Kill Asaduddin Owaisi and take home one million cash: Hindu Mahasbha

[HariPrasad]

inciting hatred is not criminal only... when people are killed because of his words and the situation what will it be then? what is the threshold?

You guys are so obsessed with terrorism that you see terrorism every where. This is targeted against an individual so that amounts to crime and not terrorism.

 

[nair]

wow! I have to see this.. any youtube link ?

Google should be a good option.... I remember discussing it in PDF....

 

[Arsalan]

What's with all the "analysts"? No one has been killed. Talk does not constitute terrorism. Otherwise most religious books would end up being banned.

Well i never called them terrorists

And seriously, if you are OK with these words, i have nothing else to say.

 

[Bang Galore]

fine line was when the church burning was considered a heroic act by this group, fine line was when rewards were given for doing things which are officially illegal but are ignored. When there will be riots the official line will be that it came from no where. As long as the extremist are Indian all is well

Talking through your hat now, eh? What church burning was supposedly done by the Hindu Mahasabha? This is a loony, small time organization with leaders having big mouths. Not been known to be of any prominence which is why they do all this loony talk. To get airtime. Are you confusing them with some other group?

 

[Gufi]

Terrorism in what manner? Talking through the hat? Maybe you should understand what constitutes terrorism. If a single person is killed because of an action of a group, only then wi

So rewarding those and protecting those who burn churches is not supporting terrorism but heroic ??

 

[Bang Galore]

Well i never called them terrorists

And seriously, if you are OK with these words, i have nothing else to say.

I'm hardly ok with those utterances. I have a low tolerance for religious loonies of any persuasion. Calling them terrorists though is a bit rich.

 

[nair]

Well i never called them terrorists

And seriously, if you are OK with these words, i have nothing else to say.

No sane person will be "OK" with these words...... But he was against equating with the terrorism in the same line of Lej, LeT,ISIS

 

[Bang Galore]

So rewarding those and protecting those who burn churches is not supporting terrorism but heroic ??

Explain what you are referring to. You have kind of lost me here. What reward, who is protecting? How in any case is arson being equated to terrorism?

 

[Gufi]

Talking through your hat now, eh? What church burning was supposedly done by the Hindu Mahasabha? This is a loony, small time organization with leaders having big mouths. Not been known to be of any prominence which is why they do all this loony talk. To get airtime. Are you confusing them with some other group?

supporting something is what is done.. How many people has Hafiz Saeed killed in India... His speeches are to get attention... same logic
Church attacks not illegal: Hindu outfit - The Hindu
Supporting the acts are not bad, encouraging them are not bad??? Asking for them to be rewarded are not bad??
Congrats now even Hafiz Saeed is innocent under that criteria

No sane person will be "OK" with these words...... But he was against equating with the terrorism in the same line of Lej, LeT,ISIS

NO i am defining what makes terrorists... What is the line? and why is it always that the questions are one sided?? what actions has Indian government taken to stop extremist views?? they inflame relations and thus are inciting hate in the region

Explain what you are referring to. You have kind of lost me here. What reward, who is protecting? How in any case is arson being equated to terrorism?

This is being carried on from another thread which is why the discussion may seem incomplete to you

 

[Arsalan]

I'm hardly ok with those utterances. I have a low tolerance for religious loonies of any persuasion. Calling them terrorists though is a bit rich.

No sane person will be "OK" with these words...... But he was against equating with the terrorism in the same line of Lej, LeT,ISIS

Well good to know at least you are no OK with these words, that is a relief.

However please remember that it is the hate speech that leads to terrorism, almost always!! Any support of acts of such violence is terrorism. IN fact, if we go by the definition of terrorism, it have nothing to do with actual killing, any act of violence of intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is terrorism.

