[PICTURE] Narendra Modi, a dictator? ABC News documentary exposes Modi govt’s crackdown on press, minorities

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

I have never heard her speaking against India sovereignty she has only raised voice against extremist Hindus such as BJP and RSS

So Congress is such a buddy with BJP that they charged her with Sedition in 2010?? Really?

Her quote on building dams to Pakistan:

One danger in Pakistan is that we talk about the threat of Taliban so much that other important issues lose focus. In my view, the problem of water in the world will become the most important problem. I think big dams are economically unviable, environmentally unsustainable and politically undemocratic. They are a way of taking away a river from the poor and giving it to the rich. Like in India, there's an issue of SEZs (Special Economic Zones), whereby the land of the people are given to corporations. But the bigger problem is that there are making dams and giving water to the industries. This way the people who live in villages by the streams and rivers have no water for themselves. So building dams is one of the most ecologically destructive things that you can do.

`I`m here to understand what you mean by Taliban`

Celebrated Indian author and social activist Arundhati Roy addresses a gathering at the Karachi Press Club on...

www.dawn.com

 

[sweep_shot]

Modi in 2024 India feels like what Hitler was in early-1930's Germany.

For Hitler, boogeyman was the Jew/Commie. For Modi and his supporters, boogeyman is Muslim.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Uddhav accuses BJP of indulging in 'power jihad'; hits out at Shah

Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray on Saturday accused the former ally-turned-foe Bharatiya Janata Party of doing "power jihad" by breaking political parties to form a government.

Hitting back at Union Home Minister Amit Shah for his "Aurangzeb Fan Club" barb, Thackeray dubbed the senior BJP leader a political descendant of Ahmad Shah Abdali, the Afghan king who defeated the Marathas in the third battle of Panipat.

Addressing party workers at a rally in Pune, he also accused the Eknath Shinde-led dispensation of bribing voters by distributing "revdis" (freebies) to them under the garb of schemes like the Mukhyamantri Ladki Bahin Yojana, under which eligible women will get Rs 1,500 every month.

Press Trust Of India

www.ptinews.com

 

[Stewie]

What if someone argues that ?

That someone is only making a fool of himself. Modi is not a prophet. I know in Hinduism you can worship random objects or people but even by Hindu standards this is ridiculous.

I think everyone's religious beliefs should be respected but political views are not sacred and will always be destined for scrutiny.

 

[anikrc1]

That someone is only making a fool of himself. Modi is not a prophet. I know in Hinduism you can worship random objects or people but even by Hindu standards this is ridiculous.

I think everyone's religious beliefs should be respected but political views are not sacred and will always be destined for scrutiny.

I am not saying Modi is someone who Hindus worship. I am saying there might be many people for whom politics is much more important than religion, and to them their political leaders are as dear as say Ram is to Hindus. Religious beliefs should be respected, but not political ones is a position that you as a religious person might find agreeable. But to an atheist religion and politics both represents ideas, and either you say both are fair game for mockery or none are.

 

[Stewie]

I am not saying Modi is someone who Hindus worship. I am saying there might be many people for whom politics is much more important than religion, and to them their political leaders are as dear as say Ram is to Hindus. Religious beliefs should be respected, but not political ones is a position that you as a religious person might find agreeable. But to an atheist religion and politics both represents ideas, and either you say both are fair game for mockery or none are.

Why do an athiest's considerations take top priority here and those of the religious people ignored? A religion is believed to be divine by those who follow it and its not considered a human idea. That's the crux of it. If you are a Hindu you may consider any of the Abrahamic faiths to be a human idea like politics and vice versa. This difference of view is not limited to Athiests.

 

[CricketCartoons]

That someone is only making a fool of himself. Modi is not a prophet. I know in Hinduism you can worship random objects or people but even by Hindu standards this is ridiculous.

I think everyone's religious beliefs should be respected but political views are not sacred and will always be destined for scrutiny.

Dalits don't deserve their most important beloved icon to be protected from insult just because he was not mentioned in a book?

Do they need to create a religion to get same treatment religious people demand? Or even that also has a cut off date which ended in the past?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why do an athiest's considerations take top priority here and those of the religious people ignored? A religion is believed to be divine by those who follow it and its not considered a human idea. That's the crux of it. If you are a Hindu you may consider any of the Abrahamic faiths to be a human idea like politics and vice versa. This difference of view is not limited to Athiests.

