"(Indian) Muslims should go to Pakistan or Bangladesh" : BJP MP Vinay Katiyar

[R3verse Swing]

This chap is hilarious. Spends most of his days criticising anything to do with religion, wants separation of state and religion at all costs but thinks a right religious extremist government is a great for a country.

I know! I just do not understand! Perhaps he cannot articulate himself well, or as they say, to hide one lie you got to keep on lying.

I am truly realising why his discussion end up in a complete mess of word salad.

 

[R3verse Swing]

A big riot is coming in the next decade. Tensions are brewing up. I dont know the eventual consequences of it but its bound to happen now.

The sooner Muslims in India realise that they are second class citizens the better. As you say, they still have times to protect themselves and set plans in motion.

 

[Traveller55]

You mean like "insinuating" something does not equate to someone "stating" it? Gotch ya!

Insinuating a position is still vastly different than blatant falsehood you have been equating my position as, as 'not concerned' is neither a statement, nor an insinuation of appreciation.

I am surprised (well then again I am not really), for all your views against religion you have a soft spot for Hindutva. To the extent you believe there should be a complete separation religion and state - except in BJP's case.

The more you post the more you expose your position

Again, learn to read better. Ofcourse I'd prefer if BJP has seperation of state and religion, but facts also show, that they are a center-right party compared to the right wing in Bangladesh or Pakistan, so i am obviously, only mildly displeased with them.

Oh and save the English lines, I know speaking English is a big achievement in India, but no here pal.

Makes it all the worse that your basic comprehension is lacking.

 

[Traveller55]

This chap is hilarious. Spends most of his days criticising anything to do with religion, wants separation of state and religion at all costs but thinks a right religious extremist government is a great for a country.

because I dont see the BJP as a religious extremist government, i see them as center-right government. Ie, a centrist party that leans to the right than being outright in the right.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Insinuating a position is still vastly different than blatant falsehood you have been equating my position as, as 'not concerned' is neither a statement, nor an insinuation of appreciation.




Again, learn to read better. Ofcourse I'd prefer if BJP has seperation of state and religion, but facts also show, that they are a center-right party compared to the right wing in Bangladesh or Pakistan, so i am obviously, only mildly displeased with them.



Makes it all the worse that your basic comprehension is lacking.

BJP is a extremist party while in PMLN is not. What are you smoking?

 

[KingKhanWC]

because I dont see the BJP as a religious extremist government, i see them as center-right government. Ie, a centrist party that leans to the right than being outright in the right.

So the dozens of quotes by their ministers and their policies of banning beef is not religious extremism? How, please this should be fun?

 

[cricketjoshila]

This chap is hilarious. Spends most of his days criticising anything to do with religion, wants separation of state and religion at all costs but thinks a right religious extremist government is a great for a country.

Isnt it Indians concern what is good for them and what is not?

And they are extremists? According to who?

 

[Traveller55]

BJP is a extremist party while in PMLN is not. What are you smoking?

thats your opinion. I happen to disagree. The policies enacted by PMLN has been far more pro-religious policies than BJP has been. This is easily evidenced by the legislations passed.

 

[Traveller55]

So the dozens of quotes by their ministers and their policies of banning beef is not religious extremism? How, please this should be fun?

I don't care about quotes. I care about legislation. Its a fact that BJP has passed far less pro-religious legislations of any type, than Pakistani or Bangladeshi parties have. This makes them, compared to our parties, center-right, not fully right, never mind right-extreme.

As for beef ban - shutting down illegal slaughterhouses is perfectly within the legal authority of the government. I am okay with that.

 

[KingKhanWC]

thats your opinion. I happen to disagree. The policies enacted by PMLN has been far more pro-religious policies than BJP has been. This is easily evidenced by the legislations passed.

I don't care about quotes. I care about legislation. Its a fact that BJP has passed far less pro-religious legislations of any type, than Pakistani or Bangladeshi parties have. This makes them, compared to our parties, center-right, not fully right, never mind right-extreme.

As for beef ban - shutting down illegal slaughterhouses is perfectly within the legal authority of the government. I am okay with that.

The beef ban isnt about shutting down illegal slaughterhouses lol.

It's a ban on slaughtering beef, period in many areas. Sure you dont care about quotes which are extreme in nature as an atheist its difficult for you to defend.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Isnt it Indians concern what is good for them and what is not?

And they are extremists? According to who?

Their own website confirms their extremist views. Let me guess you think they are secular lol.

 

[Traveller55]

The beef ban isnt about shutting down illegal slaughterhouses lol.

It's a ban on slaughtering beef, period in many areas.

