What exactly is a Saddamist in the context of India?

[resurgence]

Im really curious to find out....

[Thug Lessons]

I assumed it was a joke.

[Viet Minh]

There are Shia Muslims to opress in Pakistan, but I'm not sure about India. :confused:

[Viet Minh]

Shii- I forgot this guy hates me :blink: can a mod delete my posts plz before we get another flamewar? Thnx

[Dean]

If either of you start to flame, you'll be reprimanded. If not, there is no reason to bring it up.

[Dimentio]

Is he not banned yet?

[Viet Minh]

Who me? Why?

[Dimentio]

The Sultan of Milk. For being a Saddamist?

[Milk Sheikh]

The Sultan of Milk. For being a Saddamist?

Then you'll have to ban half the people here for being Stalinist. Would you, hypocrite?

[RGacky3]

You could be banned just for being an anti-hindu bigot.

[Obs]

Then you'll have to ban half the people here for being Stalinist. Would you, hypocrite?
I happen to object to your comparison between the man who led the nation that ultimately triumphed over fascism (Stalin) to a pseudo-fascist dictator, the likes of which are a dime a dozen these days (Saddam).

And, like Gacky mentioned, you could be banned just for being bigoted against hindus.

[Milk Sheikh]

I happen to object to your comparison between the man who led the nation that ultimately triumphed over fascism (Stalin) to a pseudo-fascist dictator, the likes of which are a dime a dozen these days (Saddam).

And, like Gacky mentioned, you could be banned just for being bigoted against hindus.

I never said anything bigoted against Hindus, considering I am a Hindu myself. I was simply comparing cultures, that's all.

[Obs]

I never said anything bigoted against Hindus, considering I am a Hindu myself. I was simply comparing cultures, that's all.
So clearly you considering yourself a revolutionary is a metaphysical paradox.

[Dimentio]

I actually like Milk_Sheikh.

A lot of us have our ambiguities.

Not him.

He realises who he is.

He is a follower of Saddam.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I don't take the term seriously, but I suppose you could say a Saddamist is a term/name applied just like Stalinist or Castroist. Not an ideology, but simply a supporter of their regimes and legacy.

But I'm pretty sure this is the only guy ever to call himself such (Saddamist).

[Dimentio]

I think Jack Grimes also was a supporter of Saddam.

http://joanne21921.tripod.com/

[Viet Minh]

I don't take the term seriously, but I suppose you could say a Saddamist is a term/name applied just like Stalinist or Castroist. Not an ideology, but simply a supporter of their regimes and legacy.

But I'm pretty sure this is the only guy ever to call himself such (Saddamist).

I think it was the mods called him that (btw if you don't know you can change it in your cp - Your Profile - Edit Your Details - Custom User Title) change it to Ba'athist!

[Dimentio]

But Ba'athism is basically only Arab Socialism, in short a kind of more authoritarian variation of typical Third World Nationalist-Socialist parties, of which the Indian Congress Party is one example.

[L.A.P.]

So clearly you considering yourself a revolutionary is a metaphysical paradox.

I'm sure considering someone who gives a quasi-fascist US puppet dictator their own ideology a revolutionary is more than a metaphysical paradox.

[Dimentio]

The paradox is that Ba'athism calls for a Pan-Arab state from the Zagros Mountains to Marrakesh.

In an Indian context, that would be pretty meaningless, since there already is a kind of Pan-Indian state, even incorporating historically Non-Indian areas (like the Dravidian areas of southern India).

Most Hindu Empires were smaller than today's India.

[Dimentio]

The paradox is that Ba'athism calls for a Pan-Arab state from the Zagros Mountains to Marrakesh.

In an Indian context, that would be pretty meaningless, since there already is a kind of Pan-Indian state, even incorporating historically Non-Indian areas (like the Dravidian areas of southern India).

Most Hindu Empires were smaller than today's India.

[Viet Minh]

The paradox is that Ba'athism calls for a Pan-Arab state from the Zagros Mountains to Marrakesh.

In an Indian context, that would be pretty meaningless, since there already is a kind of Pan-Indian state, even incorporating historically Non-Indian areas (like the Dravidian areas of southern India).

Most Hindu Empires were smaller than today's India.

Its a strange ideology to hold in Iraq as well, where there are very few arabs, and judging by recent violence against them prejudice, alhtough of course this could be recent backlash to the Ba'ath regime, like sectarian attacks on Sunnis by Shias.

[L.A.P.]

The paradox is that Ba'athism calls for a Pan-Arab state from the Zagros Mountains to Marrakesh.

In an Indian context, that would be pretty meaningless, since there already is a kind of Pan-Indian state, even incorporating historically Non-Indian areas (like the Dravidian areas of southern India).

Most Hindu Empires were smaller than today's India.

It's hard to tell sometimes what is part of India and what isn't considering that South Asia was kind of always colonized by other empires.

[Viet Minh]

The paradox is that Ba'athism calls for a Pan-Arab state from the Zagros Mountains to Marrakesh.

In an Indian context, that would be pretty meaningless, since there already is a kind of Pan-Indian state, even incorporating historically Non-Indian areas (like the Dravidian areas of southern India).

Most Hindu Empires were smaller than today's India.

deja vu! Parts of Sri Lanka and Nepal could be considered 'Indian' in some contexts as well


It's hard to tell sometimes what is part of India and what isn't considering that South Asia was kind of always colonized by other empires.

i'm not entirely sure but I think India was a fairly artificial construct by the British Empire, basically they killed and conquered as far as they could, and called it India. There are many different tribal, religious and linguistic regions, nto to mention kingdoms of sorts.

[Dimentio]

For most of Indian history, India had been divided in numerous city-states, empires and kingdoms. There have been two or three large Hindu empires, with the Mauryas and the Guptas as the largest.

The name India is a Greek name derived from the river Indus, in today's Pakistan.

In the third century BCE, the Maurya empire reached the largest extent of any Indian Empire.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg

[Dimentio]

Fun fact: The region "India" was the area west of the Nanda/Maurya Empire, composing today's Pakistan and Punjab.

Much like how Kiev was Russia's first capitol.