Religious people are given protection for their figures from insult not because they were divine, but because it hurts their sentiments.

Their sentiments are being protected. Not because someone is really divine. Do you think Lord Ram was divine being?

Why can't atheists and dalits have their sentiments protected which religious people demand for themselves?

 

[anikrc1]

Why do an athiest's considerations take top priority here and those of the religious people ignored? A religion is believed to be divine by those who follow it and its not considered a human idea. That's the crux of it. If you are a Hindu you may consider any of the Abrahamic faiths to be a human idea like politics and vice versa. This difference of view is not limited to Athiests.

Even if I agree that believers believe religion is divine, why should something being divine make it more worthy of respect than a human idea? Some Hindus believe that caste is a divine thing and not man-made. Should we not be allowed to make fun of such ideas?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Why do an athiest's considerations take top priority here and those of the religious people ignored? A religion is believed to be divine by those who follow it and its not considered a human idea. That's the crux of it. If you are a Hindu you may consider any of the Abrahamic faiths to be a human idea like politics and vice versa. This difference of view is not limited to Athiests.

If an atheist prevents from holding a high esteem of prophet of your choice, u have a case.

If you insist the he respect you prophet of choice, you can shove that where sin doesn’t shine

Move to a theocracy if that’s what u want

 

[rpant_gabba]

Even if I agree that believers believe religion is divine, why should something being divine make it more worthy of respect than a human idea? Some Hindus believe that caste is a divine thing and not man-made. Should we not be allowed to make fun of such ideas?

This is the problem with religious folks of a certain prophet. The sense entitlement of entitlement is unmatched and they wonder there is world wide pushback

 

[anikrc1]

This is the problem with religious folks of a certain prophet. The sense entitlement of entitlement is unmatched and they wonder there is world wide pushback

To be fair, I will not point fingers at followers of any particular religion in this case. I have seen many Hindus get irritated when some one makes fun of Ram for testing Sita's faithfulness.

 

[Stewie]

If an atheist prevents from holding a high esteem of prophet of your choice, u have a case.

If you insist the he respect you prophet of choice, you can shove that where sin doesn’t shine

Move to a theocracy if that’s what u want

I think the issue here is that you are casting aspersions on adherents of a particular religion if you cast aspersions on a holy deity or prophet. So this becomes a hate issue.

Speaking as a Muslim, I will explain and maybe it will make sense. You can question the idea of polygamy, you can question the concept of angels and heaven and hell, etc. As a Muslim, I will not object to it and be offended.

But when you start drawing caricatures of our Prophet as a terrorist, what you are doing is casting aspersions on our whole belief and trying to portray it as a faith that promotes terrorism. This is not accurate and it creates hatred for a whole group of people and puts them in a bad light and does so incorrectly. I am not talking about people burning Quran and such activities. To me it also does not even matter if someone wants to draw the Holy Prophet sipping coffee, because I am required to not draw the Holy Prophet, non Muslims are not subjected to any such restrictions. The issue is when any use of freedom of expression or speech is used to generate hatred for adherents of a particular faith by starting a smear campaign against its religious figures or dieties (and I am not limiting this to Islam).

I hope I made myself clear on the subject here and how and why I Delineate it from political beliefs. While on the subject, perhaps another way to explain this would be the concept of the so-called "anti-semitism" and how that is looked down upon and frowned upon. Why is that considered not ok? I am coming from the same place.

 

[Stewie]

Even if I agree that believers believe religion is divine, why should something being divine make it more worthy of respect than a human idea? Some Hindus believe that caste is a divine thing and not man-made. Should we not be allowed to make fun of such ideas?

I responded to this aspect (hopefully) in my last post. Feel free to dissect it if you like, I hope you get my view from that post.

 

[CricketCartoons]

To be fair, I will not point fingers at followers of any particular religion in this case. I have seen many Hindus get irritated when some one makes fun of Ram for testing Sita's faithfulness.

The avatar of Lord Ram to to teach humans that you cannot please everyone, and if you stick to rules and law, then you may end up doing injustice. Later the avatar of Lord Krishna taught humans that uphold justice over law, and break the rules with people who don't follow rules themselves.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I think the issue here is that you are casting aspersions on adherents of a particular religion if you cast aspersions on a holy deity or prophet. So this becomes a hate issue.

