretching them unnecessarily?
Regarding the dp, I think you should change yours to Tard the cat (jk)
 View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered December 3, 2014

Why do atheists believe 1+1=2?

There's actually a lot of comprehensive proof for 1+1=2, but you'd need a very good working
knowledge of Set Theory to even start understanding the basics of it. I strongly suspect that you don't
have said working knowledge, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm not here to make up for your many
inadequacies.

Whereas the only 'proof' for god are a bunch of Bronze-Age books written by goat-herds. Some of
them may be kind of good but others- especially the Abrahmic trio- are sheer poison.

PS- What's with the 'Mathematics' tag? This isn't a Mathematics question. Go away. Bother someone
else.
1.6k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
18
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered December 2, 2014

What in history does this picture indicate?

Short Answer:- Trade routes.

Long answer:- First things first. It's a medieval carving, not an 'Ancient Indian' one. Medieval India is
not the same as Muslim India. It took more than 800 years of constant warfare for a Muslim state to
conquer Orissa- & we were independent again within a few decades. Just because our kings wore
dhotis doesn't make us 'ancient'. The carving is 12th century- that's High Medieval, not Classical.

Those people don't have 'African features'. I can barely make out their faces myself. In all probability,
they are Oriya traders.

The Giraffe is most likely a gift for the Gajapati. As for how it got here- well, here's an idea- they
brought it over in a ship. Which they made. In the harbour at Puri.
You've been reading too many NCERT books. By 900 AD during the Kesari dynasty, Oriya navies were
fielding sail-powered ships called 'Dharani' which could hold upto 200 Marines. By 1100 AD, Orissa
and Tamil Nadu were fighting battles using armoured ships called 'Thirdei'- which had crews of nearly
500 men.

According to both Oriya & Tamil records, more than 300 of these beasts were destroyed during the
Second Chola-Kalinga War. And yet, I've never seen or heard of any digs on the Andhra Coast. Don't
ask me why. I've heard that they've opened a Maritime museum at Cuttack; 40 years too late if you ask
me- but whatever...

Edit:- This isn't from Khajuraho; it's Oriya art from Konark. I was born within 50 miles of the place. I
know.

As for why it's depicted?

The shell you see in Konark is not even a tenth of the actual temple that existed. Muslims,
Portuguese, Dutch & British have tried their best to destroy it over the centuries- and have failed.
That's how huge the temple complex was.

Every single inch in the existing structure is the base for some sort of carving. Oriya sculptors carved
artisans, farmers, soldiers, ministers, doctors, foreigners etc on the walls!

Of course, they'll carve traders! Orissa was a trade Empire! The State was built by traders!

(NB:- As a general rule of thumb, if any scene depicts a crowd where one person is atop an elephant,
the latter represents the Gajapati, Emperor of Orissa).

The Indus-Sumeria-Egypt trade Route dates back to 3500 BC. That's how old India-Africa trade links
go. Kalinga is known to have established trade outposts & colonies in Cambodia & Indonesia by the
time of our Golden Age during Gupta rule.

In any case, I doubt one of those 500-man ships would've had much trouble sailing to Africa.

No one 'trades' wild animals. They're usually meant to be status symbols or gifts. In all probability, the
giraffe was a gift from the traders to the Gajapati. Also- it is extremely doubtful that they were Black
Africans. By the 1200s, all major African settlements on the Indian ocean were under Arab rule, and
any Black sailor there would've been a slave, not a trader. An Arab trader would've used a land route-
where the giraffe would've died- and there's little chance the Gajapati would've met a Muslim
delegation personally.

Oriya traders bearing gifts for the Gajapati & using a sea-route. That's the only logical explanation of
the facts we have.

PS- I may have come off as a bit rude earlier. I apologize for that.

However, in my defence, the question itself makes little sense.

Imagine that the King is atop a horse instead of an elephant. Imagine that the people are wearing
tunics instead of dhotis & pyjamas. Imagine that the carving is of soft marble instead of being hewn
from virgin rock.

I bet that it would've been 'obvious' that the subject of the carving is some sort of diplomatic/ trade
negotiation. There wouldn't have been a doubt about where the animal came from- because it would
 have been 'obvious' that the tunic-wearing, horse-riding, marble-carving (you see where I'm going?)
people had brought it from!
2.7k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
36
Share

Add Comment

Jeff Kay
December 2, 2014
Apology aside, the question appeared to be presented in a genuine manner. Your initial attitude is
perplexing, considering that not everyone is well versed in any particular history. I'm pretty good with
Western, but have plenty of shortcomings when it comes to Eastern. You're answer is extremely
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
 Shubham Shinde
December 4, 2014
Splendid answer!
Reply
Upvote
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered November 30, 2014

Why are all thunder/sky gods so important in all mythologies? What does it imply about the ancient
world and its religion?

There is one central over-arching conflict in all Indo-European faiths:-

Rain & Sun.

Water & Fire.
Man & Beast.
'Civilization' vs 'Nature'.

In all cases, it is the Rain-Water-Man-Civilization aspect that defeats/ consumes/ subdues the Sun-
Fire-Beast-Nature aspect. It probably started out as a proto-Indo-European myth and spread all over
the World. What you're calling the 'thunder god' is actually the local picturization of the 'Rain-Water-
Man-Civilization' aspect.
1.7k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
9
Share

Add Comment

Anudeep Ravi
November 30, 2014 ·
1 upvote
Sun is associated with Beasts? Why? Thunder seems more sensible in It's randomness to be associated
with beasts.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · December 2, 2014 ·
1 upvote
I don't know. There might be a reason but I don't know it.

Paradoxically- 'thunder/ rain' in Indo-European cultures is a metaphor for 'war'. 'Sun/ Light' is a
metaphor for 'peace'. Thus, Human= War. Nature=Peace.

It's obvious our ancestors weren't hypocrites like us.

Reply
Upvote
·
1
Anudeep Ravi"Paradoxically- 'thunder/ rain' in Indo-European cultures is a metaphor for 'war'. 'Sun/
Light' is a metaphor for 'peace'. Thus, Human= War. Nature=Peace." Wait a second... Now all the
scenes with rain during fighting and Sun rising at the end of Fighting takes whole bigger meaning
behind it.

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered November 30, 2014

When did omnibenevolent start being applied to the Christian definition of God, and from what
source?

I will try to answer this- however I want to spell it out that I hate Theology and all it entails. I'm only
writing this as McKerracher's answer pissed me off.
 That said- I don't think you will find a proper answer to this on Quora. As far as I know, there are no
monks or theologians on this site & for good reason. They have a lot more things to do than waste
their precious time here. Unlike what many Quoran atheists would tell you, religious scholars- or in
case of Christianity, Catholic & Orthodox scholars, do do a lot of productive work.

'Omnibenevelonce' is not & has never been a trait of the Judeo-Christian God.

If Quoran atheists are saying otherwise, then it's because they've not bothered to read up on what
they're talking about in the first place. Discussing questions on religion has no bearing on the
fundamental premise of the existence- or non-existence- of a deity per se. In such a case,
McKerracher's statement that- there is no defensible reason to believe God even exists- is an
intellectual black-hole that is far more onerous than any (morally-defunct) claims of BNBR.

First- the Judeo-Christian God started out as an Indo-European War god. Like all his counterparts,
such a god was focussed entirely on showering benedictions upon his own tribe. Other religions,
tribes didn't even enter the equation. 'Omnibenevolence' would've been a ridiculous idea under the
circumstances.

Secondly, Christian- or in this case Catholic- Theology has been copied almost entirely from Greek
philosophical debates on Theology- which, almost invariably, took as a base, an Indo-European
religious doctrine. Indo-European faiths clearly demarcate the division between absolute
morality & divinity. Thus in Catholicism, you have a god who has 'benevolence' as one of his
attributes- but not as a central aspect of his character.

Again- I'm not Catholic & have not done a study of this thing. Everything I've just written may be a
complete misinterpretation. If you want an accurate answer, ask a Catholic or Orthodox priest.

Third- Protestantism, for all practical purposes, was religion for the tax-hating masses who wanted a
god who would molly-coddle them- & 'convince' them not to give money to the local tax collector.
Thus, the onus of unquestioning benevolence shifted from the local King (chosen by 'god') to 'god'
himself. Even so, this view was never really common even among Protestants. I doubt even a quarter
of all the Protestant sects believed all that.

If you don't recall 'Omnibenevolence' from your childhood Christian teachings, it's because it never
formed part of those teachings in the first place & thus, no one taught you that part. Case closed.

PS- Ask a Catholic priest. Better yet, meet a Seminarian. You may not agree with anything they say (&
loathe their message & teachings), but they're pretty nice people for most part.
1.7k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
9
Share
 Add Comment

Mahesh Soori
November 30, 2014
Why would McKerracher's answer piss you off. I watched the video and its an excellent critique of
God's attributes.
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · December 2, 2014 ·
1 upvote
When did omni-benevolent start being applied to the Christian definition of God, and from
what source?

The question doesn't ask for a debate about the existence of god or a 'critique of God's attributes'. It
raises a very interesting theological point.

A good scholar- given enough data- can use it to

… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
This comment has been deleted · February 28, 2016
Trilochana RoutIf you didn't like me, you'd hate Socrates. :P Theology is fun. All those people
slaughtered because two monks can't make their minds about whether Christ's poverty was part of his
divine aspect or his human nature? What can be more satisfying for a nihilist like me?

Nina Walker
January 3, 2015
I was raised Christian and the "omni" thing was constantly being used to describe God's attributes.
While my dad was doing his soul searching we attended over 37 different churches. That phrase was
used regularly.
I am now 51 and have had a recent long term discussion with the Pastor of The Local
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
View More Comments
 Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered November 29, 2014

Where should an Indian go to get the biggest culture shock?

I have travelled across most of the World and most of my acquaintances are well-travelled Indians/
immigrants themselves. If you ask any of us, this is what the answer is:- China.

There's a story that has been going around for about a decade now- "Once the average Indian sees a
Chinese city, he's so shocked that he can't speak for a week".

I once thought it was hyperbole.

Then I went to China.

NB:- I have been asked to explain 'why'.

I'll try- but I'm not confident of succeeding. Sorry in advance.

The fact is- despite whatever many people say- people all round the World are pretty much the same.
An Indian city looks a lot like a European one. An Australian city looks a lot like an American one.

It's something I can't explain with words. Think of it as the underlying aesthetic behind the
architecture- or the soul of the culture underneath the post-modern Steel & Glass. I can't explain it to
you- & you probably won;t understand it unless you're an Indian yourself & are visiting China.

It's not the Skyscrapers. Practically cities in the World have those.
It's not all the construction in the cities' outskirts. That's common too.
It's not the roads. There are big roads all over the World.
It's not all the people rushing all over. That's common too.
It's not even the culture. They kind of resemble Indians in a strange way.

It's something else, something inexplicable. Taken in isolation, a White/ Hispanic/ African family is
nothing like us- & yet their societies are exactly like ours. A Chinese family is exactly like an Indian
one- & yet their society may as well be from Mars. Think of it as being asked to describe the colour
Red to a blind man.

I'm sorry. I can't explain it any better.

