Terrorist and killer Narendra Modi on TIME 2012 list is a shame

[PakEagle]

I don't see how calling for somebody you don't like to be stoned has anything to do with what you wrote above. I also can't see which part of your contribution you think is part of a healthy discussion. What is healthy about what you have posted?

He has facilitated killing of hundred of innocent muslims and should be stoned to death ..here is the proof

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JbRS7CrRGc[/video]

 

[utraash]

I dont know what secular section you are talking about?

The sections that don't want the bellicose posturing of the Sangh Parivar and want to lead peaceful lives without the injection of religion into politics. The ones who have voted for non-communal agendas, based on development, rather than on divisive issues related to religion.

Did I ever mention sangh parivar anywhere in my post ... now tell me which party or a political figure is true secular in real terms ?

Pro muslim or pro minority is the only criteria of these secular section ....

You are entitled to your opinion. That is all that it is, your personal opinion. I might happen to define it as those who want nothing to do with religion in public life.


Again we are dividing ourself on the line of minority majority which is basically nothing but relegion wise.. Is religion matter so much to us that its above the Law or constitution of India ? i think no.

It is you and your fellows of the Sangh Parivar who are dividing India on the lines of minority or majority. Your turning the situation around is ironic. If religion was not so much to you that it was above the law or the Constitution of India, neither would the leaders of the BJP, the VHP and other front organisations have agitated for the destruction of the Babri Masjid, and, contrary to their commitments, demolished it, nor would Narendra Modi have violated his oath of loyalty to the constitution and egged on majority community hoodlums to assault the minority.

Again you are counting name of sangh parivar nhp bjp .... i never mentioned those in my previous post but I think you also follow the trend of indian secularism where until you dont crticize the sangh vhp bjp you will not hold secular status..... As per my view I am dead against any violence or any loss which is precisely done on the line of religion, cast, race...etc... when you raise issue of Babri masjid or you miserably failed to highlight the issues of Kashmiri pandits where hindu are in minority.... So I would say sir, every issues has to be seen from same eye...... though both the act are shameful for our democracy which failed to protect indians not minority or majorrity ....
Modi role in Gujraat is also being investigated under Supreme court directions so you dont need to jump on conclusion & you cannot define laws or constitution better than supreme court.

True meaning of secular will be no division on basis race cast relegion or etc.......

True. That you know it and you don't practise it points to your outstanding hypocrisy.
same thing is also applied for your hollow secularism sir?


But those So called Secular people are only creating division.

Are you making sense? Those who talk about teaching the minority a lesson so that they will never make the same mistake again, those who hold public rallies inciting violence and hatred, those who doctor textbooks in states ruled by them, exactly as Pakistan does, rather than acknowledge that these are the villains, you actually say 'secular' people are creating divisions?

We never heard those secular people since we live out of this world.... secularism would have never in our dictionary if division were not made.....

When secularism means opposition to any expression of religion in public life, how is this possible?

if at all I have to say on minority, muslim are not in minority anymore the real minorities are sikhs bhuddhist, christians, jain & many other ...

How are Muslims not a minority? Are they more than 50% of the population?
if 15-20 crores people are in minority then who will not be in minority .....?

Do you even understand what you are writing?

So did you ever check that as per your Secular sections has anything to say about real minority issues or issues of majority?

Can you define real minority issues, or issues of majority?
surely i cant because you are in elite group of taking care of minority sir...

Then the truth will be clear for every one to see.


This has become a trend in this country If anyone says anything against muslim then he will be declared anti minority

Is that not literally true?

okay if i say absurd things to other religion there wont be much shouting but if i say small thing about muslim I wll be tagged anti minority as you are trying to hint......I am not against Muslim even in my own family my sis in law is from same religion..
I am not a man of any religion either but I hate pseudo secularist almost like enemy of my country & country is first to me not my religion .....

 

[Anish1]

Congress party is acting like a second jinnah.

 

[Patriot]

Indians talking about some Pakistan Support of terrorism, is similar to a wh0re talking about virtues of marital fidelity to a housewife who had a one night stand.

You are absolutely right.After supporting Mukti Bahini Terrorist ORganization & LITE and now BLA i think this analogy perfectly suits India.

 

[fallstuff]

Frustration...you cant touch him

You can't touch this,

 

[darkinsky]

You are absolutely right.After supporting Mukti Bahini Terrorist ORganization & LITE and now BLA i think this analogy perfectly suits India.

an indian actually said that

 

[The Great One]

Damn it.
Joe Shearer is a Congressi.

 

[shuntmaster]

You are absolutely right.After supporting Mukti Bahini Terrorist ORganization & LITE and now BLA i think this analogy perfectly suits India.