Speaking as a Muslim, I will explain and maybe it will make sense. You can criticize our Holy Prophet for his message such as the guidance to believe in a singular God if you are a polytheist. You can question the idea of polygamy, you can question the concept of angels and heaven and hell, etc. As a Muslim, I will not object to it and be offended.

But when you start drawing caricatures of our Prophet as a terrorist, what you are doing is casting aspersions on our whole belief and trying to portray it as a faith that promotes terrorism. This is not accurate and it creates hatred for a whole group of people and puts them in a bad light and does so incorrectly. I am not talking about people burning Quran and such activities. To me it also does not even matter if someone wants to draw the Holy Prophet sipping coffee, because I am required to not draw the Holy Prophet, non Muslims are not subjected to any such restrictions. The issue is when any use of freedom of expression or speech is used to generate hatred for adherents of a particular faith by starting a smear campaign against its religious figures or dieties (and I am not limiting this to Islam).

I hope I made myself clear on the subject here and how and why I Delineate it from political beliefs. While on the subject, perhaps another way to explain this would be the concept of the so-called "anti-semitism" and how that is looked down upon and frowned upon. Why is that considered not ok? I am coming from the same place.

That is fine. You presented your case why mocking your religion hurts your sentiments and that is valid.

Question is why do you consider others sentiments invalid, when they feel the same pain when the figures they respect are mocked? Dalits love and respect Ambedkar more than anyone else. Why are their sentiments invalid?

 

[anikrc1]

I think the issue here is that you are casting aspersions on adherents of a particular religion if you cast aspersions on a holy deity or prophet. So this becomes a hate issue.

Speaking as a Muslim, I will explain and maybe it will make sense. You can criticize our Holy Prophet for his message such as the guidance to believe in a singular God if you are a polytheist. You can question the idea of polygamy, you can question the concept of angels and heaven and hell, etc. As a Muslim, I will not object to it and be offended.

But when you start drawing caricatures of our Prophet as a terrorist, what you are doing is casting aspersions on our whole belief and trying to portray it as a faith that promotes terrorism. This is not accurate and it creates hatred for a whole group of people and puts them in a bad light and does so incorrectly. I am not talking about people burning Quran and such activities. To me it also does not even matter if someone wants to draw the Holy Prophet sipping coffee, because I am required to not draw the Holy Prophet, non Muslims are not subjected to any such restrictions. The issue is when any use of freedom of expression or speech is used to generate hatred for adherents of a particular faith by starting a smear campaign against its religious figures or dieties (and I am not limiting this to Islam).

I hope I made myself clear on the subject here and how and why I Delineate it from political beliefs. While on the subject, perhaps another way to explain this would be the concept of the so-called "anti-semitism" and how that is looked down upon and frowned upon. Why is that considered not ok? I am coming from the same place.

This I can agree with. But again I don't think you need blasphemy laws to counter it. Some version of defamation law where you get punished if your caricature is not within artistic creativities of the recorded versions of the religion should suffice. But if your caricature is based on recorded versions and done after taking some artistic liberties on it, it should be allowed.

 

[Red-Indian]

I think the issue here is that you are casting aspersions on adherents of a particular religion if you cast aspersions on a holy deity or prophet. So this becomes a hate issue.

Speaking as a Muslim, I will explain and maybe it will make sense. You can criticize our Holy Prophet for his message such as the guidance to believe in a singular God if you are a polytheist. You can question the idea of polygamy, you can question the concept of angels and heaven and hell, etc. As a Muslim, I will not object to it and be offended.

But when you start drawing caricatures of our Prophet as a terrorist, what you are doing is casting aspersions on our whole belief and trying to portray it as a faith that promotes terrorism. This is not accurate and it creates hatred for a whole group of people and puts them in a bad light and does so incorrectly. I am not talking about people burning Quran and such activities. To me it also does not even matter if someone wants to draw the Holy Prophet sipping coffee, because I am required to not draw the Holy Prophet, non Muslims are not subjected to any such restrictions. The issue is when any use of freedom of expression or speech is used to generate hatred for adherents of a particular faith by starting a smear campaign against its religious figures or dieties (and I am not limiting this to Islam).

I hope I made myself clear on the subject here and how and why I Delineate it from political beliefs. While on the subject, perhaps another way to explain this would be the concept of the so-called "anti-semitism" and how that is looked down upon and frowned upon. Why is that considered not ok? I am coming from the same place.

