Sedition case against Indian actress for praising Pakistan

[Joe Shearer]

I as an Indian condemn your post on us not condeming the condeming done by a lawyer by filing a case on failed egoistic actress/politico Ramya's condemeable comments which received lot of condeming in her home state of karnataka which will examine her condemeable comments .
There I have condemed enough for all Indian posters in this forum.

On topic:

She will walk scot free, but her political career is presumably hit rock bottom after this fiasco.
She lost her last election spectacularly and went to UK for 10 months without informing her political party, her ego is sky high.
One time back in 2009, as an actress she got into lot of trouble for treating her co-dancers or movie stars as subhumans for like example just stroking her or dancing too close to her in a dance .
Her behavior in 2011 cost her a 1 year ban and almost a virtual ban in Karnataka film industry and recently she shot a movie and quit half way costing the producer lot of loss due to her ego running high again, but the movie went to a reshoot with another actress which has a scene dedicated to mock ramya .
.She is basically controversies favorite child hated by the entire movie industry here.
She sucks even more in politics, the place she won last time was in a district of Karnataka in mandya in 2013.After winning she never visited there until next election, which she lost spectacularly.
She is the worst kind of mascot pakistan can get for spreading Pakistani message of peace, lol.
Infact, I am having a field day reading all your comments. Guys, truth be told.. She is in Indian Congress party which made this dumb women a actress /politician due to a old political fox's link i.e Mr. S. M.Krishna, so called her mother's friend.
she is an apple filled with worms, looks good on the outside, but rotten to the core.
Getting certificate from her is like taliban praising ISIS .. Calm Down folks, for your own sake.

What a disgusting post.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You don't believe that there is something to "Islamic" terrorism ?

No.

Islam is a rigid, inflexible religion, and I do not admire it. So, too, about other religions, I find them unsound at the core and do not admire them. That has nothing to do with crime or with terrorism.

Why an individual becomes a criminal is not the fault of society alone; social conditions may play a contributing factor, but the final moral decision is that of the individual, and he or she cannot evade moral responsibility, personal moral responsibility, unless due to being mentally incapacitated.

So, too, with individuals who are terrorists. Many of them use religion as a crutch to conceal their complete moral voids; today there are a large number of Muslim terrorists, but that was not the case even a few decades ago. Bomb blasts all over Europe were due to ETA; look them up. The British Prime Minister missed death by millimetres; her would be assassins were not Muslim, but from the heartland of European culture. The biggest number of deaths in a US terrorist attack before the Twin Towers was due to a Christian far right extremist. Look up McVeigh.

Talking of Islamic terrorism allows people to talk of Hindu terrorising of lower castes, minorities and women. I therefore oppose both.

dont hesitate to right anything about hindu, this professional become blind when his fellow countrymen use Islamic terms to mock Islam and Pakistan..

Of course.

You are so right and so quick to sit in judgement.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

dont hesitate to right anything about hindu, this professional become blind when his fellow countrymen use Islamic terms to mock Islam and Pakistan..

Thank you, my young brother. That is why have told him that he needs to be good. If he has any humanity in him he will let go of his dark hatred of Pak and China...

If asks me to be restraint in my calssification...from now on he has to show his character as well. Otherwise, the light in the heart diminishes...

Pak friends you be strong and united. You are now under open indian attack on all fronts.

Bless you and your great people.

 

[SmilingBuddha]

What a disgusting post.

I know, but it's the truth.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I know, but it's the truth.

So are so many other things. How does that support a case to bring those up? This is sordid muck-raking.

 

[Indrajit]

No.

Islam is a rigid, inflexible religion, and I do not admire it. So, too, about other religions, I find them unsound at the core and do not admire them. That has nothing to do with crime or with terrorism.

Why an individual becomes a criminal is not the fault of society alone; social conditions may play a contributing factor, but the final moral decision is that of the individual, and he or she cannot evade moral responsibility, personal moral responsibility, unless due to being mentally incapacitated.

So, too, with individuals who are terrorists. Many of them use religion as a crutch to conceal their complete moral voids; today there are a large number of Muslim terrorists, but that was not the case even a few decades ago. Bomb blasts all over Europe were due to ETA; look them up. The British Prime Minister missed death by millimetres; her would be assassins were not Muslim, but from the heartland of European culture. The biggest number of deaths in a US terrorist attack before the Twin Towers was due to a Christian far right extremist. Look up McVeigh.

Talking of Islamic terrorism allows people to talk of Hindu terrorising of lower castes, minorities and women. I therefore oppose both.

I would disagree without taking issue with any of your core arguments. Terrorists may be Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc but the reference to them as being Islamic, Hindu, Christian etc is in connection to the cause they seek to fight for, which is why the Christians who attacked the British Prime Minister were referred to as Irish terrorists as were the assassins of Rajiv Gandhi - Tamil terrorists. Those who were muslim but fought for a different cause have been connected to that cause-the Palestinian groups for example. The reference to Islamic terrorism may be used too loosely & reference to it as such may be counter productive in some cases but I don't believe the term itself is wrong.