Are you calling Bangladesh's freedom army terrorists? Mukti Bahini was terror only to the raping and murdering Niazis soldiers. If not for Mukti Bahini, the Pakistani army would have completely killed or raped the entire Bengali population of East Pakistan.
What is LITE?
Any proof regarding Indian support for BLA? OOH.. Pakistan is waiting for the right century to show the proof, right?

 

[Tshering22]

Damn it.
Joe Shearer is a Congressi.

You gotta know now.?

It is not the first time secularists have failed in trying to get an opinion around.

 

[The Great One]

You gotta know now.?

It is not the first time secularists have failed in trying to get an opinion around.

Anywho, I think we ought to be more careful with the term 'secularist'. To an untrained and unexperienced person, it may seem like we are actually anti-secularists rather than anti-congress.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is one of the weakest and most disjointed responses that I have had the misfortune to read, but it is my principle to respond in full detail to someone who takes the trouble to dispute a statement or an evaluation that I have made. For that reason alone, I have taken the trouble to sort out the arguments made by each of us.

I dont know what secular section you are talking about?

The sections that don't want the bellicose posturing of the Sangh Parivar and want to lead peaceful lives without the injection of religion into politics. The ones who have voted for non-communal agendas, based on development, rather than on divisive issues related to religion.

Did I ever mention sangh parivar anywhere in my post ... now tell me which party or a political figure is true secular in real terms ?

None. You forget, or you don't pay much attention: my reference was to sections of society, not political parties. There are sections of people - all those who have risen up in revolt against the nauseating corruption of ALL political parties, for example - outside political parties who have these correctly held views.

Pro muslim or pro minority is the only criteria of these secular section ....

You are entitled to your opinion. That is all that it is, your personal opinion. I might happen to define it as those who want nothing to do with religion in public life.

Again we are dividing ourself on the line of minority majority which is basically nothing but relegion wise.. Is religion matter so much to us that its above the Law or constitution of India ? i think no.

It is you and your fellows of the Sangh Parivar who are dividing India on the lines of minority or majority. Your turning the situation around is ironic. If religion was not so much to you that it was above the law or the Constitution of India, neither would the leaders of the BJP, the VHP and other front organisations have agitated for the destruction of the Babri Masjid, and, contrary to their commitments, demolished it, nor would Narendra Modi have violated his oath of loyalty to the constitution and egged on majority community hoodlums to assault the minority.

Again you are counting name of sangh parivar nhp bjp .... i never mentioned those in my previous post but I think you also follow the trend of indian secularism where until you dont crticize the sangh vhp bjp you will not hold secular status..... As per my view I am dead against any violence or any loss which is precisely done on the line of religion, cast, race...etc... when you raise issue of Babri masjid or you miserably failed to highlight the issues of Kashmiri pandits where hindu are in minority.... So I would say sir, every issues has to be seen from same eye...... though both the act are shameful for our democracy which failed to protect indians not minority or majorrity ....
Modi role in Gujraat is also being investigated under Supreme court directions so you dont need to jump on conclusion & you cannot define laws or constitution better than supreme court.

For starters, there was a direct link to the Babri Masjid incident and the incidents in Gujarat. The people who were killed in the train fire were kar sevaks who had gone to the Babri Masjid site to participate in commemorative rituals, members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Killing them was a crime. The point here is that it is part of a series of reciprocal crimes started by the original crime of destruction of a protected building under litigation.

I have always condemned the expulsion under threat and intimidation of the Kashmiri Pandits. I have condemned the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza as well; should I have brought that in here? Was that relevant, any more than the treatment of Kashmiri Pandits is relevant to a discussion on Modi's performance as Chief Minister and the events of 2002?

Your bringing in the Kashmiri Pandits is a typical and familiar Sangh Parivar manoeuvre, known among debaters and logicians as the 'tu quoque' argument. In case you don't know what that is, it is the argument of saying that even if you have committed a crime, or the person you are defending has committed a crime, some other person has also committed a crime, so somehow that makes it all right for the first crime to have been committed. If there were crimes in Gujarat, there were also crimes in Kashmir, so that's all right, the crimes in Gujarat are excused somehow.

Crimes against the minority are always crimes against the minority, and are in themselves no way worse than, for that matter, crimes against the majority. What is to the point is that I have protested crimes against the majority also, for instance, the crimes committed in Kolkata by the Muslim community in driving out unpopular or uncooperative journalists because they wrote articles that the Muslim clergy found offensive.

True meaning of secular will be no division on basis race cast relegion or etc.......

True. That you know it and you don't practise it points to your outstanding hypocrisy.

same thing is also applied for your hollow secularism sir?

How? Just by your repeating the words I have used? You keep referring to your not meaning to differentiate between religious communities, but every word, every example is taken from the vocabulary of the Sangh Parivar. They compare the destruction of the Babri Masjid to the expulsion of the Pandits; so do you. They assume that all secularists are Congress supporters; so do you.

