terror in london ( Locked) (154)

True. But in case you are bizarrely justifying the terrorist incident, does that hold relevance for what is happening now to people who weren't even born then? How do you hold them accountable?

When were Buddhists killed in India? Against, just by islamists during their conquests. And they are harassed in a pocket in the extreme north of India, again by islamists. A huge sect of hindus were chased away, ethnically cleansed, from the same place by islamic militants before the indian army stepped in. Not surprisingly, given the current trends, there were no expressions of solidarity with these people from the apologists who claim to be doing the same for muslims claiming to take a 'humanitarian' view of things. Tell me, how are those incidents less humanitarian than this? Reeks of selective hypocrisy and delusions? That is my point. And again, close to 100% of terrorists incidents nowadays are done in the name of islam, so blaming other religions right now when radicalization and killing in the name of islam is beind discussed, only serves to dilute focus and shift the blame away.

Will the overwhelming majority of people who have been indoctrinated since childhood and conditioned to think that the lives of people of other faiths do not matter, and that they are meant to be simply killed, understand the language of love, breaking the cycle of violence, respecting each other as people? No, they simply won't. Law enforcement has to deal with them with a stern, heavy hand, to protect the lives of ordinary people who have nothing to do with all this violence. If they have to take a particular religion to task because members of that religion are involved in perpetrating most of the violence, then so be it, until you can be sure that ordinary citizens are free from this menace.

The take that religion must be kept out of politics, and must never be allowed to impose itself on anyone else, or be allowed to indulge in violence, is something I agree with you totally. But how will you achieve that, given the current circumstances-by sweet talk to hardened indocrinated terrorists, or by drastic action?

May I ask what your point is, sir? We are discussing terrorism in london, aren't we? And even Theresa May herself has finally woken up to reality, and started addressing the situation as 'islamic extremism' and admitting that there had been 'far too much tolerance of islamic extremism' in UK. She was previously not inclined to term that so bluntly, for fear of losing popular opinion which was still stuck in loving terrorists, giving them hugs, human rights, lighting candles after every incident, and forgetting it and moving on until the next attack? In retrospect, isn't that a post-mortem examination of facts when a lot of innocent people have died from terrorist attacks in the UK? Isn't it regrettable that a stricter, less politically correct measures have checked this? Perhaps the authorities knew they could check this with such measures, but refused to do so for fear of becoming unpopular. Because the larger public still believed in showing love and compassion to the monsters.

Even though this goes out of context, let me answer you.
Significant decline was caused by huns, turks, persians-islamic invasions and consequent islamic rule. As you have rightly put it, BR Ambedkar holds the islamic rule responsible for the decline. And the modern day threats to the same are caused by islamic terrorists as well.
Competition with Hindus and Jains weren't major factors for the decline of buddhism. Fragmentation of the gupta empire meant that it lost revenue and patronage, but it still existed even with competition from other religions. The loss of revenue meant that it could not propagate, but by and large it did exist. And Jains were never so large a community that it threatened the existence of buddhism per se. Those statements are inaccurate. ( A word of caution-wikipedia is an open editable knowledge source, which means anyone can fill it with information which may not exactly be accurate. I would suggest you do not take the statements per se, but rather read between the lines. And what you read on every other dubious site isnt exactly correct.)