If I'm being really honest, the only reason why I refrain from making fun of religious figures is because I feel people's identities are so closely tied to them that they would resort to violence. I don't mind hurting people somewhat to be able to make fun of historical figures religious or otherwise.

I know you want special protection for your prophet and Hindus want special protection for cows and dalits want special protection for Ambedkar and Jews want special protection for the holocaust but hopefully it doesn't last too long and someday we turn the corner on all these special protections.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I think the issue here is that you are casting aspersions on adherents of a particular religion if you cast aspersions on a holy deity or prophet. So this becomes a hate issue.

Speaking as a Muslim, I will explain and maybe it will make sense.You can question the idea of polygamy, you can question the concept of angels and heaven and hell, etc. As a Muslim, I will not object to it and be offended.

But when you start drawing caricatures of our Prophet as a terrorist, what you are doing is casting aspersions on our whole belief and trying to portray it as a faith that promotes terrorism. This is not accurate and it creates hatred for a whole group of people and puts them in a bad light and does so incorrectly. I am not talking about people burning Quran and such activities. To me it also does not even matter if someone wants to draw the Holy Prophet sipping coffee, because I am required to not draw the Holy Prophet, non Muslims are not subjected to any such restrictions. The issue is when any use of freedom of expression or speech is used to generate hatred for adherents of a particular faith by starting a smear campaign against its religious figures or dieties (and I am not limiting this to Islam).

I hope I made myself clear on the subject here and how and why I Delineate it from political beliefs. While on the subject, perhaps another way to explain this would be the concept of the so-called "anti-semitism" and how that is looked down upon and frowned upon. Why is that considered not ok? I am coming from the same place.

All those are allowed within the law of the land. those that fall outside the law, there is system to deal with it.

IF you resort to violence against those who stay within the law, yes then you deserve to be cast a criminal and if it is group then they deserve to be called and treated as terrorists.

so, no, religious figures should not and will not get special treatment

 

[Stewie]

This I can agree with. But again I don't think you need blasphemy laws to counter it. Some version of defamation law where you get punished if your caricature is not within artistic creativities of the recorded versions of the religion should suffice. But if your caricature is based on recorded versions and done after taking some artistic liberties on it, it should be allowed.

I am not defending any blasphemy laws but also I am not sure how this conversation went from comparing religious and political beliefs to blasphemy laws. Those are two entirely different things.

But I will say this that the laws of the land are to be respected. They are to be enforced by the state and not an individual. So a Muslim in a Muslim state cannot act as judge, jury and executioner for a blasphemy law. If a Muslim lives in the west, there is no blasphemy Muslim law enforced in most states so you follow the law of the land. That's what Islam dictates you to do.
Don't believe the wrong interpretations spread by the extremists who go around dishing out their version of justice for blasphemy. Those actions are unIslamic.

 

[anikrc1]

That is fine. You presented your case why mocking your religion hurts your sentiments and that is valid.

Question is why do you consider others sentiments invalid, when they feel the same pain when the figures they respect are mocked? Dalits love and respect Ambedkar more than anyone else. Why are their sentiments invalid?

I am not defending any blasphemy laws but also I am not sure how this conversation went from comparing religious and political beliefs to blasphemy laws. Those are two entirely different things.

But I will say this that the laws of the land are to be respected. They are to be enforced by the state and not an individual. So a Muslim in a Muslim state cannot act as judge, jury and executioner for a blasphemy law. If a Muslim lives in the west, there is no blasphemy Muslim law enforced in most states so you follow the law of the land. That's what Islam dictates you to do.
Don't believe the wrong interpretations spread by the extremists who go around dishing out their version of justice for blasphemy. Those actions are unIslamic.

Blasphemy laws and protecting religious sentiments usually go hand in hand.

 

[Stewie]

If I'm being really honest, the only reason why I refrain from making fun of religious figures is because I feel people's identities are so closely tied to them that they would resort to violence. I don't mind hurting people somewhat to be able to make fun of historical figures religious or otherwise.

I know you want special protection for your prophet and Hindus want special protection for cows and dalits want special protection for Ambedkar and Jews want special protection for the holocaust but hopefully it doesn't last too long and someday we turn the corner on all these special protections.

Personally speaking, I am fine with that as well but the problem with humans is not not all humanity may have your refined, elevated and mature thinking where you are simply questioning the reality of certain concepts and ideas ASSOCIATED with human beings or dieties. The moment you do that, there are bound to be certain people around with whom your thoughts will resonate but they don't have the same level of maturity and intelligence and they may take your ideas and turn them into intolerance.