Why is your knowing the technical definition of secularism and not practising it comparable to my actions? And why is it that you call it hollow? Is that a justification? My secularism says that Muslims should not be killed because they are Muslim, in fact, my adherence to the rule of law and to the freedom of speech say that people should not be killed in riots, and that they should not be killed for something that they have said.

How is this stand hypocritical? How is it equivalent to yours?

But those So called Secular people are only creating division.

Are you making sense? Those who talk about teaching the minority a lesson so that they will never make the same mistake again, those who hold public rallies inciting violence and hatred, those who doctor textbooks in states ruled by them, exactly as Pakistan does, rather than acknowledge that these are the villains, you actually say 'secular' people are creating divisions?

When secularism means opposition to any expression of religion in public life, how is this possible?


We never heard those secular people since we live out of this world.... secularism would have never in our dictionary if division were not made.....

Would you like to explain the meaning of this incoherent statement?

Have you never heard or read about people who refer to teaching the minority - Muslims, to be blunt - a lesson, so that they will never make the same mistake again? Would you like me to cite samples from this very thread, or the parallel thread?

And what is the logic of saying that secularism would never have been in your dictionary is division were not made? Secularism is in our dictionaries precisely because divisions exist, and it is a concept that wars against divisive thinking.

if at all I have to say on minority, muslim are not in minority anymore the real minorities are sikhs bhuddhist, christians, jain & many other ...

How are Muslims not a minority? Are they more than 50% of the population?Do you even understand what you are writing?
if 15-20 crores people are in minority then who will not be in minority .....?

Do you understand what is a minority? Let me refer you to a dictionary:

A minority is a sociological category within a demographic. Rather than a relational "social group", as the term would indicate, the term refers to a category that is differentiated and defined by the social majority, that is, those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society. The differentiation can be based on one or more observable human characteristics, including, for example, ethnicity, race, gender, wealth or sexual orientation. .... <omitted> In the social sciences, the term "minority" is used to refer to categories of persons who hold few positions of social power.

So did you ever check that as per your Secular sections has anything to say about real minority issues or issues of majority?

Can you define real minority issues, or issues of majority?

surely i cant because you are in elite group of taking care of minority sir...

And what does that mean? You make a reference to 'real minority issues', and 'issues of majority'; I ask you what you mean, and the only lame answer you can come out with is that you don't know, because I am doing something or the other wholly fictitious?

This has become a trend in this country If anyone says anything against muslim then he will be declared anti minority

Is that not literally true?

In what way is this a trend? I have spoken against Muslim activities in Bengal, and in Kashmir. Nobody even dreamt of calling me anti-minority!

okay if i say absurd things to other religion there wont be much shouting but if i say small thing about muslim I wll be tagged anti minority as you are trying to hint......I am not against Muslim even in my own family my sis in law is from same religion..
I am not a man of any religion either but I hate pseudo secularist almost like enemy of my country & country is first to me not my religion .....

Please can you not come out with that usual justification of bigotry,"Some of my best friends are Jews!" (or Negroes, or, in your case, Muslims). That is really pathetic.

You may or may not hate pseudo-secularist (another Sangh Parivar term; for someone who has carefully not used BJP, VHP, RSS or Sangh Parivar in his writing, you seem to use a lot of their favourite terms, and your vocabulary seems to be wholly borrowed from theirs); that is not relevant here, when we are discussing Narendra Modi. If by pseudo-secularist, you are referring to the charge that the Congress Party tries to attract Muslim votes by preaching secularism but pandering to them, let me remind you that I oppose, and have opposed the Congress for longer than you have lived. Let me also explain that I am opposed to Gandhi for the precise reason that he brought religion into politics, an act that he was warned against by a much wiser and far more secular man, and that this religion-tinctured secularism is what the Congress practises, whereas secularism is to me the expulsion of religion from public affairs.

Damn it.
Joe Shearer is a Congressi.

Oh, really? How do you come to that conclusion? Because I fail to toe your line? I have opposed the Congress all my active political life, and have gone on record earlier on this forum as well. And now you parachute in out of nowhere, and on the strength and experience of your one month on PDF, you jump to this conclusion?

You gotta know now.?

It is not the first time secularists have failed in trying to get an opinion around.

I am amused to see you openly opposing secularists, rather than pseudo-secularists. At least this is less dishonest an option than the other, even if it makes it clear that you are a religious bigot.

Anywho, I think we ought to be more careful with the term 'secularist'. To an untrained and unexperienced person, it may seem like we are actually anti-secularists rather than anti-congress.

To an untrained and unexperienced person,

Of course. We must all bow before your vast training and your vaster experience.

