White Pride

[Yzermandius19]

47 minutes ago, John Otis said:

Now you're catching on.

 

I found an interesting comment on YouTube which basically said that everyone has the right to go to Canada and the US because the whites there don't own the land, the natives do.

The natives took the land by conquest, so how do they own it when they simply got a taste of their own medicine? There isn't a country on the planet where the people running the country didn't conquer someone else to come into possession of their land at some point in history. Like I said, you can't reason with these people, they know so little history they've come to the conclusion that white people are the villains of world history.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[DogOnPorch]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Another one of your insignificant turds you've tossed into a history salad that's of even less significance. Kush is a 3500 year old Sanskrit word that's come to mean many things, starting with cradle and embrace the way the Hindu are geographically embraced by the Himalaya's or the way a baby is held close in a Mother's kush.

 

 

In the meantime...

Of course you're free to edit and correct Wiki and Quora and insert what you and Argus are implying.

Let us know how that works out for you.

 

 

A guy named Gunwat Walbe writing into Quora's answer forum would never be incorrect about anything...being the theory.

Yet from your page is also...

3-  Hindu Kush means "Kills the Hindus"
The Persian-English dictionary indicates that the word 'koš' [kʰoʃ] is derived from the verb ('koštan' کشتن [kʰoʃˈt̪ʰæn]),  meaning to kill. Although the derivation is only a possible one, some  authors have proposed the meaning "Kills the Hindu" for "Hindu Kush", a  derivation that is reproduced in Encyclopedia Americana which says that the name Hindu Kush means "kills the Hindu" and is a reminder of the days when Indian  slaves from the Indian subcontinent died in the harsh weather typical of  the Afghan mountains while being transported to Central Asia.

Meanwhile, I assume this also means you think this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

...never happened. Being Wikipedia n' all...

Edited April 14, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

some  authors have proposed the meaning "Kills the Hindu" for "Hindu Kush", a  derivation that is reproduced in Encyclopedia Americana which says that the name Hindu Kush means "kills the Hindu" and is a reminder of the days when Indian  slaves from the Indian subcontinent died in the harsh weather typical of  the Afghan mountains while being transported to Central Asia.

And not what you implied?  How do you explain that?  Never happened perhaps, being you and all?

Edited April 14, 2019 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, eyeball said:

And not what you implied?  How do you explain that?

 

You're free to believe that Hindu Kush means 'Hug the Hindus' as termed by the invaders...most certainly. Gunwat Walbe...well known historian...(right?)...would agree.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to believe that Hindu Kush means 'Hug the Hindus' as termed by the invaders...most certainly. Gunwat Walbe...well known historian...(right?)...would agree.

And you're free to set him and everyone else straight but you won't because you can't.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

And you're free to set him and everyone else straight but you won't because you can't.

 

I'll stick with the accepted meaning of Hindu Kush rather than your revisionist "Hug The Hindus" (hahahahah).

[eyeball]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

I'll stick with the accepted meaning of Hindu Kush rather than your revisionist "Hug The Hindus" (hahahahah).

Proposed meaning, that's only accepted by other unaccountable Islamophobes.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, eyeball said:

Proposed meaning, that's only accepted by other unaccountable Islamophobes.

 

Been that way since...forever. Your revisionism is the new kid in town...Yeah, man...Timur just wanted to Hug those poor Hindus...not crucify them in giant piles of heads.

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Been that way since...forever. 

Not according to actual historians.

  

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Not according to actual historians.

  

 

 

Oh...like your mysterious Gunwat Walbe...esteemed historian from...what institute, again? And...lo...insists Muslims just wanted to hug the Hindus rather than invade, conquer and commit genocide...like they actually did.

Hindu Kush means "Hindu Killer" in Persian...for obvious historical reasons that you deny occurred.

 

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Hindu Kush means "Hindu Killer" in Persian...for obvious historical reasons that you deny occurred.

What esteemed historians and institutes say this?  You should be able to make that obvious but you haven't because you can't and that's why the meaning you implied is so easily denied. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What historians and institutes say this?  You should be able to make that obvious but you haven't because you can't and that's why the meaning you implied is so easily denied. 