Thats your opinion, nothing more. Indian government has released several statements on this as a crackdown on illegal slaughterhouses. Given that there are illegal slaughter-houses in my own homeland (Bangladesh), i see no problem with their story.

Sure you dont care about quotes which are extreme in nature as an atheist its difficult for you to defend.

I don't care, as in obviously i will think the person uttering them is an idiot, but people say idiotic things all the time. Actions matter, not words. Governments are held to the standard of legislation. Not media 'dramaa-bazi'.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Insinuating a position is still vastly different than blatant falsehood you have been equating my position as, as 'not concerned' is neither a statement, nor an insinuation of appreciation.

There you go again. You were given an example of how two positions are not the same and you come back with *is still vastly different*. Undermining yourself as usual yet agreeing with me, again.

Again, learn to read better. Ofcourse I'd prefer if BJP has seperation of state and religion, but facts also show, that they are a center-right party compared to the right wing in Bangladesh or Pakistan, so i am obviously, only mildly displeased with them.

You are changing your story now. You were supportive of Hindutva, then BGP as a government, totally going against the image you portrayed (or tried to), and now say you prefer BJP has separation of state and religion.
Do you even know who/what BJP are? They are a right-wing Hindu nationalist party, and here you are saying you prefer them to separate religion and state?

Makes it all the worse that your basic comprehension is lacking.

Are you speaking as Pakistani/Bangladeshi right now or a USA/Canadian?

 

[Traveller55]

There you go again. You were given an example of how two positions are not the same and you come back with *is still vastly different*. Undermining yourself as usual yet agreeing with me, again.

Your english really needs an upgrade. Insinuations and direct quotations are FAR closer linked and therefore, upheld in court of law (this i can cite- i can already sense you shivering at the dreaded word 'citation'). Meanwhile, 'not concerned' does not equate to 'appreciation' either as a statement or insinuation.
I hope this is clear and you can see the fallacy you are engaging in.

You are changing your story now. You were supportive of Hindutva, then BGP as a government, totally going against the image you portrayed (or tried to), and now say you prefer BJP has separation of state and religion.

At no point did i say i support them. I said i dont have a problem with them. That does not equate support. Show me where i said i support them.

Do you even know who/what BJP are? They are a right-wing Hindu nationalist party, and here you are saying you prefer them to separate religion and state?

They are not really right wing - they make right wing comments, but so far have done nothing legislatively to be considered right wing in my books.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Insinuations and direct quotations are FAR closer linked

Doesn’t mean they are the same. Stop digging yourself a hole.

They are not really right wing - they make right wing comments, but so far have done nothing legislatively to be considered right wing in my books.

Like you are not really Indian, but make Indian comments?

 

[Traveller55]

Doesn’t mean they are the same. Stop digging yourself a hole.

They can be treated as the same, as they are in a court of law. Again, do you want citations from legal sources ??

Like you are not really Indian, but make Indian comments?

If criticizing Pakistan and Islam makes one Indian, then i suppose most of the world is Indian.
Keep living in denial and brand everyone who thinks your religion and nation has problems as 'enemy double agents'. Will keep your religion and nation stuck in the stone ages as for far longer and end result will be, your ego will be satisfied but your material & informational wealth will suffer.

 

[R3verse Swing]

They can be treated as the same, as they are in a court of law. Again, do you want citations from legal sources ??

Go on then, cite me a legal source from a British Court, that's all I care about, not some Kangaroo court in India, USA, or Bangladesh.

If criticizing Pakistan and Islam makes one Indian, then i suppose most of the world is Indian.
Keep living in denial and brand everyone who thinks your religion and nation has problems as 'enemy double agents'. Will keep your religion and nation stuck in the stone ages as for far longer and end result will be, your ego will be satisfied but your material & informational wealth will suffer.

I never said criticising Pakistan makes one Indian. Your words and views demonstrate you are an Indian when you claim you are someone else. This is the point. The point is not of criticising Pakistan or Islam. People do it every day, you think you are special?

The fact is you claim to be a born Pakistani/Bangladeshi but are supportive of India, even support Indian wars. You claim to be an Atheist but support Hinduism/BJP/Hindutva. You do not even apply your own futile logic to yourself.

The problem is there is no consistency in anything you say, just a veil of contradictory nonsense. Your best retort is *English* related or a *link* off Google, or else you go on the defensive.

You are even doing it now, you are saying my religion will keep me in the dark ages, but you are supporting Hindutva/BJP because you believe India will benefit from right-wing Hindu nationalism!

To make matters worse you also believe Religion and state should be separate but support BJP not realising BJP is a religious party in government!