The hate speech and threats are what lead to killings then:

You term this as not terrorism
Church attacks not illegal: Hindu outfit - The Hindu

but it is this what leads to this:
Anti-Christian violence in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bang Galore]

supporting something is what is done.. How many people has Hafiz Saeed killed in India... His speeches are to get attention... same logic
Church attacks not illegal: Hindu outfit - The Hindu
Supporting the acts are not bad, encouraging them are not bad??? Asking for them to be rewarded are not bad??
Congrats now even Hafiz Saeed is innocent under that criteria


NO i am defining what makes terrorists... What is the line? and why is it always that the questions are one sided?? what actions has Indian government taken to stop extremist views?? they inflame relations and thus are inciting hate in the region

You are now being silly. Hafiz Saeed was the founder of the LeT which has killed many Indians. Nobody would give a rat's behind if all he was is another Zaid Hamid.

As far as your link being posted, have you read it? The organisation is asking the centre to reward those involved in church attacks, that falls well within free speech, even if it is of the loony kind. No one can be arrested for this type of talk.

Well good to know at least you are no OK with these words, that is a relief.

However please remember that it is the hate speech that leads to terrorism, almost always!! Any support of acts of such violence is terrorism. IN fact, if we go by the definition of terrorism, it have nothing to do with actual killing, any act of violence of intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is terrorism.

How far will you take that bit about hate speech? All the way to religious texts? We live in the real world, we make a distinction between talk & writings & actions. Some talk & writing may still be prosecutable but there is a much higher burden of proof required.

 

[nair]

NO i am defining what makes terrorists... What is the line? and why is it always that the questions are one sided?? what actions has Indian government taken to stop extremist views?? they inflame relations and thus are inciting hate in the region

I agree there are religious extremists in my country, I am not that naive not to accept it.... They have been tackled silently....

However please remember that it is the hate speech that leads to terrorism, almost always!! Any support of acts of such violence is terrorism. IN fact, if we go by the definition of terrorism, it have nothing to do with actual killing, any act of violence of intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is terrorism.

While agreeing to you that hate speech may or can lead to terrorism, (we have different meanings for that word for sure), one can not prosecute some one for terrorism charges for a hate speech.... Yes it need to be curbed to avoid leading to severe crimes such as Terrorism..... But one cannot call them terrorist just because they do hate speech..... They should be treated for mental ailment......

 

[Arsalan]

I agree there are religious extremists in my country, I am not that naive not to accept it.... They have been tackled silently....

These religious extremists drive toward terrorism. End of debate for me, thank you for accepting this reality. it is good for you, your country and the region. We need to accept the issues before we can address them.

How far will you take that bit about hate speech? All the way to religious texts? We live in the real world, we make a distinction between talk & writings & actions. Some talk & writing may still be prosecutable but there is a much higher burden of proof required.

Why not?
But i can bet on one thing, if we dig deep enough, it wont be the text that supports terrorism but the wrong miss guided interpretation of that text. Be it Quran verses about Jihad or a Hindu's Kali maata, it is the clerics who miss guide people on almost all occasions. You seriously think Jesus would have called for protestants and Catholics to burn each other at stake? No possible

Anyway, this is a separate debate. My point is that it is the hate speech that drives towards terrorism, you cannot separate the two just like you cannot label both as same. They are not word means but are off course synonyms if we put it simply.

 

[Gufi]

You are now being silly. Hafiz Saeed was the founder of the LeT which has killed many Indians.

No I am using your criteria. He has not killed anyone himself. Maybe he wants the attention.

As far as your link being posted, have you read it? The organisation is asking the centre to reward those involved in church attacks, that falls well within free speech, even if it is of the loony kind. No one can be arrested for this type of talk.

No actually it is praising those who burnt churches and caused harm to others. Read their record of violence and then tell me loony and not terrorist.

 

[Gufi]

While agreeing to you that hate speech may or can lead to terrorism, (we have different meanings for that word for sure), one can not prosecute some one for terrorism charges for a hate speech.... Yes it need to be curbed to avoid leading to severe crimes such as Terrorism..... But one cannot call them terrorist just because they do hate speech..... They should be treated for mental ailment......

Hafiz Saeed has never done anything himself, all his acts are speeches... The hate speech may lead to terrorist acts but how can one link them directly to him. Anyone listening to either party may be influenced, but then again who knows why it happens