[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #2

Why Muslims insists on building their Mosque on somebody else's holy site? As for air-tight proof of Rama Temple's existence on the location, perhaps more research is in order.

I wonder how Muslims feel if Hindus construct Gnash Temple on Mecca or Karbela, even if not on top of Kabba or Imam Ali Shrine.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Are you familiar with historical evidences related to this dispute?

[libertarian_indian]

Archaeological evidence proving that a temple existed exists. This was first published in Indian Express inthe 1980s. The evidence was by a renegade retired bureaucrat who leaked out the secrets of the government that was pandering to the Muslims. The whistleblower was a retired director of Archaeological Survey Of India (a government body that got the evidence and was ordered to suppress it).

The Supreme Court then refused to look for evidence. So the Hindus demolished the mosque by themselves.

Then the court woke up and ordered that a neutral body look at the evidence. Third party companies from USA participated in digging the evidence with representatives from both sides affixing their signature at every stage of the excavation. The evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of the claim that a temple existed. The Communist Indian media then went ballistic and asked, "So what if there is evidence? Muslims should get the place." This happened within the last 2 years.

[RJS1950]

Why Muslims insists on building their Mosque on somebody else's holy site?

Because this is the way they always operate and have since the original scumbag rode out of Medina.

They are like dogs, they have to piss on the conflicting holy site to mark their territory and try to keep the other religion from coming back. Look most anyplace in the world and they have done this.