4.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
22
Share

Add Comment

Zora Vasulinova
November 29, 2014 ·
3 upvotes
What was shocking for you there?
Reply
Upvote
·
3
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · November 30, 2014 ·
2 upvotes
To be honest, I can't tell you why. I've added a bit to my answer- but I'm sorry I can't answer this in my
usual exhaustive style.
Reply
Upvote
·
2

B Prithvi
November 30, 2014 ·
5 upvotes
including Trilochana Rout
Yes, I will completely agree that it has to be China. If you see, Chinese history is never known to many
Indians. However, Europe became close to India since colonial times, Persians impacted India in
medieval times, prior to that Indian influences existed in South East Asian countries, South Africa
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
5
 Yuktivaadi Manush
June 25, 2015
Mahayana monks in China are veggies in contrast to theravada monks of thailand, sri lanka
Reply
Upvote
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered November 26, 2014

Why do Hindus have to respect Buddha when he has introduced the concept of anatta which is in
direct conflict with Hinduism?

Short answer:- The Council of Kanauj.

Long answer:- While the diplomatic real-politik of Emperor Ashoka & the military campaigns of the
Sungas & the Mahameghavanas had tempered the expansionism of the Buddhists, their sheer number
and economic might was an extremely contentious issue that was a threat to any established state in
India as the fall of the Imperial Guptas, & the disastrous coalition under Yashodharman Malwa
demonstrated.

While it is true that later reforms by Hindu reformers like Shankarachraya were instrumental in
removing the influence of Buddhism among the lower classes, the real death-knell of Indian Buddhism
was Emperor Harshavardhana's Council of Kanauj aka the Fifth Buddhist Council- which not only
subordinated Buddhism to the position of a mere sub-set of Hindu thought, but also painted the
Buddha as an aspect- & an obvious 'inferior' aspect- of the supreme Godhead, the Brahman.
 This act came as a huge shock to Hinduism too- witness the marginalization of the Indo-European
Gods & the degradation of militaristic thinking among Indian nations in the aftermath of this
restructuring. However, for all practical purposes, the Council ended the philosophical, numerical &
political challenge Buddhism had presented to Hinduism in the Classical Age.
2k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
27
Share

Add Comment
Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered November 26, 2014

What is one serious, credible reason why I should consider a belief in your god(s)?
Let me put it this way:-

If you don't believe in the Divinity of the God-Emperor of Mankind, the inherent Holiness of the
Human species, and its manifest destiny to rule the Galaxy, the Most Holy Inquisition is going to
bomb you, your home-town, your nation, the continent you live on & the entire planet. And that is if
we're very very lucky.
 Why would you need any more reasons, heretic?
2.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
17
Share

Add Comment

Pete Ashly
November 26, 2014 ·
1 upvote
I'll roll with this as art as a pretty good reason. ;-)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 James Boll
November 26, 2014 ·
1 upvote
Is that the Scarlet Crusade, or Arthas Menethil? or someone else entirely...
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · November 26, 2014
Emperor of Mankind
Reply
Upvote
James BollAhhh Warhammer.. Of course.
View More Comments
 Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered November 26, 2014

Is it still really difficult to rule a country like India?

India is the only major multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-linguistic democratic (for most part) society I
know of that hasn't been a total, comprehensive failure.

Frankly, the thing is that multi-ethnic societies are a bad idea; they shouldn't work. they don't work, &
they never have. India is, quite frankly, an inexplicable anomaly.

So, of course- I'd say it is unimaginably difficult to run India, Kudos to the bureaucrats of the IAS
who've managed this since independence despite never having been trained to run a Republic in the
first place & despite the nonsense that passes off as Democracy in this place.
2k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
33
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered November 21, 2014

I am Christian and my boyfriend is an atheist (born Hindu). Is it selfish of me wanting to give a

Christian name to our child?

Is it selfish of me wanting to give a Christian name to our child?

We'll talk about 'selfishness' later- but you giving your kid a 'Christian' name would be plain
ridiculous.

First- there's nothing called a 'Christian' name. What you do have are Europeanized names.

Why the hell would you want to give your future kids European names instead of Indian ones?

From where I'm sitting, the only possible reasons are this:-

1- You, like many Indian kids, are obsessed with the West & think that India sucks.
2- You, like all recent Christian converts, consider your own culture to be inferior & want nothing to
do with it.
3- You- & this is the least likeliest option- want a 'cool'-sounding name for your kid.

All these reasons are stupid.

That got me mad because I feel having to bear 9 months of pain and not getting to choose my baby's
name just to please his parents and not even him.

This pissed me off a bit. You- and all the do-gooders among Quorans- won't like this, but this pissed
me off. Look here- life sucks for all of us. However, you can't start measuring out whose life sucks
more. Therein lies the path to madness. '9 months of pain' give you a kid; nothing more. You don't
deserve the right to name the kid. You don't deserve the right to choose the kid's religion. You don't
deserve the right to choose that kid's sexual orientation.

You don't even deserve that kid's love or respect. You don't deserve. Period. No parent deserves
anything.

It's up to the kid to choose what he/ she wants in the future. As for the present, give the kid an Indian
name from the culture your ancestors came from- Southern, Northern, Tribal, anything.
 PS- This isn't some agony aunt column. Go to your grandmother next time you need this kind of
advice.

PPS- I hate to say this- but find a marriage counsellor. You guys are headed nowhere. You can find
love later on in life too.

PPPS- I really don't understand this obsession among Indians to start popping out kids in their 20s.
You, OP, and your boyfriend simply aren't mature enough to start a family. Stop thinking about
marriage & kids now.
2.4k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
45
Share

Add Comment

Meshach M
November 20, 2015 ·
2 upvotes
 No. . . Your answer is biased. My Dad is a converted christian. I am a christian. I am given a Bible name.
Only name was western or europeanized as you can say so. My parents taught me well about our
culture and will never accept me do or behave or talk against our culture. They make me think proud
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
2

Matt Moriarty
October 27, 2016
Really? Parents don’t deserve their children’s love and respect?
Reply
Upvote
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered November 20, 2014

If God is everywhere, why do some insist on calling him "skygod"?

Short answer:- It's a cultural thing.

Long answer:- Indo-European faiths have always centred around a single 'Sky' or 'Storm' god- that
goes for everyone from Indra to Zeus to Jupiter. This concept also influenced practically all non-Indo-
European cultures- like Odin among the Norse or Tengri among the Turkic peoples, partly because
Indo-European cultures were the most advanced peoples of their times.
 The Indo-European faiths may have gone, but the cultural baggage still remains.

There's also a chance that the 'sky god' talk came about because Yahweh- your god in question-
probably was a 'sky god' to begin with. Yahweh was the Jewish god of War, back in the days when the
Jews were a polytheistic tribe like the rest.

Sky gods have always been associated with War among Indo-Europeans & their associated cultures-
so it's highly likely that Yahweh, like Indra, Zeus & Tengri, was just another name for the proto-Indo-
European Sky/ Storm/ War god.
1.4k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
12
Share

Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered November 18, 2014
 Why are people in India so enamored with Prime Minister Modi given his shady past?

Anyone who doesn't have a 'shady' past is hiding something.

What about you, OP?

1.6k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
23
Share

Add Comment
Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered November 15, 2014

Are there any more recent examples of successful counter-insurgency?

It is impossible for a modern Nation-State to end a public-backed insurgency- without

genocide. Anyone saying otherwise knows nothing about the World.

Sri Lanka:- Genocide. Any one who says otherwise is lying- & I'm not just saying this because I'm an
Indian & thus obligated to support my Tamil brothers & sisters. The Sinhalese won the war by carpet-
bombing Tamil villages, murdering every able-bodied Tamil male they found (& some of the not-so-
able-bodied-Tamil-males too), and sending the rest to concentration camps.

Peru:- You're probably referring to the Shining Path- a bunch of psychotic hippies banded around
their insane cult-leader. It was never a mass movement, never a true ideological conflict, never
something with the power to last. Kill the cult leader. No personality cult can last when the personality
is dead.

Malaya:- Do you guys even read? Malayasia was about the Chinese minority going against the British.
I've said it once & I'll say it again- the Colonial British were the most cold-blooded murderers in
Human history. No one- not the Romans, not the Mongols, no one compares with them.

They didn't even have to fight much. You see- ethnic Malaysians have never needed an excuse to kill
Chinese & Indians. The British gave them a license to kill Chinese babies, rape Chinese women & take
over Chinese property. The Chinese were smart & backed down.

Philippines:- Look up that question on the Filipino insurgency. All that crap written by non-Filipinos
got a lot of up-votes- & the sole right answer- posted by a real Filipino- got zero.

That's what is wrong with the Top Writer system.

The Americans dealt with the Filipinos by killing every living non-American soul in the place- except
for kids below 15, because that'd be cruel- and the Moros, because it's aactually pretty easy to make
Islamists happy. Just hand them the Sharia courts & the police. The (non-Moro) kids died shortly after
their parents were gone- but then again, that wasn't the Americans' fault.

The only 'counter-insurgency' operations that could've been said to have (kind of) succeeded are the
Khalistan issue in India, the Thai commie movements & Ramon Magsaysay's efforts in the Philippines.
Every single one of them involved some sort of governmental oppression & cultural (if not physical)
genocide.
 It's impossible to stop a public-backed insurgency without committing genocide. all the more reason
to ensure that none start in the first place.
3.2k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
30
Share

Add Comment
 Bill McDonald
November 15, 2014 ·
1 upvote
So if an insurgency has started, the government needs to come down very hard and fast, while the
insurgency is in the early stages, (like the Shinning Path example) and before it has mass support.
Because once you get to mass support the only options are a political power sharing solution or mass
a
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · November 15, 2014 ·
9 upvotes
including Bill McDonald
'Power sharing' only works when the local guy you've shared power with is willing & able to do your
dirty work for you.

Unfortunately for the West, its plebs are far too soft than their governments would like. So it's easy for
the West to win wars- but difficult for it to sustain those victories/ cr
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
9
 Bill McDonaldYour point on demographics is very important. The population of the American colonies
was exploding about 20 years before the Revolution. There is some evidence that Benjamin Franklin
knew this, and knew we would have the demographic advantage of the limited number of troops that
would have to come by ship. Russian demographics are interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

Anudeep Ravi
November 16, 2014
So, Does that indicate that after 1857, India Lacked Demographics to Rebel?
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · November 16, 2014 ·
5 upvotes
including Anudeep Ravi
India isn't a 'Nation'; it's a collection of thousands of ethnicities. You can't have a pan-Indian
movement unless you find some common ground among the participants. The only ideologies
pervasive enough for that are Communism- or any sort of religious fundamentalism.

That's why you had Savakar- who

… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
5
Anudeep RaviHow do you say Whites made up 40% of population? What were the women doing,
Having 10 kids per generation?
 View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, studied at Life and Living

Answered November 10, 2014

Was Sparta's war culture ultimately a success or a failure?

Short answer:- They were a total, miserable failure. 'The best soldiers in history' would've been beaten
in a 10-to-1 fight with Genghis Khan or Alexander or Napoleon or Nobunaga. Long answer:- This can
be looked at with two aspects. Military: Sparta w
(more)
2.2k views ·
View Upvoters
37
0
2
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered November 10, 2014

Which are the top 3 "war cultures"?

1- Sparta
2- Huna
3-Scythian

Out of these 3, the only one that would actually qualify for what you're probably thinking is Sparta;
the other two were actually pretty normal folk for their situation.

Only Spartans tried to be a total 'war culture'. That is why they were abject failures at War &
nincompoops who were never emulated by any sane civilization.
1.7k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
8
Share

Add Comment
 Jack Molloy
November 10, 2014
Do you have any sources for your view on the effectiveness of the Spartans in war?
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · November 10, 2014 ·
2 upvotes
What kind of proof do you want?