Is that not exactly what we see with the religions extremist people everywhere? They are intolerant. They can take certain ideas and weaponize them against an entire group of people. This is what I saw when insulting caricatures of our Holy Prophet were drawn using bombs and behaving like terrorist. It was not simply an exercise in freedom of expression, it was basically hate speech.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Warning:


This thread is not to discuss religion, lets stick to the topic of the thread

 

[rpant_gabba]

Norman Finkelstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

has this been thrown in jail yet?

 

[sweep_shot]

Norman Finkelstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

has this been thrown in jail yet?

Why?

Because you say so?

Also, what does he have to do with this thread?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Why?

Because you say so?

Also, what does he have to do with this thread?

 

[Stewie]

Norman Finkelstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

has this been thrown in jail yet?

I know you have a one track mind and probably didn’t bother to read through my post. I was talking about speaking against Jews and Judaism.. not the state of Israel.

Try again!

 

[Red-Indian]

View attachment 145543

I tell you. That guy is truly unbelievable

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Here was my question you ran from.

>>>Guess that makes islamist and muslims terrorists with their demand that every respect their prophet and quran?<<

I'm not a hindu and I don't respect hindu deities. no hindu is forcin got be respectful of hindusim

I'm not Not a xtian and dont resect jesus, no xtian is demanding me to be respectful of xtianity

muslims on the other hand demand everyone respect mohammad? why

isn;t that terrorism in your book?

It also makes moghuls terrorists and ottamans terrorists correct?

Lets continue. you want to revise your definition? or post another deflection

Look the post you quoted of mine. Where are answers to my questions?

And coming to your questions, I have already answered them before check post 107 in this thread a few ahead. No need to waste again and again on previously answered queries

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Warning:


This thread is not to discuss religion, lets stick to the topic of the thread

Guys please follow this rule. Thanks

 

[rpant_gabba]

Look the post you quoted of mine. Where are answers to my questions?

And coming to your questions, I have already answered them before check post 107 in this thread a few ahead. No need to waste again and again on previously answered queries

why would I answer your questions when you are not wiling to stick with youor defintions?

As usual, you want to excuses for islam and muslims from your own standards

if you are goign to chaneg teh rules onthe spot to suit you, why bother?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

But to an atheist religion and politics both represents ideas, and either you say both are fair game for mockery or none are.

Wrong and sweeping statement. One can criticize things pertaining to state policies but religion pertains to one personal space. Right in rem are different from right in personam.

Also the earlier comparison you made by comparing prophets with Modi is also too bizarre. It's just like I suggest my comments here are as sacred as Hindu's religious scriptures because both are just written piece of articles or notes.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

why would I answer your questions when you are not wiling to stick with youor defintions?

As usual, you want to excuses for islam and muslims from your own standards

if you are goign to chaneg teh rules onthe spot to suit you, why bother?

Well I like to debate with people logically but since you are uninterested in that so can't help.

Also my definition remains the same and can be seen by anyone. Also answering same questions again and again is always boring. Plz recheck this thread again.

 

[Stewie]

I know we are way off topic but those equating religious and political beliefs are basically doing the same that nazis did. They turned Jews into pariahs by using hate speech against them and we all know what happened afterwards. It’s very dangerous to use the freedom of speech label to start targeting a whole group of people following a faith or targeting a race of people using some form of criticism that quickly devolves into hate speech. It’s a very slippery slope and it’s very different from having antagonistic political beliefs.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Well I like to debate with people logically but since you are uninterested in that so can't help.

Also my definition remains the same and can be seen by anyone. Also answering same questions again and again is always boring. Plz recheck this thread again.

yeah, you are so logical that you are unwilling to stand by your own definitions and slip and slide when you get pinned.

Please.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Wrong and sweeping statement. One can criticize things pertaining to state policies but religion pertains to one personal space. Right in rem are different from right in personam.

Also the earlier comparison you made by comparing prophets with Modi is also too bizarre. It's just like I suggest my comments here are as sacred as Hindu's religious scriptures because both are just written piece of articles or notes.

sure. my religion allows and encourages me to make fun of other religions.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

sure. my religion allows and encourages me to make fun of other religions.

Lol...So what? Your religion also allows you to make fun of your mom and dad.