 

[Traveller55]

Go on then, cite me a legal source from a British Court, that's all I care about, not some Kangaroo court in India, USA, or Bangladesh.

Ok. Will do. Stay tuned. Btw, USA or Canada are not 'kangaroo courts'. US legal system is superior to British or Canadian ones FYI.

I never said criticising Pakistan makes one Indian. Your words and views demonstrate you are an Indian when you claim you are someone else. This is the point. The point is not of criticising Pakistan or Islam. People do it every day, you think you are special?

LOL. Thats just a more obtuse way of saying ' i dont like what you are saying, so you must be the enemy'.

The fact is you claim to be a born Pakistani/Bangladeshi but are supportive of India, even support Indian wars. You claim to be an Atheist but support Hinduism/BJP/Hindutva. You do not even apply your own futile logic to yourself.

I dont support Hinduism/BJP/Hinduvta. Kindly show where i said i support them. I simply do not consider them as evil as Pakistan/Islam/Pakistani parties.

And hell yes, i am supportive of India. They saved us from genocide from your evil armed forces and helped us become independent. That is a far better reason to support a foreign nation than most.

The problem is there is no consistency in anything you say, just a veil of contradictory nonsense. Your best retort is *English* related or a *link* off Google, or else you go on the defensive.

Your failing to see consistency in an argument can easily be rectified by youself- I can help too if you wish.

You are even doing it now, you are saying my religion will keep me in the dark ages, but you are supporting Hindutva/BJP because you believe India will benefit from right-wing Hindu nationalism!

I am not supporting them. I am saying they could be better, but are not bad. That is hardly support.

To make matters worse you also believe Religion and state should be separate but support BJP not realising BJP is a religious party in government!

Because until they pass legislation to further entrench religion in the government, empty words by you or some boisterous MPs mean nothing. Government conduct is based on legislative policy. Not speeches.
So far, i can't see anything from BJP that suggests they are a right wing government.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Ok. Will do. Stay tuned. Btw, USA or Canada are not 'kangaroo courts'. US legal system is superior to British or Canadian ones FYI.

Stay tuned? You made it sound like you had an arsenal of links ready.

Well then you should have no problem with me saying it as is, instead of trying to override my identity with what you THINK someone with my views should be like !

I have no problem with you anyone saying it as it is, but based on what you have said, and your own confessions, you fit into one or more of the following categories:

• Pakistani
• Bangladeshi
• Indian
• Canadian
• American
• Atheist
• Theist
• Hindu
• BJP apologist.
• Buddhist

The problem is of course your views do not tally up and you override yourself! This is why any discussion with you turns into a complete mess.

Wouldn’t surprise me if you turned around and said you’re from Sri Lanka in the coming weeks!

 

[Traveller55]

Go on then, cite me a legal source from a British Court, that's all I care about, not some Kangaroo court in India, USA, or Bangladesh.

https://marketingland.com/uk-court-finds-tweet-libelous-because-of-implied-meaning-46724


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/insinuation?s=t

As you can see, UK courts do consider 'implied meaning/implications' as a libelous crime.
And before you can jump up and down going 'implied meaning is not insinuation', i have also provided the English definition for the word 'insinuation'. Part two proves 'implied meaning = insinuation'.


Hence, your insinuation that citizenship is a right, stands. Which has already been debunked by another poster presenting evidence.

And therefore, you equating insinuations with false dichotomies ( such as equating 'dont have a problem with' = support) is also dismissed.


Game, set, match !

PS: Let me know if you would require legal documents to parse, if the above link is not sufficient.

 

[Traveller55]

Stay tuned? You made it sound like you had an arsenal of links ready.

No, but i am a science professional for close to 30 years. Been around as a professional since the start of the internet, so i am pretty good at searching it due to my job requirements of continuously looking up citations.
You should know by now that i don't disappoint when it comes to citations, unlike you- who can't produce a single citation despite having days to do so and having been asked repeatedly.

I have no problem with you anyone saying it as it is, but based on what you have said, and your own confessions, you fit into one or more of the following categories:

• Pakistani
• Bangladeshi
• Indian
• Canadian
• American
• Atheist
• Theist
• Hindu
• BJP apologist.
• Buddhist

The problem is of course your views do not tally up and you override yourself! This is why any discussion with you turns into a complete mess.

Wouldn’t surprise me if you turned around and said you’re from Sri Lanka in the coming weeks!

ofcourse my views tally up. A Bangladeshi who saw genocide from Pakistanis first hand and came close to being raped and killed by your faujis, is obviously going to hold your nation in low regard and will hold the liberators (Indians) in much higher regard.