Weepy litanies by self-hating Athenian philosophers?

Doublespeak by Roman war-loving dilettantes?
'War' movies by American wannabe-fascists?

If you want a detailed write-up on Sparta, post a separate question.

Reply
Upvote
·
2
Jack MolloyI wasn't disagreeing, but your opinion is contrary to popular belief, and I was just curious
as to where you got it from
Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered November 10, 2014

What was the best trained pre-20th century army, the Roman legion, Napoleon's Grand Armée,
Alexander's phalanx or others?

Genghis Khan's Mongol Armies would qualify- especially the ones under Subutai Khan.

A close second would be the 19th century British Naval forces.

Edit:- Extra addition on the Mongols.

This addition was made solely as it would help people understand the logic behind my choice. It is, by
no means, an exhaustive or even 'good' elaboration; so please remember you'll be better off reading a
book.

First we need to keep some disclaimers in mind:-

1- We have little idea about military systems in what is now Latin America. (Don't believe the crap the
Catholics wrote; most of it is nonsense).
2- We know a bit about military systems in West & South Africa- but not really enough. But please
read up on Emperor Shaka or Military engineering in West Africa.
3- Our knowledge about warfare in South & South-East Asia is pretty rudimentary as well- though we
do know they were no strangers to massive warfare. For some reason, Hindu & Hindu-inspired
civilizations hated writing about War.
4- China was, ultimately, a Hindu-inspired civilization after the coming of Buddhism. Most of their war
records are actually poetry- some of it in standard Sanskrit parameters, and they have the same mix of
heroism and propaganda.

A good pre-modern army ( ask someone else for modern warfare) required an encouragement of
thought, training mid-level officers to act independently & standardized patterns of movement &
though.

A good army required professionalism- & a certain level of ruthless pragmatism.

Strategically speaking, Genghis Khan encouraged meritocracy, offered plenty of scope for thinking to
his mid-level officers, divided his armies into standard troop formations with well-structured
command levels. and eagerly adopted new technology.

Tactically speaking- he recruited his armies from hardy tribal nomads who were used to privation &
suffering, used a brilliant weapon- the composite bow- & travel fast & light with their ponies.
 But of course- Mongol success owed more to Genghis Khan's strategic brilliance than because of the
other reasons.

Any idiot can practice pretending to be a wall. Real training requires skill, teamwork & knowing one's
place in a combined arms battle, & in the continent itself. The Romans knew that. The British knew
that. And the Mongols knew that.
2.8k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
21
Share

Add Comment

Anonymous
November 10, 2014 ·
 1 upvote
Interesting answer.

Can you point out some interesting facts about the training of Genghis Khan's Mongol Armies in
particular?
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · November 10, 2014
I will expand the answer a bit then.
Reply
Upvote

Kevin Dwyer
November 10, 2014 ·
1 upvote
Good question!
The Mongols treated war like it was a hunting party. They always figured out how to hunt their prey
properly, knowing strengths and weaknesses, and didn't really have any 'ego' in it. Quite practical!
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Fan Zhou
November 19, 2014
LOL the first time i have ever heard about china being Hindu-inspired...
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · November 20, 2014 ·
1 upvote
Buddhism is pretty much ripped off from the more esoteric parts of the Vedas.

So you don't think Chinese society- at least pre-Mao Chinese society- wasn't really influenced by
Buddhism?
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Arthur FieldsBut Buddhism never really became that popular in China. They were quite content with
Confucianism.
Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered November 2, 2014

What are the factions involved in the ongoing conflict in Syria, and what are their goals?

The Syrian-Iraq 'war' is merely a front- & only a front- of the much greater Sunni-Shia war that
has been going on since the foundation of Islam. Since the end of WW2, the Sunni star has been in
ascendant. The Sunnis have the numbers, the money & most importantly- NATO mercenaries (let's
face this. That's all they are). The Shias have nothing except grit & the will to hold on.

The Shias also have Russia- but the USSR is gone & the World hates Soviet allies (Iran, India, the Tutsi,
the poor morons in the Serbian wars etc)...

However, the past decade has been surprisingly good for the Shias- the fall of Saddam Hussein and
Gaddafi, the resurgence of Putin's Russia, the rise of India & China (both anti-American powers, to be
frank), the 2006 victory of Hezbollah over Israel, the wars in Yemen, Iran developing nukes(??). The fall
of Iraq brought a Shia regime to the front as well as greater autonomy to the Sunni Kurdis- natural
enemies to the Sunni regimes of Saddam's Iraq & Erdogan's Turkey.

Such a state of affairs is the antithesis of Saudi Arabia's vision of the Islamic World. Here's what no
media outlet will tell you- the so-called Arab spring died under the tracks of Saudi tanks & the
grease of Saudi gold. The original Syrian rebels were not Islamists; they were merely 'young, free-
thinking, liberal youth'.

Trust me on this:- No good has ever come from having young, free-thinking, liberal people
running around.

As would be expected, these soft kids lost out to the hardliners from Saudi Arabia, Chechenya,
Pakistan & Africa. The Syrians, Iranians & Kurdis upped the ante & thus, you have the present state of
affairs & the contending factions.

ISIS:- The biggest faction in terms of size of land & potential recruits. They have a central core of
Iraqis, Saudi advisors (Any time something like this happens, there are bound to be Saudi 'advisors':
Chechenya, Kashmir, Afghanistan etc etc.), a core fighting regiment of Chechens & Pakistanis, & rabble
from all over the Sunni World. What makes ISIS special is that they command the allegiance of all the
Sunni tribes between Baghdad & Alleop. These tribes are heavily Wahhabized, incensed at being
dominated by their erstwhile Shia/ Christian Kaffir slaves (let's be honest here, shall we?) & angry at the
US for 'abandoning' them to the mercies of Al Maliki's puppet Iranian Iraqi state. ISIS wants a global
Islamic Caliphate; the truth is they've reached an impasse & will never be able to conquer the
surrounding Shia/ Kurdi areas.
Al-Nusra front, FSA & other assorted creeps:- This lot owe their allegiance to individual Sunni tribes
rather than the IS Caliphate proper. They're better than the ISIS; Shias, Druze & Christians don't have
to die, they will do well as jiziya-paying dhimmis. They want lots of inconsequential things (for all
practical purposes) which are irrelevant at present.

AQ:- The AQ boogey-man comes up everywhere. It is exactly that- a boogey-man which doesn't exist
any more. The Americans defeated it & the Pakistanis swallowed the scraps for their own Lashkars.
Case closed.

Syria:- The Shia-Christian-Druze alliance is restricted to the Shia-dominated Coast & coastal hills of
Syria. At present, there's no chance of them winning back the Sunni hinterland- & I suspect Assad has
stopped thinking of 'total victory' already. They want a return to peace & the Status quo.

Iraq:- The Iranian puppet State of Iraq wants peace & status quo. They (like Assad) know that they'll
never win back the Sunni heartland & are mostly resigned to the fact. All noises you hear in the media
are just that- noise.

Iran:- Their long-term goals are the destruction of Saudi Arabia. Their short-tern goals are the
destruction of ISIS, the humiliation of Saudi Arabia & the return of Mosul to Shia control. They're the
best placed to 'win' currently but will lose.

Qatar:- Wahhabi puppet state. Allies of ISIS (though they do take part in all the irrlevant little UN anti-
ISIS shindigs). Irrelevant.

Kurdis:- They want an independent Kurdistan, and will get it. The only 'heroes' of this entire conflict if
you're stupid enough to think in those terms. They hate everyone who is not a Kurdi (can't really
blame them) but put up with Shias at present.

Turkey:- They're a Sunni state which is fast drowning its Kemalist traditions in the Bosphorus. They'll
collapse the minute this happens (no oil to save that ungrateful lot!)- but until then, they'll make a lot
of noise. They want a end to the Kurdis, a reduction in Shia power & Saudi hegemony. They're ISIS
allies but shh- it's a secret!

Saudi Arabia:- ISIS allies & they aren't even trying to hide it. Heaven only knows why NATO & the
media are so eager to...Oh wait, I know why. You know why. Let's just continue on, shall we?

Israel:- They love the ISIS! ISIS is the perfect enemy for Israel; the former are too small & far-off to
bother Israel but powerful enough to make life hell for Israel's Shia enemies.

Shia militias (Hezbollah, Sadrites etc):- They loathe ISIS, Jews, Sunnis, NATO etc etc. They'll be the
hero's sidekick if this was a Bollywood movie. Since this is not, they're merely violent, brainwashed
religious fundamentalists.

USA/ NATO:- They're merely mercenaries for the Sunnis. I've heard murmurs about weird things like
'democracy' & 'freedom' but what the West want is irrelevant right now & in the long run.
1.5k views ·
View Upvoters
 Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this
Upvote
·
20
Share

Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered November 2, 2014
Is ISIS easy to infiltrate?

This thread was bit of a shock. There's a lot of feel-good liberal stuff & defeatist anti-war 'logic'- but
the only 'right' answer has been down-voted. Strange- but not entirely unexpected in Quora...

First, Alex Jouravlev's answer presents some seemingly good points which are, unfortunately,
unfounded.

5th life:- The US planes currently 'bombing' the ISIS are flashy, photogenic fighters. They'll do
Americans good when the Chinese/ Russians/ Indians finally fight them for the planet- but against an
irregular infantry force, they're worse than useless. For that you'd require ugly, boxy, short-range
things like warthogs. Guy jumps into a bunker. Guy survives.

4th life:- The Middle East is a big place, and ISIS among Iraqi groups is unique in maintaining a core of
foreign-born fighters. There are far more Muslim villages than there are ISIS soldiers- unlike what
neocons would say. Guy says he's from winniethepoohbad. Guy survives.

3rd life:- A Western prisoner is worth their weight in gold. A Western media person? They would never
waste all that PR potential to 'test' some two-bit newbie. Actually, it' far more likely that- Guy, a
trained US agent- beheads the Western journalist without blinking even once. Guy survives.

2nd life, 1st life:- You told to behead, you behead. Then you do it again. You ask to get involved in
something else, however they love you in propaganda. So you demand something else. You are sent to
the front to die as a martyr.

Okay- these people are not idiots. The Westboro guys have some of the best lawyers in the US. The
Afghan Muj were/ are some of the best engineers in Asia. Just because you don't believe in some
mythical 'god' doesn't make you inherently better than the rest. There's a method to any Lashkar's
madness. Suicide bombers go to a 'lesser' level of matyrdom than fighters. Fighters go to a 'lesser'
level of matyrdom than the bosses. If your Guy wants more & was sent to the front, he was useless, a
liability. Case closed. If the guy wants more &, for some reason, had to take control of all of ISIS's
operations, the sheer amount of resources & logistics he would have to command would be worth any
sacrifice. The Guy has succeeded.

Paul Denlinger's answers are usually brilliant- but in this case, he's probably thinking of ISIS in terms of
the 'usual' Islamist groups. ISIS is not a typically Islamist group; they aren't some government-funded
Lashkar or a tribal, book-burning slave-trading cult or some bunch of semi-nationalistic reluctant
islamists. ISIS, as the name says, is a functioning nation with an army, a government &, the litmus test
of all, tax-collecters.