 

[Stewie]

sure. my religion allows and encourages me to make fun of other religions.

Are you an athiest or a Hindu? In any case, from what I have heard so many Hindu posters here say is that Hinduism is not exactly a religion but more of a way of life. And from what I understand, it teaches harmony and tolerance. I don't think you are a very good Hindu if you are claiming that Hinduism allows you to make fun of other people's faith. I am sure even if its not allowed it is frowned upon at the very least.


Unless you are one of those who believe that whatever you do is allowed in Hinduism. In which case, I really cant say anything but pity you.

 

[Stewie]

Lol...So what? Your religion also allows you to make fun of your mom and dad.

That is probably still okay with him as long as you don't make fun of Modi. HAHA

 

[rpant_gabba]

Lol...So what? Your religion also allows you to make fun of your mom and dad.

I often do. and? some stunning logic there

what is the end point? I'm supposed to conform to your religious sensitivities becos you so?

 

[rpant_gabba]

That is probably still okay with him as long as you don't make fun of Modi. HAHA

hell no. I'm all for making fun of anyone

you have a problem when I argue against your view points and highlight the hypocrisy

 

[Stewie]

hell no. I'm all for making fun of anyone

you have a problem when I argue against your view points and highlight the hypocrisy

why do you worry about what I think and feel. I sure as hell don't care. You can go ahead and make as much fun as you want. There is always a reaction to what you do or say though. So don't be a cry baby if your freedom of speech expressions resulting in spreading hatred results in hatred in kind.

You claim to be all about first amendment and freedom of speech and yet when I express my disagreement of your views, somehow I am a hypcorit. Your own stance is the very definition of hyprocrisy here, anyone not as thick can see that.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Are you an athiest or a Hindu? In any case, from what I have heard so many Hindu posters here say is that Hinduism is not exactly a religion but more of a way of life. And from what I understand, it teaches harmony and tolerance. I don't think you are a very good Hindu if you are claiming that Hinduism allows you to make fun of other people's faith. I am sure even if its not allowed it is frowned upon at the very least.


Unless you are one of those who believe that whatever you do is allowed in Hinduism. In which case, I really cant say anything but pity you.

I'm an athiest and think all religions are made up

So you are free to hold whoever you wish to (their actions and teachings ) in high high regard and reverence.

don't go around getting offended or worse like kiling people if others don't buy in

 

[Stewie]

I'm an athiest and think all religions are made up BS.

So you are free to hold whoever you wish to (their actions and teachings ) in high high regard and reverence.

don't go around getting offended or worse like kiling people if others don't buy in

Sure, I have always supported killing people who don't agree with me, right? Once again, your absurd and childish statements are opening my point exactly. You seem to believe anyone who disagrees with your ridiculous ideas of freedom of speech is going to want to kill you. That's the misinformation, propaganda and hatred you like to spread about me and my people. And then you wonder why we think so poorly of you and your kind. To me you are no better than a self righteous mulla or nazi who like to paint people with a wide brush.

 

[rpant_gabba]

why do you worry about what I think and feel. I sure as hell don't care. You can go ahead and make as much fun as you want. There is always a reaction to what you do or say though. So don't be a cry baby if your freedom of speech expressions resulting in spreading hatred results in hatred in kind.

if that runs in to physical violence, ther wiil be retalition and terrorist labels. deal with it

You claim to be all about first amendment and freedom of speech and yet when I express my disagreement of your views, somehow I am a hypcorit. Your own stance is the very definition of hyprocrisy here, anyone not as thick can see that.

Nah. you want laws for to protect your views and you justify violence when that doesn't happen. that is hypocrisy i'm refering to.

for anyone that would have been obvious

 

[Stewie]

if that runs in to physical violence, ther wiil be retalition and terrorist labels. suck it up and deal with it

Nah. you want laws for to protect your views and you justify violence when that doesn't happen. that is hypocrisy i'm refering to.

for anyone with half a braincell that would have been obvious

I am sure that's what Nazis said to Jews when they put them in internment camps. That's how it all starts and the Modi Kool aid is definitely showing its effect and you proudly wear your label as a fascist here.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I am sure that's what Nazis said to Jews when they put them in internment camps. That's how it all starts and the Modi Kool aid is definitely showing its effect and you proudly wear your label as a fascist here.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LMAO

 

[Stewie]

I challenge any Indian, Hindu, athiest, whatever you guys are calling yourselves to prove that any Pakistani poster here has supported or backed violence, not just me. Go ahead.