As far as reference to terrorising of lower castes goes, that is also a fact in some areas and has been historically. It wouldn't particularly be Hindu terror(since both are Hindu to be in the classic caste system) but references to upper caste terror is not inaccurate in some cases.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I would disagree without taking issue with any of your core arguments. Terrorists may be Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc but the reference to them as being Islamic, Hindu, Christian etc is in connection to the cause they seek to fight for, which is why the Christians who attacked the British Prime Minister were referred to as Irish terrorists as were the assassins of Rajiv Gandhi - Tamil terrorists. Those who were muslim but fought for a different cause have been connected to that cause-the Palestinian groups for example. The reference to Islamic terrorism may be used too loosely & reference to it as such may be counter productive in some cases but I don't believe the term itself is wrong.

As far as reference to terrorising of lower castes goes, that is also a fact in some areas and has been historically. It wouldn't particularly be Hindu terror(since both are Hindu to be in the classic caste system) but references to upper caste terror is not inaccurate in some cases.

You are right, but only by minutely subdividing the matter; essentially, quibbling. I suspect that my main point has got across and you have understood, and you are soldiering on in the cause of condemning Islam as the fountainhead of Islamic terror - essentially a circular argument.

Islam breeds terrorism, and because Islam breeds terrorism, Islam is terrorist. If Islam is terrorist, then Muslims must be terrorist. If Muslims are terrorist, then Islam breeds terrorism.

 

[Indrajit]

You are right, but only by minutely subdividing the matter; essentially, quibbling. I suspect that my main point has got across and you have understood, and you are soldiering on in the cause of condemning Islam as the fountainhead of Islamic terror - essentially a circular argument.

Islam breeds terrorism, and because Islam breeds terrorism, Islam is terrorist. If Islam is terrorist, then Muslims must be terrorist. If Muslims are terrorist, then Islam breeds terrorism.

Not soldiering on to condemn any religion, no interest there. Just that your post caught my eye. I'm non-religious, no illusions about any religion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not soldiering on to condemn any religion, no interest there. Just that your post caught my eye. I'm non-religious, no illusions about any religion.

Then that reference to Islamic terrorism really makes little sense.

 

[Indrajit]

Then that reference to Islamic terrorism really makes little sense.

I didn't bring it up, just something that popped up in your discussion with another poster. Getting to understand your position, offering a counter for your attention. Nothing more.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I didn't bring it up, just something that popped up in your discussion with another poster. Getting to understand your position, offering a counter for your attention. Nothing more.

Fair enough. I'm also making that inflected observation.

 

[SmilingBuddha]

So are so many other things. How does that support a case to bring those up? This is sordid muck-raking.

I was just pointing out that she is not an angel as being treated in the thread by our western neighbors .Deleting the post anyway , Pakistan can believe anything they want but it does not change the fact of what she is inside.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I was just pointing out that she is not an angel as being treated in the thread by our western neighbors .Deleting the post anyway , Pakistan can believe anything they want but it does not change the fact of what she is inside.

Whatever.

Your gesture is dignified and correct.

Let us deal with her action criticised, not with her personality or her professional or private life.

 

[ayesha.a]

Lady an internet Hindu went on to declare her a bastard child of someone, right here on this forum and you are trying to tell me I am not being objective. It is really sad to see educated Indians trying to defend evils of their society though I should be happy about it but don't know why I feel differently today.

Someone sharing her personal experience and getting this treatment is pretty evident of mental state of Indian society.

1) I did not see any such posts by an Indian here. But maybe I missed it, so I'll just state that if somebody did say that, then he or she is an idiot of the highest order.

2) I did not - repeat - DID NOT defend this ridiculous lawsuit. On the contrary, I stated plainly that the person who filed this case ought to be prosecuted for "frivolous litigation". (There is a provision for that in Indian law.)

All I'm saying is that you are wrong in generalizing the action of this idiot lawyer to the whole of Indian society. Believe me, if there is a social ill in Indian society (and there are many), I would not hesitate to acknowledge it. But this is NOT a general "sickness" that exists in the entire society. Almost any Indian would agree that this lawsuit is ridiculous.

 

[Sneaker]

1) I did not see any such posts by an Indian here. But maybe I missed it, so I'll just state that if somebody did say that, then he or she is an idiot of the highest order.

2) I did not - repeat - DID NOT defend this ridiculous lawsuit. On the contrary, I stated plainly that the person who filed this case ought to be prosecuted for "frivolous litigation". (There is a provision for that in Indian law.)

All I'm saying is that you are wrong in generalizing the action of this idiot lawyer to the whole of Indian society. Believe me, if there is a social ill in Indian society (and there are many), I would not hesitate to acknowledge it. But this is NOT a general "sickness" that exists in the entire society. Almost any Indian would agree that this lawsuit is ridiculous.

I did that. She is indeed. I am that place and identity of her biological father is circulating long since this episode. What is stupidity or idiocy here? In fact, not asking about her real father I the precondition she used to put before any interview.

Lady an internet Hindu went on to declare her a bastard child of someone,

Are you telling an is not? Or you don't like the truth?