'Foreigners' are isolated because the average foreign ISIS recruit is a molly-coddled 'soft' Westerner
who dies of dysentery in the first week. Medical Science 101. The rest who survive are folk who simply
can't go toe-to-toe with the Syrian military or the Sadr Shia militia (Reuters would tell you they're
disbanded. Who the f*** are they kidding?) or the Kurdis, and thus would be a liability to the regular
forces. Sun Tzu 102. A potential Western mole would be a trained US soldier- who'd probably be
better than every single ISIS fighter- & thus not your 'average foreign ISIS recruit'.

Usman Qazi's answer are the usual anti-American tripe which can be safely ignored.

That said:-

There is absolutely no need for the US to be sending any informers into the ISIS at present.
 ISIS is a natural evolution of the post-Saddam era Sunni tribal groups. They were pressed in from both
sides by Shias, pressed in from the north by Kurdis, betrayed by the US- & seduced by Saudi Arabia. Is
there any surprise that Wahhabism carried the day- & along with it, the best weaponry Saudi & Qatari
gold could buy?

Anyone who says that no one could've predicted the rise of ISIS is seriously underestimating the
power & capabilities of the modern Nation-State. Iran, Syria, Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel- &
the US have probably packed ISIS to the hilt with observers.

Then why, you may ask, are they not 'taking advantage of the observers'?

To this, I reply- How?

Or rather, Why?

Syria is winning the PR war- the only war that really counts now. They don't need their informers.
Iran is in the same boat as Syria. Ditto for their informers.
Kurdis are winning the war- or at least holding the line. Their informers are, presumably, working.
Qatar was irrelevant, is irrelevant & will be irrelevant once their oil is over. Their informers are,
similarly, irrelevant.
Saudis have pretty much won this particular battle in the millennia old Shia-Sunni war. Their informers
have done their job well.
Israel is happy being an observer; ISIS is doing all the dirty work for them. Their informers don't have
to do anything.

Now we come to the crux of the matter.

The US is not a force for good. It is a Global Hegemon with a cohort of, for all practical purposes,
vassal states that has maintained its pre-eminent position for nearly 25 years now. It is an
incomparably mighty Empire that is, nevertheless, loosing its position in the face of China. The idea
that it would interfere in favour of a dying bunch of superstitious pagans & a belligerent force of
Shias- against an faction that has broken Iran's hold over Iraq, tamed the once-inexorable Kurdish
drive to power & reinforced Saudi Arabia's hold in the region, is ridiculous beyond belief.

They'll bomb a few villages & roast a bunch of death-seeking idiots. That's all. In strategic terms, that's
nothing. For every Jihadi they kill, there are a hundred Muslims queuing up in Pakistan alone.

PS- Any & all informers would be Sunni Arabs, not Westerners or Jews. Some say the only god is
money. They are right.
3.7k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
30
Share
 Add Comment

Kritika Gupta
January 30, 2015
ISIS definitely doesn't seem to have the sleeper cell structure of, say, the Indian Mujahideen.
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 11, 2015 ·
2 upvotes
including Kritika Gupta
They don't need to.

The so-called sleeper cell system is meant to be used when the Empire is strong & capable of tearing
through the Rebel structure at will. The IRA, the IM, the Chechen separatists are no match for the
Empires they oppose.

But ISIS- in terms of public, if not military, power can easi

… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
2

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered October 25, 2014

Did Hitler know that he was using the Swastika upside down?

Did Hitler know that he was using the Swastika upside down?

There's no 'right' or 'wrong' way to depict the Swastika. Everyone who says otherwise- & there are
plenty of them- are idiots.
If anyone finds the Swastika 'offensive', they're free to cry me a river.

They say the Swastika, an ancient Hindu symbol makes you "invincible"

'They' are idiots.

Had Hitler used it the right way, would that have meant he could potentially have been more difficult to
beat?
 3.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
15
Share
 Add Comment

Kundan Bhaduri
October 25, 2014
You have neither understood nor answered the question.
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · October 25, 2014
Then pray- would you mind clarifying the question?
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered October 21, 2014

Can you identify Babylon the Great from the 2 Peter 2:1–3 passage?

Why is Hinduism included in the tags? And why the A2A? I'm not the one you should be asking these
kind of questions. As a matter of fact, none of the people who've answered this question till now
should've had any business answering this.

Your passage doesn't include the phrase 'Babylon the Great'- & without the context, it's impossible to
state what they mean here. However, a good rule of thumb would be that any mention of 'Babylon
the Great' in the Bible refers to Jerusalem & the Kingdom of Israel.

The image you've posted though is probably some sort of depiction of the Whore of Babylon- a
metaphor for Imperial Rome. It's an entirely unrelated topic & has nothing to do with your question.

The passage itself is propaganda aimed at a small faction of Christians (allegedly) led by Peter- &
ultimately bearing allegiance to Paul's Church. I don't see why that ought to concern us in this case.
1.2k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
2
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered October 18, 2014

Is Iran supporting terrorism?

Iranians are Shia. They're also allies of the legitimate Syrian government.

In contrast, the terrorists flocking to ISIS' banners are hard-line Sunni fundamentalists who wish to
murder all Shias, destroy the Syrian state & set up their own hell-hole of a 'Caliphate'.

Why would any sane Iranian support them?

As for why does the CIA say that the Iranians are a terrorist state?

There are two major reasons.

1- Iran is not an American ally. Washington believes that anyone not with them is against them and
unfortunately for the World, no one is brave enough to question this policy. Not much you can do
 about it. Times change; Americans were sending Aircraft carriers to the Bay of Bengal & pointing
nukes at New Delhi at one point of time.

Actually- they probably still have a few dozen nukes aimed at India...The Iranians just have to learn to
live with it like we did (Media blackouts & propaganda go a long way in pacifying the plebs).

2- Iran does support terrorists. There are plenty of Iran-sponsored Shia terrorists running around in
the Middle East. They hate Sunnis (& the ISIS)- but they hate the West as well. The sole reason Iranian
'terrorists' are not flocking to Syria, is because they're already there as official auxiliary forces of the
legitimate Syrian government. Completely legal & above-board, yes sir!
4.7k views ·
View Upvoters
·
View Sharers
Upvote
·
45
Share
·
1

Add Comment
 Arvin Esfahani
October 30, 2014 ·
8 upvotes
You do realize that there are more than 6 million Sunnies living in Iran in peace right?
Also what makes you think Iranians hate Sunnies, I as an Iranian don't even hate israelians, let alone
the Sunnies that live in my country.
Reply
Upvote
·
8

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · October 30, 2014 ·
9 upvotes
'Iran-sponsored Shia terrorists'

That's the phrase you missed.

Even so- I've learnt from long experience that while human beings are usually arseholes, it's rare for an
individual to be as cruel & bigoted as a mob. And believe me- it doesn't take much for a group of
'individuals' to become a mob.
Reply
Upvote
·
9
 Muhtasim Ahmed Bhuiyan
Jan 16
It's all about the govt.
Reply
Upvote

Raymond Ahmadi
November 17, 2015 ·
1 upvote
"Iran does support terrorists. There are plenty of Iran-sponsored Shia terrorists running around in the
Middle East. They hate Sunnis (& the ISIS)- but they hate the West as well." - So by this logic, anyone
who hates ISIS and fights them is a terrorist right?
Reply
Upvote
·
1
View More Comments
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered October 18, 2014

Is there ice and extreme cold in hell or is it fiery as described in religious texts?

The Islamic & Christian versions of 'Hell' originate from a Semitic view of things- which, incidently,
happened to feature lots of fire. As a matter of fact, we didn't really have a concrete 'Fire & Brimstone'
version until Dante- who did include 'Ice-hells' in his version of Damnation.

Nevertheless, the modern apologist version of 'Hell' is pure fantasy. Some people would have you
believe that 'Hell' merely refers to the state of being removed from God's 'grace'. That's nonsense. The
Koran & the Bible clearly mention fire & torture for Kaffirs.

The Hindu/ Buddhist Naraka is actually a state of non-being, rather than a physical place with fire/ ice.
Any 'Fire & Brimstone' Hindu hell you might've have heard of were created centuries after Muslim &
Christian invasions.

PS- As for why exactly the ancient Semites had such a hot hell? No one knows. But hey- one must
choose a 'hell' & a hot one is as good (bad?) as any.

PPS- Why atheists? The mere fact of being atheists doesn't magically increase one's intellect or make
them more amenable to reason. It only means that they don't believe in god/ gods. Nothing else.
4.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
12
Share
 Add Comment

Katie Anne Holton

October 18, 2014 ·
1 upvote
"Why atheists? The mere fact of being atheists doesn't magically increase one's intellect or make them
more amenable to reason. It only means that they don't believe in god/ gods. Nothing else."

Well said and so true.

Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered October 4, 2014

To all the atheists who were born as Hindus, what do you say regarding the argument that Hinduism
includes atheism too?

Short Version:- Actually, it doesn't.

Long Version:- Hinduism 'tolerates' Atheism to a degree no other modern religion does- but that's
nothing but a consequence of its origin. Every single Indo-European faith was pretty ambiguous
regarding the link between morality & divinity, & thus, for most part, had few problems with atheism
in general society.

However, that doesn't mean Hinduism 'encouraged' atheism or even supported it. The Bhagavada Gita
clearly mentions that Atheists were a deluded lot with no concept of the Universe.

Of course- one might claim that the Gita is merely one book among thousands of Hindu texts- but
that'd be wrong. The Bhagavada Gita- even more than the Vedas (which do consider Atheism as a
valid philosophy)- is The Book- the Brahman iself speaks to Man directly in it. The statement that
Hinduism 'includes' Atheism is a fallacy- as said by 'God' itself.

PS- No World religion has ever 'included' Atheism. For some reason, Quorans think that Buddhism
does. It doesn't. Buddha himself was no Atheist; in fact, modern psychologists would've described him
as having a god complex. Buddhism did 'tolerate' Atheists- but again, it was entirely due to its origin
as- for all practical purposes- a Hindu sect. The amount of sheer ignorance regarding theology on this
site is astounding. Hopefully, things will get better in the future...
1.8k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
26
Share
 Add Comment

Natalia Nezvanova
January 26, 2015
Have you ever read Vijay Prozak's articles?
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout
Original Author · February 13, 2015 ·
2 upvotes
including Natalia Nezvanova
I will check it out. Thanks.
Reply
Upvote
·
2

Mahesh Agarwal
February 19, 2015 ·
1 upvote
While I see your point, The Gita is not like the bible or the Koran as it is not the sole authoritative text
on Hinduism. Over the centuries many Hindu scholars have actually promoted atheism.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Ashveer H
February 2, 2018
Atheism goes against the very concept of God, devtas and general Hinduism is full of stories of Gods
and similar beliefs. Hinduism itself is a mixture of various beliefs. India has scholars from various
schools of thought. The scholars promoting bhakti, God worship have always exceeded scholars prom
… (more)
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered October 1, 2014

According to Indian tradition, why is it always preferred to eat with your right hand only?

The basis of every religion/ tradition/ custom is the survival of the tribe- the basic unit of human
existence.

Given that most members of said tribe were originally right-handed, it makes sense for the tribe to
cement the bonds amongst themselves by championing the trait of right-handedness, and
consequently- demonize anyone 'not' from the tribe-in this case, left-handers. There's nothing 'evil' or
'superstitious' about this; it was mere practical survivalism in a dangerous age.
 Note that I mentioned 'tribe'- not Indian or Hindu or whatever you're trying to demonize these days...