It is the other way around. Your lot comes to a Pakistani forum with preconconcieved notions about Muslims and spread propaganda and hate speech that we are terrorists and support violence against those who we don't agree with.

Show me one post that supports your false claims.

 

[Stewie]

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LMAO

wow. you can look up Wikipedia, we must all bow down to your intellect. LOL.

Keep digging yourself a deep hole. I can creat a Wikipedia page in 5 minutes to support my own views and quote it here. But I am not 14.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

why do you worry about what I think and feel. I sure as hell don't care. You can go ahead and make as much fun as you want. There is always a reaction to what you do or say though. So don't be a cry baby if your freedom of speech expressions resulting in spreading hatred results in hatred in kind.

You claim to be all about first amendment and freedom of speech and yet when I express my disagreement of your views, somehow I am a hypcorit. Your own stance is the very definition of hyprocrisy here, anyone not as thick can see that.

Lol @Stewie the biggest hypocrite here are those who are ok with making fun of anyone but gets bonkers when the one being mocked is Modi

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Warning

Guys its a modi related thread for any irrelevant stuff bump other thread or simply dont post here

 

[Stewie]

Lol @Stewie the biggest hypocrite here are those who are ok with making fun of anyone but gets bonkers when the one being mocked is Modi

This is exactly what it is. Their childish and idiotic attempt at pushing back when faced with criticism of their god. Modi. This dude claims he is an athiest, but I would not be surprised if he goes to offer ten chummis to Modis picture hanging in his living room and then probably only eats prashad blessed during Modi Pooja for breakfast.

 

[rpant_gabba]

This is exactly what it is. Their childish and idiotic attempt at pushing back when faced with criticism of their god. Modi. This dude claims he is an athiest, but I would not be surprised if he goes to offer ten chummis to Modis picture hanging in his living room and then probably only eats prashad blessed during Modi Pooja for breakfast.

have you seen me go bonkers about modi being made fun of?

quote it

 

[Stewie]

have you seen me go bonkers about modi being made fun of?

quote it

I am witnessing it right now.

 

[Stewie]

By the way, don't break your worn out keyboard if I actually succeed in dragging the conversation back to the topic of the thread.

Maybe you can use Wikipedia to enlighten us some more about Modi and how you feel he is not a dictator or god, you being an athiest and all.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

By the way, don't break your worn out keyboard if I actually succeed in dragging the conversation back to the topic of the thread. I suspect you are on your tenth one already just contributing to this discussion.

Maybe you can use Wikipedia to enlighten us some more about Modi and how you feel he is not a dictator or god, you being an athiest and all.

If wikipedia is a credible source then please someone answer this wikipedia page that in detail covers Modi's crimes in gujrat riots.

India: The Modi Question - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I asked this question to @rpant_gabba in post 162 too here but still waiting for answers

 

[Stewie]

If wikipedia is a credible source then please someone answer this wikipedia page that in detail covers Modi's crimes in gujrat riots.

I asked this question to @rpant_gabba in post 162 too here but still waiting for answers

you wont get a response on that from him. atheism forbids him from providing an answer to such sacrilege. lol

 

[HalBass9]

A true atheist would never find justification for any supposedly chosen people of any god to commit genocide anywhere in the world.

 

[rpant_gabba]

If wikipedia is a credible source then please someone answer this wikipedia page that in detail covers Modi's crimes in gujrat riots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India:_The_Modi_Question

I asked this question to @rpant_gabba in post 162 too here but still waiting for answers

source? damn. you have serious comprehension issues. Its an internet meme.

its not possible for you to have logical debates. you are unarmed. LMAO

 

[Stewie]

If you take a look at the Hamas leader assassination thread, you'll see wannabe pakistani @sweepshot justifying physical violence for apostasy (leaving Islam).

he is a Bangladeshi. EOD

 

[RexRex]

he is a Bangladeshi. EOD

But he adores Pakistan and wants to be like y'all lol.

 

[rpant_gabba]

A true atheist would never find justification for any supposedly chosen people of any god to commit genocide anywhere in the world.

A true atheist would identify the death cults which want to enforce their views on the world and fight it.

 

[Stewie]

But he adores Pakistan and wants to be like y'all lol.