There is nothing inconsistent in this, especially if the said person is also an ex-muslim and currently an atheist.

At no point have i been a BJP apologist, since that would constitute me justifying their actions- something I have not done outside of the strictly legal enforcement of a pre-existing law (illegal slaughterhouse bans). I have simply stated that i don't see them as a big problem and compared to most parties in Bangladesh or Pakistan, they are liberal/centrist.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Their own website confirms their extremist views. Let me guess you think they are secular lol.

Please tell me how are they extremists?

 

[R3verse Swing]

No, but i am a science professional for close to 30 years. Been around as a professional since the start of the internet, so i am pretty good at searching it due to my job requirements of continuously looking up citations.

You should know by now that i don't disappoint when it comes to citations, unlike you- who can't produce a single citation despite having days to do so and having been asked repeatedly.

Insecure much? Praising yourself? You are disappointing now. What are you waiting for? Christmas?

Cite me up. You were talking big. Don’t give me this excuse you’re a science professional, it’s irrelevant!

Or are you going to tell me Google is too slow at the moment?

ofcourse my views tally up. A Bangladeshi who saw genocide from Pakistanis first hand and came close to being raped and killed by your faujis, is obviously going to hold your nation in low regard and will hold the liberators (Indians) in much higher regard.

There is nothing inconsistent in this, especially if the said person is also an ex-muslim and currently an atheist.

At no point have i been a BJP apologist, since that would constitute me justifying their actions- something I have not done outside of the strictly legal enforcement of a pre-existing law (illegal slaughterhouse bans). I have simply stated that i don't see them as a big problem and compared to most parties in Bangladesh or Pakistan, they are liberal/centrist.

Wait a minute. You said you were born Pakistani/Bangladesh. Bangladesh wasn’t around till 1971, but you claim you are 55! See what I mean? Your story has more holes than Swiss cheese.

You are a BJP apologist. You agree with the way they are governing India and defend them at any cost!

 

[Traveller55]

Insecure much? Praising yourself? You are disappointing now. What are you waiting for? Christmas?

Cite me up. You were talking big. Don’t give me this excuse you’re a science professional, it’s irrelevant!

Or are you going to tell me Google is too slow at the moment?

I already gave you a citation that insinuations are punishable in UK court of law. Read better, please.

Wait a minute. You said you were born Pakistani/Bangladesh. Bangladesh wasn’t around till 1971, but you claim you are 55! See what I mean? Your story has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Virtually every bangladeshi person who's been around since before 1971 calls themselves born Pakistani/Bangladeshis. Stop clutching at straws, kiddo.

You are a BJP apologist. You agree with the way they are governing India and defend them at any cost!

Saying they are more moderate than any Pakistani party and i don't have a problem with them, as their legislative track record is pretty decent so far, isn't supporting them or apologizing for them.

You need to learn what the meaning of the word 'apologist' is.

Now lets see you man up and admit your errors.

 

[R3verse Swing]

https://marketingland.com/uk-court-finds-tweet-libelous-because-of-implied-meaning-46724


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/insinuation?s=t

As you can see, UK courts do consider 'implied meaning/implications' as a libelous crime.
And before you can jump up and down going 'implied meaning is not insinuation', i have also provided the English definition for the word 'insinuation'. Part two proves 'implied meaning = insinuation'.


Hence, your insinuation that citizenship is a right, stands. Which has already been debunked by another poster presenting evidence.

And therefore, you equating insinuations with false dichotomies ( such as equating 'dont have a problem with' = support) is also dismissed.


Game, set, match !

PS: Let me know if you would require legal documents to parse, if the above link is not sufficient.

HAHAHA

Another news article? You said you were going to cite me up to a British court of law. Law, not news.

Try again.

 

[Traveller55]

HAHAHA

Another news article? You said you were going to cite me up to a British court of law. Law, not news.

Try again.

Are you claiming the said news article is false ?
yes or no please.

I will send you said citation and watch you cower in fear like you do to all citations.
It will be after the long weekend, as I am going to require my work software to access UK library of legal journals. But i already have the reference point to search.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Virtually every bangladeshi person who's been around since before 1971 calls themselves born Pakistani/Bangladeshis. Stop clutching at straws, kiddo.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Traveller55]

HAHAHA

Another news article? You said you were going to cite me up to a British court of law. Law, not news.

Try again.

Actually, proving you wrong is easy.
Here you go:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...dgments/mcalpine-bercow-judgment-24052013.pdf


Read and weep. Insinuations can be libelous in the UK. Evidence provided.