The oppression of left-handers is one of the constants of Human civilization, & this silent saga of
persecution s all around us- from the languages we speak to the keyboards we use. The Right is right;
and changing that would mean dismantling practically every single industry we have on Earth at
present.
3k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
13
Share

Add Comment

Amitvikram Dutta
January 27, 2015
Wow you sound so sinister.
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered September 6, 2014

What was the reason behind the hanging of Bhagat Singh?

Let me google that for you...

Done?
1.8k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
5
Share

Add Comment
 Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered September 6, 2014

Why did the Indian government spend money to train and arm the LTTE terrorists instead of spending
it on things like the construction of toilets for 400,000,000 Indians who don't have them?

For the same reason morons like you spend their time asking ridiculous questions here instead of
doing something productive with your time...

I mean- what is more important? Angling for baseless jingoistic Nationalistic/ anti-National answers or
working towards some laudable personal goal?
1.4k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
16
Share

Add Comment
 Chatrapathi Kun
September 7, 2014
Wow...that was such a wonderful way to answer. The answer absolutely doesn't deal with the question,
but effectively judges the questioner. Vitanda! I am surprised that you even took time to write an
answer if you judged the questioner without dealing with the question at all and feel that the quest
… (more)
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout
Original Author · September 8, 2014 ·
10 upvotes
including Chatrapathi Kun
Au contraire, it was a brilliant answer.

It might not be the one OP wanted- but it sure as hell was the answer OP deserved.
Reply
Upvote
·
10
Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered August 29, 2014

How do Indians feel about the many massacres that Indians have committed?

I came across this list accidentally and was somewhat surprised that it was so long.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

I'm surprised it wasn't longer. This is India- a nation with a population of 1.3 billion & a recorded
history of over 5000 years. The only thing humans do better than killing fellow humans is dying
themselves. Sic stet.

Most countries have similarly long lists - the UK not excepted,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..., but in
the 20th century for many countries the numbers are smaller and less frequent and rarely it seems so
communal.

It's because the UK killed off anyone- pagans, animists etc- who could've proved to be a danger to
their 'non-communal' society way back in the first millennium. And even so, they loved killing so much
that they were sailing all over the World looking for people to kill as late as the 1970s.

Besides, ever heard of a place called Ireland, son?

Also- Britain still has plenty of 'excess' deaths. They're simply not reported because such reports won't
be conducive to Britain's 'multicultural, multi-ethnic' identity or whatever crap they're writing these
days...

Are the massacres relevant to your daily life?

When was the last time your street-corner momos seller asked you your religion? When was the last
time he/ she drew a gun on you?

Got your answer?

do you care?

Depends entirely upon whether such actions will be detrimental to the survival of the Republic
in the long run.

Is it Soe(sic) thing that should change or is it part of Indian culture?

Let's see.
 Do you really think it's fun when a nation has its citizens killed?

As for Indian culture? I've travelled all over India & met a lot of people who've lectured me about
'Indian culture'. However I've yet to learn what exactly I have in common with some Great Nicobarese
or a Ladakhi; and with each day, there is this growing sense within me that- yes, there is absolutely
nothing I have in common with any of the 1.27 billion Indians in the World- save the fact that
we have a vested interest in the survival of the Indian state whether we like it or not. No Indian
has anything in common with anyone of his/ her compatriots. And people like you talk about 'Indian
culture'...

Make of that what you will.

Disclosure: one of my friends had his older brother killed in 1984 and feels strongly about the issue.

My sympathies. But that still changes nothing. Sorry- but even at the very end of things, there's
a World elsewhere.

PS- You will observe that in that ridiculous list of yours, the vast majority of massacres (~90%) were
committed by:-

1- Freedom-fighters from our dear neighbouring states.

2- Secular patriots who merely want to practice their religion in peace.
3- High-minded Free-thinkers who idolize intellectual luminaries like Marx.
4- Bleeding heart Liberals who desire stability & peace for this nation.

Given the information we have, it's obvious that thinking too much about the good of Indians &
trying to improve the lot of the average Indian is what causes most problems to begin with.

Turns out that ignorance really is bliss!

PPS- This sounds like a troll question. Down-voted & I'll report this too- just in case.
2.3k views ·
View Upvoters

Shrinivas S upvoted this

Upvote
·
40
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered August 28, 2014

Was it required for the Roman legionaries to eat uncooked garlic everyday?

The ancient peoples were well aware of the Medicinal properties of Garlic.

However even though garlic featured prominently in Mediterranean cuisine & was believed by
Romans to provide inspiration & courage to the legions, we have no evidence that there was any kind
of systematic health regime where the troops 'ate uncooked garlic' every day.

The average Roman legionnaire's diet was mostly wheat-bread, beer & (sometimes) salted meat; and
there was little variation in it unless they were stationed at some fort or city. Of course, the Romans
did introduce & popularize garlic cultivation in several of their colonies- but it might have only for
culinary reasons.

Interestingly, garlic was part of the standard rations for the engineers & workers who built the
pyramids- & there are records of the Pharaohs paying fortunes to keep the stocks well-supplied.
2.3k views ·
 View Upvoters
Upvote
·
7
Share

Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered August 14, 2014

Why is every second Indian child called Aryan, Arya, or Aarav?

This is a ridiculous question.

First of all- the AIT is nothing but a bunch of unproven bullshit.

Secondly- 'Mongolian' is not derived from an Indian word; why should Indians use the word in the first
place? The word 'Dravid' basically means 'Land surrounded by water'- something akin to a peninsula.
It just doesn't make sense as either a first name or a surname.
 Of course- you may have heard of someone named 'Rahul Dravid'- but that only proves that there are
exceptions to every rule. Then again- the 'Dravid' may not be a 'real' surname at all and instead a title
given to Rahul Dravid's ancestors for some reason. As I said- 'Dravid' just doesn't make sense as a
name.

'Dravidaputra' does. And guess who did use the name 'Dravidaputra'?

Sankaracharya. The doyen of Revivalist Hindu thought & the last person one would associate with the
ravings of an ignorant German Münchhausen.

Finally- 'Arya' means 'noble'/ 'virtuous'. Before the Germans & British came in with their ridiculous
ideas about racial divide and what not (Ever heard of the phrase 'Divide & rule', kid?), the word 'Aryan'
referred solely to people of 'noble character'.

As a first name, it makes perfect sense.

PS- Never met anyone named 'Aarav'. What kind of name is that?
PPS- Never met a lot of people named 'Arya' or 'Aryan' either. I have heard that it's a common name-
but that's all. I have 'heard', not seen for myself.

Where the hell do you lot dig up all these inanities?

3k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
29
Share

Add Comment
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered August 6, 2014

Why is it that most of the Muslims I have come across on Quora try to answer questions by another
question or by giving a hypothetical example and pretending it is logic?

It's actually a legitimate rhetorical technique- well known since ancient times. Unfortunately I don't
remember the name; maybe some one can help me here...

It's also a very stupid technique & no one concerned with facts would ever try it among her
intellectual peers. Plato warns against using it under such conditions.

The reasons many use it is actually pretty simple:- facts show Islam to be a pretty violent, misogynistic,
intolerant faith- & there's no getting round it or defending it on its merits. Reason enough for any
'defender of Islam' to ignore actual data & concentrate on circular logic & irrelevancies.

PS- To any Liberals reading this, I am well aware of how other religions are/ were/ will be pretty
violent in their own time. Now get a life & don't bother me.
1.5k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
23
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered July 25, 2014

Why are some Indians still so stuck up about Pakistan?

You said it yourself:-

'they have nukes.'

It seems you don't realize what this single phrase really means. Let me try:-

1- A country whose existence is based on being the anti-thesis of India has the power to turn 250
million Indians to ash & 10% of our nation to glass in 5 minutes.

2- A country with a known track record of its leaders choosing rabid fundamentalism over Democracy
has the power to fry the Jet Stream & bring famine to the entire World.
 3- A country which has shown zero interest in peace with India has access to some of the most
terrible weapons created in the history of Humanity.

Let go of my grudge?

I will let go off my grudge when Pakistanis finally take responsibility of their actions & stop behaving
like spoilt children. Until then, I will detest them.

As far as I am concerned, Pakistanis are no better than a sleeping snake. You're right that the Chinese
& the West are the greater concern- but only a fool would ignore a snake in the grass.
2.4k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
48
Share

Add Comment
 Syeda Asma Huda
February 17, 2015 ·
3 upvotes
Hate the authorities, not the common people. Just like we hate the politicians here and not the
common people.
Reply
Upvote
·
3

V K Viswanath
July 28, 2018
Thanks for the laugh
Reply
Upvote
Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered July 12, 2014

What is your favorite story from mythology?

The ending verses of the Epic of Gilgamesh, as given in Herbert Mason's narrative.

Mason's work isn't a literal translation- indeed a literal translation would probably impossible
considering that the original source is merely a bunch of ruined, crumbling clay tablets. However, it's a
brilliant attempt to capture the spirit of the Epic, best summed up in the following verses.

In time he recognized this loss

As the end of his journey
And returned to Uruk.

Perhaps, he feared,
His people would not share
The sorrow that he knew.

He entered the city and asked a blind man

If he had ever heard the name Enkidu,
And the old man shrugged and shook his head,
Then turned away,
As if to say it is impossible
To keep the names of friends
Whom we have lost.

Gilgamesh said nothing more

To force his sorrow on another.

He looked at the walls,

Awed at the heights
His people had achieved
And for a moment — just a moment —
All that lay behind him
Passed from view.

What I personally love about this is the sense of reality in this first Myth of Man.

There is no redemption. There are no happy endings. There are no magic rituals.
 Gilgamesh- for all his tears, struggles & sufferings, doesn't get his friend back. He loses the friend who
loved him, the woman who loved him,his teacher, the favour of the gods & his one final chance at
divinity. His quest fails & he realizes that he will never, ever achieve immortality...It is a story of loss.

-And of acceptance. We experience sorrow, & love, & joys, & strive for happiness in our own ways. We
grieve, celebrate, & search for meaning in our lives - no matter what travails we face, & that
sometimes- quiet acceptance of suffering is the dearest of lessons one might learn in an impatient
World.

That is the truth behind Human existence; it is true now. It was true five millennia ago. We stand awed
at the heights we have achieved, Humanity has achieved- & for a moment, just a moment, it is
enough.
1.3k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
22
Share

Add Comment
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered July 11, 2014

In what war has guerrilla warfare been most effective?

The Spanish Insurgency during the Peninsular Campaign of the Napoleonic Wars.

The French marched 300,000 of the most well-trained, experienced & well-equipped troops in the
World into Spain. They left with a broken, starving, utterly defeated force of barely 120,000.

Unlike the Grande Armée, which for all its glory, comprised mostly of foreign auxiliaries & green
French recruits, Napoleon's Peninsular War forces were some of the best troops ever fielded in the
history of warfare. The Spanish Ulcer was effectively the start of the end of Napoleon's Empire.
1.9k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
17
Share

Add Comment
 Anudeep Ravi
July 11, 2014 ·
3 upvotes
This is the war that gave Guerrilla warfare its name.
Reply
Upvote
·
3

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered June 30, 2014

Among the races in the Lord of the Rings, which would you identify yourself with?

According to this: http://www.quotev.com/quiz/1935086/Which-Lord-of-the-Rings-Race-are-you-26-

questions/

You are The Race of Man!