How is that related to the point of discussion I was making? Bangladeshis have their own significant identity and I doubt they want to be considered Pakistanis.

 

[Stewie]

Once again

A true atheist would identify the death cults which want to enforce their views on the world and fight it.

Who died and made you the policy bearer of all Athiests? I did not know we were in the presence of a ruling/governing authority on all things atheism.

 

[HalBass9]

A true atheist would identify the death cults which want to enforce their views on the world and fight it.

Therefore, please cease supporting and finding excuses for supposedly God-chosen people to commit genocide and rape prisoners.

 

[rpant_gabba]

If wikipedia is a credible source then please someone answer this wikipedia page that in detail covers Modi's crimes in gujrat riots.

India: The Modi Question - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I asked this question to @rpant_gabba in post 162 too here but still waiting for answers

Nah, you wanted to set the rules. I questioned those rules. you were too think skinned to deal with the consequences of your own rules

 

[rpant_gabba]

Once again

Who died and made you the policy bearer of all Athiests? I did not know we were in the presence of a ruling/governing authority on all things atheism.

and who died and made halbass9 decide what athhiest shoudl and shouln;t do?

Athiesm is lack of belief in deity. thats it.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Therefore, please cease supporting and finding excuses for supposedly God-chosen people to commit genocide and rape prisoners.

why would I bother with two death cults going at each other? world is better place if they wipe each other out .

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Nah, you wanted to set the rules. I questioned those rules. you were too think skinned to deal with the consequences of your own rules

Everybody here can see that you are chickening out. Just wonder why can't you answer this simple query directly for once lol.

 

[Stewie]

and who died and made halbass9 decide what athhiest shoudl and shouln;t do?

Athiesm is lack of belief in deity. thats it.

.. and it does not give license to people to spread false propaganda about people who disagree with them. You are not an athiest. You are an opportunist and hypocrit.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@rpant_gabba you other claimed atheists have great morality. Now being a moralist do you condemn Modi's hate speech against Muslims?

Please say yes or no. Instead of digressing

 

[rpant_gabba]

Everybody here can see that you are chickening out. Just wonder why can't you answer this simple query directly for once lol.

LMAO. you are the one chickening out. If my questions where so trivial, why don't you address them and we can move forward.

Acknowledge monothiesim and its dogma is terrorism by you definition. then we can move forward.

Acknowledge many muslims resort to violence and majority of muslims condone terrorism to defend their prophet.

then we can move forward

 

[HalBass9]

why would I bother with two death cults going at each other? world is better place if they wipe each other out .

It seems you might need a break from the internet today, as it appears you’re unsure how to proceed. Take a walk, as an atheist might, when confronted with the task of criticizing or defending a religion.

 

[rpant_gabba]

@rpant_gabba you other claimed atheists have great morality. Now being a moralist do you condemn Modi's hate speech against Muslims?

Please say yes or no. Instead of digressing

nope.

quote where I have claimed that.

don't chicken out

hint: saying religious teachings being immoral does equal athiests have higher morality.

IF you believe that it, that is as confused as one can get

 

[rpant_gabba]

It seems you might need a break from the internet today, as it appears you’re unsure how to proceed. Take a walk, as an atheist might, when confronted with the task of criticizing or defending a religion.

now who is chickening out?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

LMAO. you are the one chickening out. If my questions where so trivial, why don't you address them and we can move forward.

Acknowledge monothiesim and its dogma is terrorism by you definition. then we can move forward.

Acknowledge many muslims resort to violence and majority of muslims condone terrorism to defend their prophet.

then we can move forward

You have your whole life to prove it but i know you can't ever. Actually sometimes it appear you aren't even sure what you are talking about.

 

[HalBass9]

now who is chickening out?

I’ll take the blame if it helps you to put back on the mask of atheism.

 

[Stewie]

Going back to the topic at hand, I wonder how Modi treats athiests. Is he allowing them to claim Indian citizenship as well? If they are tortured and subjugated in Muslim countries, will he stand up for them? Or is that not a large enough voter base for him?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

nope.

lol... By condoning Modi's hate speech you are maligning the real world atheists

 

[rpant_gabba]

You have your whole life to prove it but i know you can't ever. Actually sometimes it appear you aren't even sure what you are talking about.

yeah. sure. Let me repost your definition of terrorism

"Terrorists are those who enforce their opinions on others"

Isn't that want monotheists do?

Feel free to if you want change your mind about what terrorism is.