I am a history graduate and a post graduate in management. What is your training?

I am 61 years old and have forty years of experience in management, the last fifteen as CEO. How old are you, O great sage? And what have you done lately?

 

[ashokdeiva]

Oh, really? How do you come to that conclusion? Because I fail to toe your line? I have opposed the Congress all my active political life, and have gone on record earlier on this forum as well. And now you parachute in out of nowhere, and on the strength and experience of your one month on PDF, you jump to this conclusion?
.

now that BJP is bad, Congress is bad, what would you propose that we vote for? we do not have a choice, by spliting the vote further and making a hanging parliment is not good for the growth of the country because no decession will reach its final stage because some one will threaten of pulling out.

 

[Joe Shearer]

now that BJP is bad, Congress is bad, what would you propose that we vote for? we do not have a choice, by spliting the vote further and making a hanging parliment is not good for the growth of the country because no decession will reach its final stage because some one will threaten of pulling out.

We HAVE to get rid of the corrupt and criminal, we have no choice. Given that your choices, for instance, are between Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha, do you have to be told this?

If there is nobody clean of these virtues, agitate against your candidates and force the parties concerned to change them. Sitting at home and saying TINA is not an option. The Greeks said that an idiot was a person who was not concerned with the affairs of his own state. If we refuse to respond to the reality outside, we are nothing but idiots.

But more than anything else, we have thrown out the communists from everywhere but Kerala and Tripura; we are now in the process of throwing out the BJP and the Congress. Let us get rid of these rotting carcasses, and then let's sort out the smaller party who can't fall back on their candidates getting through in another state to survive, but who depend entirely on victory in one state to survive.

 

[The Great One]

@Joe Shearer
Your opposing AICC for all your life doesn't discount for the fact that most of your arguments are based on the same line as that of Congress. Rather it's pretty similar to

Please can you not come out with that usual justification of bigotry,"Some of my best friends are Jews!" (or Negroes, or, in your case, Muslims). That is really pathetic.

Case in point, your absolutely baseless claim that Modi had taken part in some sort of weird conspiracy - allegedly allowing for the riots to take place. So is your claim that RSS is trying to divide India along religious lines.
This is what most, if not all Kangressi have been taught about.

To an untrained and unexperienced person,

Of course. We must all bow before your vast training and your vaster experience.

I am a history graduate and a post graduate in management. What is your training?

I am 61 years old and have forty years of experience in management, the last fifteen as CEO. How old are you, O great sage? And what have you done lately?

What I meant was that to someone who just comes to visit this thread, it would seem that we are anti-secularists, whereas we only hate Congress which despite it's blatant divisive politics manages to retain it's 'secular' tag.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer
Your opposing AICC for all your life doesn't discount for the fact that most of your arguments are based on the same line as that of Congress. Rather it's pretty similar to

Case in point, your absolutely baseless claim that Modi had taken part in some sort of weird conspiracy - allegedly allowing for the riots to take place. So is your claim that RSS is trying to divide India along religious lines.
This is what most, if not all Kangressi have been taught about.

If the Congress jumps on to a popular campaign, why blame the campaign?

If the BJP and VHP jump onto Anna's campaign, do we blame Anna?

We have ample evidence - the decision to parade the dead bodies when it was known that communal tensions were high, the meeting when the police were told that Hindus should be allowed to vent their emotions, the telephone company records showing the movements of leaders and politicians, through the period of the riots, the personal testimony of policemen - all these add up.

Since you are clearly a Sangh Parivar member, I do not expect any evidence to shake your stand; given your electoral slide, now the Parivar has started grasping at Gujarat and at Modi like a drowning man clutches at straws, because that is the only hope for your brand of bloodthirsty bigotry and hatred.

@Joe Shearer
Your opposing AICC for all your life doesn't discount for the fact that most of your arguments are based on the same line as that of Congress. Rather it's pretty similar to

Case in point, your absolutely baseless claim that Modi had taken part in some sort of weird conspiracy - allegedly allowing for the riots to take place. So is your claim that RSS is trying to divide India along religious lines.
This is what most, if not all Kangressi have been taught about.


What I meant was that to someone who just comes to visit this thread, it would seem that we are anti-secularists, whereas we only hate Congress which despite it's blatant divisive politics manages to retain it's 'secular' tag.

What you meant now, now that after my challenge on the criteria you chose to trot out to demonstrate your superiority, your tail is firmly between your legs, and what you meant at the time of writing are evidently different. The divisive politics is practised by both Congress and Sangh Parivar. And the Congress has only itself saying that it is secular, nobody else.

Keep the people of India out of your sordid little family quarrels. You are nothing but members of the same corrupted political heritage, which has declined from where it started to grand larceny.