You could be evil, or good, it is always hard to tell. (if good: ) you have a strong heart and will, bold
and fierce at times. You care for those around you, but can sometimes dismiss advice. Peril comes to
you every now and then, but you face it head-on. Some can be scared of you, but italloys use it to
your advantage. You have many friends and alies, but a lot of enemies as well. There is nothing you
like more than a good struggle that goes in your favor.
 I've never liked those pretentious Elves or stupid Dwarves anyway. Earth is the birthright of Humans...

PS- This result also matches my religious beliefs & this makes me happy...

1.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
4
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered June 30, 2014

Why do Indians bear with a slavish IT work culture?

I've worked in this field for quite some time in both India & abroad- both as the techie grunt & the
satanic manager :). I will answer this to the best of my ability & experience.

You'll hate my answer. Deal with it.

1.) Lowest in the Totem Pole: Admin Staff and HR seem to look down upon the IT people even though
they are not even half qualified as the former. The Admin/HR people have their position just because of
the contacts.

Part of the reason why they do look down upon you is- yes, they do resent your technical
competence. Another part of it is that they are paid to extract as much work from you as possible.
Given that the average Indian techie is bone-lazy & uninterested in his/ her work, any sort of
productive team-building is usually impossible. But the whip always works.
Live with it.

2.) Leave Encashment: All IT firms have a policy of giving 15- 20 earned leaves to the employees.
However almost 75% of the earned leaves go unutilized. There is a limit to leave encashment and when
you will ask as to why this is the case. The HR will reply "We encourage you to take leaves ?"

The company has hired you in order to profit from your work. There's no reason for them to
encourage you to lay off your duties & make merry. There's no reason for them to waste money on
you either. Is it any surprise they're discouraging you from cashing into your grudge money?

Live with it.

3.) Difficulty in Getting Leaves: The international clients seem to take Indians for granted and the project
is always in deadline mode. Everything is urgent and every time is not a good time for leaves. I know one
guy who was working in IT giants was not able to get leaves for his marriage. Another guy who took 1
month leave for marriage was released from the project.

Here's something you privileged, angrezi-speaking, cool Indian guys & girls don't understand- the
Indian is a coolie. Indian engineers are paid to do coolie work for coolie pay. That is the truth of the
World. The guy who managed to get married was lucky; most coolies aren't. Too bad. Blame your
karma, your leaders or whoever you want, you can't change the truth- unless you start your own firm
or earn enough to retire & make artsy hobbies stuff.

Live with it- or join the anarchists at CPIM & AAP.

4.) Overtime Weekend Work with No Compensation: Working on Weekends, staying late is considered as
signs of a committed employee.However no compensation is provided to the same.

Read my reply to point 2. Quite frankly- the only time you ought to be staying weekends is if you're
working in your own company. If that's not the case, quit your job immediately. YMMV. Don't ask me
where to find a new job because I don't know & neither do I care.

Live with it.

5.) No Boundary of Work, Task Dumping: It doesn't matter that you put extra hours to finish your work
you will be assigned tasks of a lazy slouch who is not pulling his weight. This encourages employees to
sit on their work. Habit which some of us simply cannot adopt.

Really? Then quit. And tell your HR that your Manager is a moron who doesn't deserve his fat pay-
check.

Then quit.

6.) Inability of Client to Understand Complexity of Tasks: Clients put an unreasonable amount of tasks
and expect them to be finished in 1 go as if this was so simple.

The Client is god. What the client says, goes. This is the fundamental adage of business & while I don't
have a fancy MBA degree, I do have more than 12 years of experience in the field. Basically- if you're
concerned about the client's demands, quit your job. Don't stick to something you can't appreciate.

Quite frankly, I don't think you want to be an IT engineer. Take my advice- get out of the industry,
start your own company, join a NGO- hell, try for the government. India needs young people to take
charge; unfortunately, volunteers are lacking at every point. India has done a brilliant job of
 completely ignoring its diferently abled citizens & things are horrible in Central India. Believe me-
you'll make more of a difference here than you would crunching code for some uncaring American
firm.
2.1k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
30
Share

Add Comment
 Sudhir Suvarna
July 22, 2014 ·
1 upvote
Well written....If you care to read my Bio, I have done exactly what you have suggested.
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Bala Senthil Kumar

July 5, 2014 ·
1 upvote
The 'leave' you refer to doesn't have a plural.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 V K Viswanath
July 28, 2018
Reply
Upvote
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Updated July 2, 2014

What is the similarity between the Hindu concept of Dashavatara and Charles Darwin's theory?

None at all.

The Hindu concept was based entirely on the alleged 'superiority' of existences.

1- Aquatic creatures were inferior to aquatic tetrapods which are in turn inferior to true land animals.

2- Tribals were inferior to the handicapped & ascetics.

3- Rama & the other three avataras are the most 'recent' ones & it's doubtful whether they were part
of the Late Vedic Dasavataram. They- especially Rama & Kalki- fit too much in the classic God-
Emperor & Divine Hero moulds to be a true part of pre-Abrahmic Hindu thought. The Buddha was
 introduced in place of the Daru Brahma- the physical depiction of the identification of Humanity with
the Universe - sometime during the Mauryan-Gupta Interregnum.

The Dasavataram wasn't based on any sort of scientific principles. Please disabuse yourself of any such
notions.
3.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
21
Share

Add Comment

Partha Shakkottai
 April 7, 2016 ·
1 upvote
There is no concept of inferiority of any life form in Hindu philosophy. Everything is Brahman!
Reply
Upvote
·
1

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered June 13, 2014

Did the Gupta, Maurya or other dynasties ever invade or conquer the Chola, Chera or Pandaya
dynasties?

Short answer:- Invaded? Lots of times. Ruled? Rarely.

NB:- I will restrict myself to pre-Islamic India for reasons to be elucidated later.

Long answer:-

There are four major population centres in India- the Gangetic Plains, the Godavari-Krishna plains, the
Kaveri flood plains & the Punjab. Control over any of the four gives the conqueror a massive
agricultural heartland, a trade hub, a vast population to tax & conscript & (usually) the benefit of
existing bureaucratic infrastructure.

Thus, practically all the 'great' Empires in India have invariably had their heartland in one of these four
territories. Controlling & conquering one is relatively easy (though a feat in itself). Conquering &
ruling two takes genius- especially when the distances are too great. Besides- ruling over multiple
such power centres invariably encourages the growth of distant feudal authorities which, in most
cases, lead to the fall of the mother Empire- unless a powerful Emperor or a capable bureaucracy was
in charge.

The Southern nations- especially the Cholas- were simply too far off, too well-entrenched & too
marginal a power to be a target to most Northern Empires. The Kaveri was the smallest of the four
great Flood plains; it had the most restricted trade avenues, It was also the most productive region in
India- & thus, because of its vast population relative to its size, required massive bureaucratic
structures to govern. Conquering it- or at least, ruling it directly- was simply not worth it from the
perspective of a North Indian Emperor.
Another reason was the Southern Kingdoms' massive navies. The only North Indian state which known
to have maintained navies capable of challenging the Southerners was Kalinga (modern Orissa) &
Orissa, with its limited arable land & small population, could hardly furnish the resources to compete
with the Cholas.

Even so- the South was conquered lots of times. Bindusara, Second Emperor of the Maurya dynasty,
got the title 'Amitraghata' (Slayer of Foes), because of his campaigns in the South & Conquest of the
Deccan. Buddhist inscriptions clearly record that the Southern States paid Ashoka tribute- no doubt,
influenced by his brutal conquest of Kalinga, another maritime state.

The Emperor Mahameghavana Kharavela of Kalinga destroyed Southern power so thoroughly that
Pandyan power was broken forever & Andhra ended up accepting Jainism (Kalinga's then primary
faith) as their chief religion. Kharavela would end up giving himself the title 'Chaturantaluthana'
(Conqueror of the Four Directions) after defeating kings as far apart as Baktria & Kanchi. Kharavela,
though, seems to have been conscious of the pitfalls of ruling the South or Punjab directly- &
contented himself with merely tribute.

Samudragupta of the Gupta Dynasty also defeated the Cholas at Kanchipuram & made them a vassal-
a position they would remain in for the next two centuries.

While most post-Harshavardhana North Indian kingdoms were too fragmented & localized to bother
the South, Bengal & Orissa used to mount multiple campaigns against the Cholas. The Palas are
known to have driven out Chola traders from the Arakan. The Kesaris of Kalinga occupied Andhra- an
action that sparked off the one of greatest Indian wars you've probably never heard of- the Chola-
Kalinga wars.

The ensuing three wars- spread over for a period of more than 25 years- would ruin both Kalinga &
Chola power, inspire the creation of a Tamil Epic & one of the greatest Hindu temples in the World in
Orissa, & pave the way for the fall of both kingdoms. The Cholas would go on to paint it as their
victory- but Orissa remained independent under a new, more powerful dynasty, the Chola navy was
shattered and Andhra became independent forever. Neither Tamil Nadu nor Orissa would ever
achieve their previous power & prestige ever again.

Islamic rule introduced a new factor into conquests- religious extremism. Discussing that would take a
lot of time; a gist of things would be that Islam weakened nationalistic aspirations in Kingdoms all
over India & thus, conquest of the South became significantly easier. The Nizams- at first, under
Mughal suzerainty, did it. So did the Marathas. The British came later.

PS- Do note that the words- Chola, Chera, Pandya- do not , unlike what many think & Tamil
Nationalists propound, refer to a tradition of unbroken, centralized rule.

They are nothing more than a blanket term to refer to the dozens of dynasties that ruled over
Southern Tamil Nadu, Kerala (or Chera) & Northern Tamil Nadu respectively. The Kaveri flood plain
itself was rarely controlled in its totality by any one power until the coming of the Great Cholas in the
8th Century. The Great Cholas themselves were of part-Andhra origin- one of the many reasons the
Oriya conquest of Andhra was such a disgrace.

Also, the ancients did not consider North & South India to be completely different entities.
Rajendra Chola's first act on conquering Bengal was to cart off millions of litres of Ganga water to feed
the tanks in his new capital. Cholas (& other Southern nations) also prided themselves in being the
spiritual heirs of the kings who fought the Mahabharata (most Southern kingdoms supported the
 Pandavas; the Northerners mostly supported the Kauravas)- & this fact was often used as an insult
while fighting against the Northern Kalinga & Bengal kingdoms.
24.6k views ·
View Upvoters

Balaji Viswanathan, Hamvira Mohapatro and Shrinivas S upvoted this

Upvote
·
217
Share
 Add Comment

Abhijit Krishnakumar
June 26, 2015 ·
4 upvotes
and the chera kingdom was way different from the other 2 . they preferred to defend mountainous
choke points while the other 2 preferred to battle out on open plains .
and the cheras got greater trade revenues than the pandyas and cholas in their peak time .

the fall of the cheras can be directly rel

… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
4
 Narasimhan Srinivasan
May 27, 2017 ·
4 upvotes
In your enthusiasm to put down so-called Tamil nationalists, you committed factual errors.
Samudragupta defeated not the Cholas but Vishnugopa who was a Pallava. That was the farthest any
north Indian empire/kingdom reached as Ashoka’s Mauryans clearly mentioned that Satiyaputras,
Pandyas, Cholas an
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
4
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered June 8, 2014

What made the Roman army so effective against its contemporaries?

Short answer:- Romans were masters of the Zerg Rush. They zerg rushed everyone until they could
zerg rush no more. Then they lost.
 NB- I'm considering a time frame till the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Long answer:- The greatest asset the Romans had was their land. They were in the best position
possible to acquire Greek technology & unlike the Greeks, were lucky enough to rule over huge
riverine flood plains( Central Italy; later conquered Po Valley from the Celts & Provincia from a Gallo-
Hellenic colony), rich enough to feed a vast population.