 

Let's see...you don't believe the Indian Subcontinent was invaded by Islamic forces but you're going to accept whatever I manage to post that proves such an invasion occurred.

That sounds like a pointless exercise. As mentioned, you're free to believe that Hindu Kush means "Hug The Hindus" and I'll just continue to laugh at you for it.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Let's see...you don't believe the Indian Subcontinent was invaded by Islamic forces but you're going to accept whatever I manage to post that proves such an invasion occurred.

I never said that, of course the invasion you mention occurred.  I've simply said you're full of crap because you can't produce any esteemed historians or institutes to back up your assertion that stems from that.

So far you are the only 'ahem' historian to do so.  Historians have a methodology similar to science called peer review, ever heard of it?

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, eyeball said:

I never said that, of course the invasion you mention occurred.  I've simply said you're full of crap because you can't produce any esteemed historians or institutes to back up your assertion that stems from that.

So far you are the only 'ahem' historian to do so.  Historians have a methodology similar to science called peer review, ever heard of it?

 

Again, you're more than free to believe that Hindu Kush means "Hug the Hindus" and that the India-Afghanistan slave trails were something I made-up just to make your pet religion look bad. 

I'll continue to laugh at you for it.

[eyeball]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

I don't believe in peer review.

FIFY

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, eyeball said:

FIFY

 

Again, you're free to continue to believe that Hindu Kush means "Hug the Hindus" as your expert claims.

I'll continue to laugh at you for it.

[eyeball]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

Again, you're free to continue to believe that Hindu Kush means "Hug the Hindus" as your expert claims.

I'll continue to laugh at you for it.

I know, but in the meantime I also know the record will show once again that you have nothing but your own sense of amusement to inform you.

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I know, but in the meantime I also know the record will show once again that you have nothing but your own sense of amusement to inform you.

 

I'm not here to convince you the Islamic forces invaded India, committed genocide, took the enslaved over the mountains to Afghanistan.

You're also free to believe that in this process, the Muslims named the mountains 'Hindu Huggers' or whatever you're trying to rewrite history-wise.

Edited April 14, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're also free to believe that in this process, the Muslims named the mountains 'Hindu Huggers' or whatever you're trying to rewrite history-wise.

Actually I said it was people who spoke Sanskrit that named the place - thousands of years before there even were any Muslims.

It's cute watching you try to rewrite what I said.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, eyeball said:

Actually I said it was people who spoke Sanskrit that named the place - thousands of years before there even were any Muslims.

It's cute watching you try to rewrite what I said.

 

You're free to believe that Hindu Kush means Hug the Hindus all you like. I'll stick to the accepted meaning.

[eyeball]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to believe that Hindu Kush means Hug the Hindus all you like. I'll stick to the accepted meaning.

Accepted by who, besides yourself that is? 

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to believe that Hindu Kush means Hug the Hindus all you like. I'll stick to the accepted meaning.

These days is means killer weed. Google it up yourself if you don't believe me.

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

These days is means killer weed. Google it up yourself if you don't believe me.

 

Again, you're free to believe that Hindu Kush mean Hug the Hindus all you like. Your expert, Gunwat Walbe...said so on Quora's answer forum. That's rock solid evidence that "Hug the Hindus" is what was meant when Islam's armies invaded and conquered India by sword.

[DogOnPorch]

After this I proceeded to the city of Barwan, in the road to which is a high mountain, covered with snow and exceedingly cold; they call it the Hindu Kush, that is Hindu-slayer, because most of the slaves brought thither from India die on account of the intenseness of the cold.

— Ibn Batutta, Chapter XIII, Rihla – Khorasan

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/ibnbatuta/02tartary.html#punjab

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

they call it the Hindu Kush, that is Hindu-slayer, because most of the slaves brought thither from India die on account of the intenseness of the cold.

Some Muslims may have called it that for this reason but the people who spoke Sanskrit and who lived in the region thousands of years before Muslims even existed did so for reasons completely unrelated to what you're saying and insinuating.  You're simply up to your old shtick of projecting some insignificant factoid onto history then pointing to as evidence that every Muslim alive today is still as bloodthirsty as the ones who invaded India. Its a shtick that's probably even older than Sanskrit.