With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. The Muslim invasions continued even when the Muslims were ruling India, like the invasion of the Mongols during the reign of the Khiljis or the invasion of the Mughals in the early sixteenth Century when the Lodis were ruling Delhi. The last notable invasion of the Muslims from outside was the invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739, during which he unleashed a great horror on the native population.

During these seven hundred years of Muslim invasions and their conquest and rule of India, the Hindus were the greatest sufferers. It is difficult to estimate the number of Hindus who lost their lives during these campaigns, the number of Hindus who lost their lives in the religious persecution perpetrated on the native population by the Muslim rulers or the number of Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam.

According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.

Europe never forgot or forgave the atrocities of the Nazi rule under Hitler. We hardly come across any positive reference to either Hitler or his army in the present day text books on European History. No one talks there of the qualities of Hitler as a great commander or an inspiring leader of German people whom he could mould and influence with his hypnotic speeches. No films are made showing Hitler as a romantic hero singing songs and his mistress as a heroine shedding copious tears over her lover!

The European consciousness is filled with the evil deeds perpetrated by his regime, thanks to the untiring work of their politicians, journalists, historians and film producers, so much so that the very thought of seeing any virtue in either Hitler or Nazis is abhorrent to the consciousness of the present day Europeans.

Europe and America produced at least a few thousand films highlighting the human misery caused by Hitler and his army. The films expose the horrors of Nazi regime and reinforce the beliefs and attitude of the present day generation towards the evils of the Nazi dictatorship.

In contrast look at India. There is hardly any awareness among the Indians of today of what happened to their ancestors in the past, because a great majority of historians are reluctant to touch this sensitive subject. It is not difficult for the Indian historians to gather information on the kind of atrocities perpetrated against the people of medieval India, to work out the estimated number people killed in the reign of each ruler, to create vivid pictures of what happened during such battles as the battle of Tallikota when Hampi, the capital of Vijayanagara empire was systematically destroyed for weeks.

Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone. Babur raised towers of Hindu skulls at Khanua when he defeated Rana Sanga in 1527 and later he repeated the same horrors after capturing the fort of Chanderi. Akbar ordered a general massacre of 30000 Rajputs after he captured Chithor in 1568. The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100000 Hindus every year. The history of medieval India is full of such instances.

Originally Posted by Anya1982

Wow glad to know your switched on............................william wallace was a cealtic like the irish are....................

Didn't america try and invade afgan like 100 yrs ago and get kicked out in 24hrs?

Uh nope. That would have been the Brit's. Why don't you read Kiplings

"Advice to a Young British Solider." Oughta splain it to ya.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Uh nope. That would have been the Brit's. Why don't you read Kiplings

"Advice to a Young British Solider." Oughta splain it to ya.

Read wot i wrote after hun

Fought on the 21st. October 1805, effectively ended the war at sea.

Lord Nelson died at about 4.30pm. by which time he knew that he had achieved the overwhelming victory that he had planned so carefully. Nelson had left nothing to chance. The two-column, right-angled attack worked exactly as he had intended by splitting the enemy fleet into smaller groups that immediately fell prey to the guns of the British fleet.

BEST UNDERDOG EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR

As always before battle, Nelson had apprehensions of death or wounds. It would have been curious if he had not for he would be exposed on his quarterdeck until, after the first broadside, it was often hid by gunsmoke and even then roundshot, grapeshot and the chain and bar shot fired to cut rigging, would be flying. His aim was to assault the centre and rear of the enemy line, leaving the van to sail on or attempt to turn and fight while he destroyed the other two-thirds. With his own twenty-seven sail of the line attacking in two divisions — there were not enough ships to form a third in reserve — he would face the thirty-three enemy ships but with these tactics, the odds would be in his favour when the fighting began. Then courage, skill in ship-handling and gunnery would be decisive. His own ships' companies had been at sea continuously, sometimes for years, while the French and Spanish had spent most of that time in port. His guns' crews could fire at twice the rate of the enemy and had a technical advantage: the British guns were fired instantaneously by flintlock and lanyard, making aim and accuracy more effective; the French and Spanish still used the slow-match and power-train involving a delay before discharge which could throw the aim of gun-layers in a rolling ship. Finally, if it came to boarding and "service hand-to-hand", he had shown his men exactly what was expected of them by his own example. In the event of signals being invisible through the smoke, he told his captains in the written instructions he sent them:

"No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of an enemy."

afganistan - defeated a russian attack and pushed them out of their country

Wouldn't have been possible without USA supporting Taliban.I wonder if USA ever must have thought that the same ppl whom they are helping would become their worst nightmare.

UK would bever turn against USA not without good reason too..............but in all fairness i think UK could out do USA in a war..............no offense we have the upper hand on intelligence plus europe.

But that would never happen

with europe yes but on our own no...we simply dont have the man-power

O yeah we couldn't go against a big country not with our man power as its taken up else where.

I remember when we were sent to gulf it strained us cus the fire strike was still on and we all got annoyed!!

Originally Posted by Anya1982

but in all fairness i think UK could out do USA in a war

wtf lol