In contrast, their European enemies weren't so lucky.

The Iberians lacked both agricultural potential & Greek science.

The Gauls were capable enough in their own right but had too low a population to maintain their
armies.

The Phoenicians were too fractious to create a unified army.

The Greeks simply didn't have the land to grow their crops- & the Diadochi wars had wrecked hell
with their war potential.

Egypt was torn with ethnic strife, civil wars & the usual Diadochi conflict.

The Britons had no civilization to speak off at all...

Reams have been written about Roman tactics, skill & fortitude but the ultimate reason for the rise of
the Roman republic was simple- they drowned their enemies in a sea of Roman corpses. Sooner or
latter, sheer attrition won any & all wars for Rome- at least until a certain point.

The pre-Marian Roman military was a disaster. Despite all its successes- the humiliation of Greece, the
Defeat of Carthage & the Conquest of Iberia, it was arguably much weaker than Alexander's system or
even that of Pyrrhus. The lack of Professionalism in the force made it a flimsy power with its efficiency
extremely dependant on the personal brilliance of its generals & the reliability of its allies. It won
because it could field multiple armies- each the size of all of Greece's armies combined.

The Marian reforms introduced a new Roman army- the classic legionary style everyone knows from
Hollywood. It was devastatingly effective; Rome conquered as more land during Caesar's life than it
had done in its entire history. Then it stalled- Rome ran out of soldiers. Despite all the discipline, the
armour & weapons, the real might of the Marian system was its ability to transport vast numbers of
men over huge distances quickly. In the end, there just weren't enough people to do the job
everywhere.

The latter mess under the Foederati system was entirely because of the simple fact that Rome's
population was no longer capable of sustaining an army big enough to control the Empire. Ultimately,
all that mattered was how many soldiers a nation could field- & Rome could no longer field the
troops needed to warrant the title of Superpower.

Men win Wars. Rome won when it had the men. It lost when it didn't.
9.3k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
44
Share
 Add Comment

Siduo Ai
December 17, 2018
I believe this to be a overly-simplistic, Rome Total War/Starcraft answer because the decline of the
Western Empire mirrored its military fortunes, which itself waxed and waned even into the late 4th
century AD. The true answer is much more nuanced, and even Gibbon himself could not fully describe
i
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
 Anudeep Ravi
June 26, 2014 ·
1 upvote
Thanks for the different perspective from the Eurocentric "Rome Fuck yeah!!" non sense.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered June 5, 2014

Culture of India: Why do some Indians eat with their hands?

Obama enjoying the joys of a handy meal...

Obama teaching his friend David Cameron the joys of the above-mentioned sort of meals.

Xi Jinping, strangely enough, approves of Obama's idea.

 Your question's premise is flawed. The rest of the World does 'eat with their hands'.
1.1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
17
Share

Add Comment

Sreejith SM
June 5, 2014
A few people cannot be considered as world.You cannot eat burger with spoons
Reply
Upvote
 Siddharth Shakya
June 5, 2014
LOL
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered June 5, 2014

Which 2 countries are going to be in the finals of the 2014 World Cup?

Spain- Brilliant midfield & solid offence. Most likely to win this time.

Brazil- Wonderful balance, Neymar & Lucas are fast & adaptable. It's a young team that will improve
fast.

Dark horses would be Germany. Argentina would have come close but they have terrible defence.
1.1k views ·
View Upvoters
· Answer requested by Paul Watts
Upvote
·
3
Share
Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered June 4, 2014

Why is an average Indian male more male chauvinist than Indians from the North East India?

Short answer:- Because of 'Civilization'. We were 'more' civilized.

Long answer:-

Civilization has always been based on the division of labour.

A hunter gatherer society has little demarcation between the sexes when it comes to duties,
responsibilities & demands. As a matter of fact, most hunter-gatherers lived longer, healthier lives &
worked lesser hours than their settled counterparts for most of human history. Social & sexual mores
were more relaxed- remarkably relaxed- & a more egalitarian society led to a more equitable one.

Problems arose with the rise of agriculture. Agriculture required a much more labour-intensive,
growth-oriented lifestyle which necessitated high rates of efficiency in everything. Enter division of
 labour. It also created the concept of private property & that of 'honour'. Societies had thus greater
incentive to save, grow- & leave property & 'honour' for their descendants.

With tribal societies, the onus of childcare & thus, personal welfare was the responsibility of the entire
tribe. Not so in case of agrarian ones. A man was expected to ensure that his wife bore only his
children & that his children work for the welfare of only their lineage & clan. For the average male, the
easiest way to ensure the chances of only his progeny succeed was to monopolize- or rather, restrict-
the actions of his partner. Enter sexual discrimination. With time, things came to such a pass that
personal or clan 'honour' came to be seen as the province of women.

With the formation of more & more complex societies, the position of women as the exemplar of
'honour' grew until they were, for practical purposes, glorified status symbols for men. The problem
was- as societies grew more advanced, they oppressed women more. But their advancement, in turn,
encouraged more primitive, egalitarian societies to become more like them.

The modern post-Enlightenment society is the first time social advancement has led to a more
egalitarian World.

In India, we had the relatively less-developed tribal societies in the North-East & Central Inda & the
highly structured Hindu societies elsewhere. It was only natural that the more advanced society exhibit
greater misogyny & violence towards women...

PS- Islamic invasions were a factor but they weren't the full story. Of course- Pantheistic/ Polytheistic
societies (India, Pagan Europe,ancient Egypt) are always better for women than monotheistic ones
(Medieval India, Europe etc) but mainstream Indian society has always been inherently more unequal
than Tribal culture...
4.4k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
46
Share
 Add Comment

Vaibhav Dwivedi
June 24, 2014 ·
9 upvotes
This is actually very untrue when you look at Assam. Assam had a very "modern" form of civilization, in
fact the Ahom kingdom was one of the very few kingdoms the Mughals could never conquer. It was
also one of the last kingdom to fall to the British.
The agricultural prosperity did not evade Assam,
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
9

Koko Usham
April 15, 2015 ·
3 upvotes
Er.... You seem to have generalised all of NE as hunter gatherer societies igoring the fact that there
were many 'civilised' kingdoms with agrarian societies there. In fact there is no hunter gatherer society
in NE. Even the most remote tribes were agrarian. The fiercest of Naga tribes like the Anga
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
3
View More Comments
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered June 2, 2014

Are the regions in The Lord of The Rings inspired by Europe?

Yes, they were.

The Shire:- Britain.

Rohan:- Poland.
Gondor:- The Eastern Roman Empire/ Holy Roman Empire.
The lost realm of Arnor:- Western Roman Empire.

Mordor:- Turkey/ Arabia.

Harad:- India.
Rhun:- China.
Variags:- Mongols/ Huns.
1.2k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
16
Share
 Add Comment

Shubham Shinde
June 9, 2014
Can you add details ?
Reply
Upvote
Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered June 1, 2014

How is the BJP government fooling people?

The people of India shouldn't be thinking anything about BJP's alleged statements.

The reason being that no such statements were made on the first place.

On the morning of 27th May , Jitendra Singh- in response to a media query- responded that the BJP
was clear on its goals of bringing J&K into the Indian mainstream. He also stated that while several
parties did have reservations about the issue, the BJP was open to a debate so as to determine the
best way forward. In response to another separate query, he said that he believed Article 370 had
alienated Kashmiris from the rest of India & was harming the State.

At no point of time, was the PM quoted or the PMO referred to. As far as Times Now's statement is
concerned, it wasn't even part of the Official Release.

By afternoon, the media was announcing that the BJP was going to repeal Article 370 & Modi was
going to do (insert ridiculous idea).

On a clarification being issued that:-

1- There were no immediate plans for the status of Article 370.

2- There were plans for a debate regarding Article 370 within the constitutional framework. Given the
ministries haven't ha much time of acquaint themselves with the state of affairs, I doubt this will be
taking place within this year.

3- At no point of time, was the PMO involved with the MOS' release.

- the media started talking about a U-turn by the BJP.

 Article 370 may be a cornerstone of the BJP's ideology- but it isn't a primary section of Modi's election
plank. It would've been surprising if the BJP had dropped everything to start flogging a dead horse- &
as expected, they didn't. A throwaway general statement by an MOS does not National policy make.

The real question the people of India should is asking is why Media houses aren't hiring more fact
checkers- & why their editors seem to lack any form of common sense & discretion in their work.
2.2k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
16
Share

Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered May 28, 2014

What is the Hindu Nationalist Party's (BJP) obsession with Hitler all about?
The BJP stands for Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party).

I, for one, will be very interested in knowing where you got the 'Hindu Nationalist Party' from...

Anyway:-

Such a view is completely rubbish. The Sangh is not 'obsessed' with Hitler. I doubt they give a shit
about him. You are obsessed with both.

It is interesting to note that except for the BJP & other Hindu organizations like the RSS, no one in
India is ever tarred with the Nazi brush.

Subhash Chandra Bose is never questioned despite his openly working with both Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan. The Nehru family was hand-in-glove with totalitarian regimes for most part of the
Indian Republic's existence; Mao & Stalin's pogroms make Hitler look like a back-alley thug. Even
Gandhi's ideas about resistance to Nazism left a lot to be desired...

However, it is the Sangh Parivar and only the Sangh that is unfairly criticized for "supporting" Nazis at
a time when such a view was perfectly acceptable.

Yes, supporting the Nazis used to be 'perfectly acceptable'.

'‘I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by his gentle and simple bearing
and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens. If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I
should have been whole-heartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the
bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. But in England we have not yet had to face this danger in the
same deadly form…But that we shall succeed in grappling with Communism and choking the life out of
it – of that I am absolutely sure.'
- Winston Churchill, Hitler fanboy & not a member of the RSS.

'German forces should land in Ireland, they will land ... as friends and liberators of the Irish people". The
public was assured that Germany desired neither "territory nor ... economic penetration" in Ireland but
only that it should play its part in the "reconstruction" of a "free and progressive Europe". The Third Reich
was also praised as the "energising force" of European politics and the "guardian" of national freedom.'

- Brian Hanley, from History of Ireland

Genocide is, no matter how terrible this sounds, 'nothing special'.

'the Germans have been made sole scapegoats of extermination that are actually a common European
heritage … The ideas he [Hitler] and all other western people in his childhood breathed were soaked in
the conviction that imperialism was a biologically necessary process, which, according to the laws of
nature, leads to the inevitable destruction of the lower races. It was a conviction which had already cost
millions of lives before Hitler provided his highly personal application.'

- Sven Lindqvist, from Exterminate All the Brutes

Surprisingly, all commentaries I've read about Fascism & Hindutva- & doubtless the basis for your
question- have always centred around a single book- written by one man, Golwalkar. And yet, the
briefest scrutiny will reveal how intellectually bankrupt this view is!
When Gowalkar wrote his Eulogy to Hitler, India was aflame. The two-nation idea was at its most
popular & riots- directed primarily against Hindus- raged throughout India. The less said about what
the British were doing, the better.

'I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us
back to our rightful position among the nations.'

- Winston Churchill, hipster neonazi.

In contrast, Europe was seeing a resurgent Germany. Hitler was seen as a nationalist who had brought
respect & economic might back to a broken German nation. There was no talk about atrocities- &
even if there were, why should've Golwalkar taken them seriously?