Now be a courteous little boy and admit that insinuations CAN be the same as a direct statement under the eyes of the law, even in your own country.

Game, set, match = me.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Are you claiming the said news article is false ?
yes or no please.

It’s sensationalism. Heard of it?

I will send you said citation and watch you cower in fear like you do to all citations.
It will be after the long weekend, as I am going to require my work software to access UK library of legal journals. But i already have the reference point to search.

You’re all front, but take all the time you need.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Actually, proving you wrong is easy.
Here you go:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...dgments/mcalpine-bercow-judgment-24052013.pdf


Read and weep. Insinuations can be libelous in the UK. Evidence provided.

Now be a courteous little boy and admit that insinuations CAN be the same as a direct statement under the eyes of the law, even in your own country.

Game, set, match = me.

You have replied twice, different answers, to the same post.

A true reflection of one who is confused, and it shows with your identity claims too.

I guess this means you will not be spending you time finding actual sources linking to British Law.

I though as much.

 

[Traveller55]

It’s sensationalism. Heard of it?



You’re all front, but take all the time you need.

Nothing is sensationalized, as the official court document has been supplied and the verdict is GUILTY OF LIBEL DUE TO INSINUATION.

Kindly read and change your flawed views in light of evidence.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Nothing is sensationalized, as the official court document has been supplied and the verdict is GUILTY OF LIBEL DUE TO INSINUATION.

Kindly read and change your flawed views in light of evidence.

No, Even the second link you cited is a case summary. Summary is not a Law.

You said you could cite me up to British Law. Now unless you can, you do not have a leg to stand on, and all those citation powers you have are a fraud too.

 

[Traveller55]

You have replied twice, different answers, to the same post.

A true reflection of one who is confused, and it shows with your identity claims too.

I replied twice because i found the link after i'd posted the original reply. This site has a 1-2 minute edit window.
Replying it, is to draw your attention to it, since its quotig you.

A true reflection of who is confused, is the one who cannot change their flawed thinking despite evidence being presented and they themselves are not capable of producing any evidence to substantiate their position on ANYTHING.

I guess this means you will not be spending you time finding actual sources linking to British Law.

I though as much.

I quoted the official court transcripts from the official legal department server of your nation.
Give it up kiddo. You already lost. yet again.

 

[Traveller55]

No, Even the second link you cited is a case summary. Summary is not a Law.

You said you could cite me up to British Law. Now unless you can, you do not have a leg to stand on, and all those citation powers you have are a fraud too.

A case summary that proves my point that insinuation is prosecuted in a court of law in UK.

Everyone can see, you are simply using wordplay to get out of admitting your error.

The case summary cites the law in question. If you knew how to do keyword searches or read proper English, you'd see that.

But then again, you are living proof of how ignorance cannot be easily rectified with cited knowledge.

 

[R3verse Swing]

A case summary that proves my point that insinuation is prosecuted in a court of law in UK.

Everyone can see, you are simply using wordplay to get out of admitting your error.

The case summary cites the law in question. If you knew how to do keyword searches or read proper English, you'd see that.

But then again, you are living proof of how ignorance cannot be easily rectified with cited knowledge.

Do you hear that? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin.

Thanks for playing, but no thanks for wasting my time!

Transcripts are not law.

 

[Traveller55]

Do you hear that? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin.

Thanks for playing, but no thanks for wasting my time!

Transcripts are not law.

Transcripts from a presiding judge IS legal judgement, hence law.

Stop the wordplay kiddo and admit it, you were wrong and proven wrong.
People like you who never cite anything, should not try to save face when proved wrong by citation.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Transcripts from a presiding judge IS legal judgement, hence law.

Stop the wordplay kiddo and admit it, you were wrong and proven wrong.
People like you who never cite anything, should not try to save face when proved wrong by citation.

Again, Kiddo?

That's 3 times now.

If you were champion at citing links, you have at least 10 different links pointing to British Law by now. You are just rinsing 1 link which you believe supports your claim. It's know as Clutching at straws.

Though no more from me on this topic, not unless you cite the proper UK law (with all that bravado and self-praise) you promised to.

 

[Traveller55]

Again, Kiddo?

That's 3 times now.

If you were champion at citing links, you have at least 10 different links pointing to British Law by now. You are just rinsing 1 link which you believe supports your claim. It's know as Clutching at straws.

1 is greater than 0.
Until you counter my assertion with your evidence, my 1 evidence wins. Economy of work, really.

Though no more from me on this topic, not unless you cite the proper UK law (with all that bravado and self-praise) you promised to.

No more from you because proper US judicial papers have been cited, you have been proven wrong and this is your method of tucking tail and running away.