Golwalkar saw a merciless fascist nation butchering millions each year. In contrast was another
European nation which had no colonies, no plan for colonies & what's more- hadn't harmed even a
single Indian in 2 decades.

Even if Golwalkar had heard of any Nazi atrocities in the 1930s, it would've been natural for him to
dismiss them as British propaganda. Later, he would go on to criticize Hitler- terming him a 'typical
Christian anti-Semitic'.

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus...and Emma Goldman (United
States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of
society...has been steadily growing...The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period
of terror...in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany...this madness has been
allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.'

- Winston Churchill, 'typical Christian anti-semitic'.

Churchill didn't have a single good thing to say about Jews before the Nurmeberg trials. In 1939,
Gowalkar & Hedgewar described them as 'dedicated' & 'Nationalists'- probably the highest praise
they were capable of. Chew on that.

Golwalkar's views were a product of his times, his understanding of World politics & his limited
knowledge of what was actually happening. Did I mention that the RSS, being 'radicals' unlike the
Congress & Muslim League 'moderates' were treated significantly more harshly & persecuted more
severely by the British? And thus, had even less freedom to act & seek out external information
sources as a result?

Golwalkar withdrew his book before the war began the minute he came to know about the conditions
in Germany. He, quite rightly, condemned his own earlier writings about Nazi Germany & wrote a
devastating criticism of Hitler in 'A Bunch of Thoughts' where he analysed the similarities between
Colonialism & Nazism- predating Lindqvist by decades. He also praised the Jews profusely & held
their attempts to 'buy back their homeland bit by bit' a a triumph of human endeavour & Nationalistic
fervour.

In the meantime, Britain was turning back Jewish refugees from its shores & anti-Semitism was still
king in America...
 The Sangh, BJP, RSS, Hindutvadis - & for that matter, all Hindus & other Dharmic peoples (including
Hindu atheists- & I'm tired of putting this stupid disclaimer everywhere)- are doomed no matter what
we choose.

If the Sangh were to support the British against the Fascists, they'd be guilty of collaboration & 'anti-
Indianness'.

On the day of the arrests of Gandhi and his colleagues, Savarkar’s call to the Hindus was one of ‘no
support to the Congress move’ (of not opposing Hitler').

- Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Bose's nemesis.

If the Sangh were to support the Fascists against the British, they would be called Fascists themselves-
by the very same people who once claimed that the former supported the British.

Blah, blah, blah...

- Lots of crazy talk by various 'secular' people.

Thus, there is no acceptable view for the Sangh to hold!!

If the Sangh is to be criticized, this criticism ought to be based on what they actually said & not on
some baseless comparisons with long dead maniacs.

PS- If you've reached this far, thanks for staying along me during my rant. Cheers!

PPS- Turns out that Churchill's second quote in this rant may have been taken out of context. After all,
it's not like Churchill was a proponent of mass killings (cough, Bengal, cough), Racism( Hindus are a
beastly race!!) & anti-Semitism (...the Jew is 'different.' He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a
different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed).
1.7k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
44
Share
 Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered November 2, 2013

Why did Mahmud of Ghazni plunder 17 times for gold ? Why were the Indian kings not better
prepared after 5th or 6th time?

Anthony Tauro's answer probably answers your question adequately but I'd like to add something
more. IIRC Ghazni was actually defeated most of the times he invaded- or rather, 'raided'. Invasion is
too strong a word to use. It was only after his campaigns to the North of Oxus that he emerged as
anything approaching a threat to established Indian kingdoms.
25.6k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
34
Share
 Add Comment

Zaid Dinally
August 17, 2017
India was a tough nut to crack. Before Mahmud of Ghazni the Indians successfully kept the invasions
from North-West at bay.
Reply
Upvote
 Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered October 12, 2013

Why is it that minorities in India fear Narendra Modi?

I am an atheist- practically an anti-theist. Going by all the religious hokum in India, I suppose I & my
bunch are probably the smallest minority in India.

Given that most Atheists I know support Modi, I don't think the question's premise- "Minorities fear
Modi"- is accurate.
1.4k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
21
Share

Add Comment

Amit Kulkarni
 October 16, 2014
Same with me. Atheist supporting BJP.
Reply
Upvote

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered October 11, 2013

What are some interesting facts about the Mongols?

Mongol troopers loved to eat this:

It's Horse milk powder. Each soldier carried around ~8 kilos. Assuming a consumption of around ~200
grams per day, it could keep an army moving without supplies for 40 days.

And if the packs ran out? Well, they had a horse-milk factory right by their side!
(Genghis' mongols' best friend!)

But they did celebrate at times. What can be a better way of relaxing for a man who has to "defeat his
enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears,
to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms." than a steaming pot of this!
The Mongols ate the marmot; the broken, battered, starving remnant of the peoples they conquered
usually contended themselves with the human parts...

And if push came to shove?

 Boiled Horse blood. Bon Appetit!

This was a last resort & unlike what many may think- no something the Mongols liked to do. while
Horse meat was & still is an integral part of Mongol diet, Mongol troopers tried their utmost to avoid
killing their mounts...After all, would a modern soldier blow up his own tank willingly?
3.3k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
26
Share
 Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered October 8, 2013

What would you do as an Indian who disapproves strongly of Rahul Gandhi, if he becomes the Prime
Minister of India in 2014?

Follow the REAL Gandhi's advice- "Bharat Chhodo!"

412 views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
1
Share
 Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered October 7, 2013

A girl from a refugee camp in Dakar, Senegal asked me to help via mail. What can I do?

Go to "Cracked.com - America's Only Humor Site" & read some of Soren Bowie's articles.

Thank me later :P
5.5k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
6
Share
 Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered October 7, 2013

Is it possible that Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, is homosexual?

Why should it matter even if he was?

1k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
6
Share
 Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered October 5, 2013

Where did the Dravidians originate from? The Aryan race is said to have given most of India its
genetics, but there is very little theory about Dravidians (most Tamils and some people from nearby
states), who certainly look like a different race.

Africa- like the rest of us. This question is ridiculous as there is little genetic or cultural variation
between North Indians & South Indians (& East Indians, North-East Indians etc).

If you can lump as diverse communities as Kenyan Masai & Senegalese; Moroccans & Yemenis into
'races', then it's ridiculous to say that 'Aryans' are different from 'Dravidians'.

For heaven's sake, the word 'Dravidian' didn't even exist prior to the 1800s! The Ramayana describes
Ravana as a noble Brahmin & a true "Aryaraja"- Aryan king. What are you going to claim now? Sri
Lanka is in the Himalayas?
21.3k views ·
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
66
Share

Add Comment

Gouri Shanker
November 1, 2017 ·
1 upvote
While it is very true that “Aryan” and “Dravidian” races never existed, but it can’t denied that India is
home to as many as six different language families, some had external origins. Both Indo-Aryan and
Dravidian languages are intrusive to India. As explained by Joseph Boyle, there was a languages
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
 Geetha Thirumalai
June 28, 2017 ·
2 upvotes
The term “Dravida” did not exist prior to the 1800’s! No. It was very much current in the literary works
of the Sanskrit language and the Prakrit languages as a corruption of the Tamil word, Thamizh.
Kumarila Bhatta of Assam was the first writer to use the term during the 8th century CE.
Reply
Upvote
·
2
View More Comments

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered October 4, 2013

What does every Indian crave?

One word: Freedom.

593 views ·
View Upvoters
2
0
0
 Trilochana Rout, lives in India
Answered August 29, 2013

What would happen if all Indian politicians become honest and ethical?

All Indians will die of shock :P

703 views ·
View Upvoters
1
0
0

Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics

Answered August 28, 2013

Was Winston Churchill considered a good military strategist?

 The Allied victory was mostly because they simply out-produced & out-lasted the Axis powers. In a
battle between comparable powers, the Germans would've triumphed easily...The World owes more to
rank-&-file British soldiers than to Churchill's alleged 'military genius'.
1.8k views ·
View Upvoters

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
17
Share

Add Comment
 Trilochana Rout, works at Electronics
Answered August 28, 2013

Has there ever been a society or nation that had cooler names than the ancient Romans?

Here's a whopper of a name. It's in Sanskrit & uses the Kalinga Brahmi Script.

"Airēṇa mahārājēna mahāmēghavāhanēna cētarāja vasa vadhanēna pasatha subhalakhalēna

caturantaluṭhana guṇa'upēnēta kaliṅgādhipatinā siri khāravēlēna"

A rough translation will be -"Lord of the 'Aryans'/ 'Noble Ones', Great Lord of Kings, Greater vehicle of
the Rains, King of the 'Cetas'/ 'Those of great sense', Lord, Bestower of Glory, Possessor of all signs of
virtue & features, He whose the tales of whose virtues has reached all four corners of the World, the
Highest among talents (Most Talented), Administrator of the land of Kalinga (Modern SE India), the
Noble Salty shore.

This is a list of the titles & names given to the Emperor Mahameghavana Arya Kharavela of the
Mahameghavana Clan of the Chedi Dynasty of Kalinga (Kalinga itself is believe to be a republic;
Chances are he ruled over India- but merely lead the citizens of Kalinga), Emperor of India during 2nd
century BC.

The Emperor's name itself means "The Great Bearer of Rains, the Noble Salty Shore."
1.7k views ·
View Upvoters
·
View Sharers

Hamvira Mohapatro upvoted this

Upvote
·
34
Share
·
1

Add Comment

Trilochana Rout, lives in India

Answered August 26, 2013

What is the most horrific moment in Indian history?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Third battle of Panipat (1761) between the forces of Sadashiv
Rao Bhau & the coalition of Shuja-ud-Daulah & Ahmad Shah Durrani.

This single battle created Modern India as we know it.

It was the largest battle fought in the 18th century & the accompanying war had the largest death toll
in all of recorded history, save Genghis Khan's invasion of Khwarezm Persia.
North India was stripped bare, the Marathas (& Mughals) lost all their power & armed might - thus
allowing the British & Afghans to make inroads into our lands at will. The Indian superstate- stretching
from Kabul to Tanjore- which had existed for nearly 800 years was destroyed; allowing Europeans to
swallow the now-independent Feudal territories at will.

Few Indians living now, actually realize the extent of the might of Indian kingdoms at the time. The
Battle of Plassey, for all the hype, was a largely inconsequential thing. If not the war with Awadh &
Afghanistan, either the Marathas or the Mughal coalition would've smashed the invading British the
way they DEFEATED the Portuguese & Robert Clive's predecessors in the Child's War.

Even nearly 60 years after the loss at Panipat & the breaking of Indian power, the British were unable
to defeat Tipu Sultan in a one-on-one conflict & had to ask help from Hyderabad & Pune.

The long saga of Asian domination over Human history ended the minute Sadashiv Rao Bhau was
shot. And though the winds are changing now, I don't think Indians will be having any say in the new
World order to come...at least, not at the rate we're going...

If you could call yourself 10 years ago and had 30 seconds, what would you say?

BUY GOOGLE STOCKS.

Is it possible to be atheist in India after obviously being born in a religious family? How can I convince
my parents and members of my community?

It's very easy to be an atheist in India. Just tell your parents that you're an atheist & stop getting
involved in any religious activities.

If you think such honesty will get you into trouble? The solution's even simpler! Keep your head down,
finish your education, get a job- & then inform your parents regarding your choice.

They don't like it? Just walk out of the house & tell them to disown you.

I know I may get a lot of flak for my advice, but basically this seems to be the only practical way for a
young Indian to leave his religion.