What's new

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

Do you agree with Modi's portrayal as a dictator?

  • Total voters
    15
FearlessRoar said:
I have never heard her speaking against India sovereignty she has only raised voice against extremist Hindus such as BJP and RSS
Click to expand...
So Congress is such a buddy with BJP that they charged her with Sedition in 2010?? Really? :facepalm:

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.

Loading…

www.dawn.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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 www.ptinews.com
 
anikrc1 said:
What if someone argues that ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
anikrc1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
anikrc1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
anikrc1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
anikrc1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
anikrc1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CricketCartoons said:
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?
Click to expand...

Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Blasphemy laws and protecting religious sentiments usually go hand in hand.
 
Red-Indian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Warning:


This thread is not to discuss religion, lets stick to the topic of the thread
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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 said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
anikrc1 said:
But to an atheist religion and politics both represents ideas, and either you say both are fair game for mockery or none are.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rpant_gabba said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
yeah, you are so logical that you are unwilling to stand by your own definitions and slip and slide when you get pinned.

Please.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
sure. my religion allows and encourages me to make fun of other religions.
 
rpant_gabba said:
sure. my religion allows and encourages me to make fun of other religions.
Click to expand...
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 said:
That is probably still okay with him as long as you don't make fun of Modi. HAHA
Click to expand...
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
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
if that runs in to physical violence, ther wiil be retalition and terrorist labels. deal with it
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Warning

Guys its a modi related thread for any irrelevant stuff bump other thread or simply dont post here
 
The Bald Eagle said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
have you seen me go bonkers about modi being made fun of?

quote it
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
If wikipedia is a credible source then please someone answer this wikipedia page that in detail covers Modi's crimes in gujrat riots.

en.wikipedia.org

India: The Modi Question - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
I asked this question to @rpant_gabba in post 162 too here but still waiting for answers
 
The Bald Eagle said:
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
Click to expand...
you wont get a response on that from him. atheism forbids him from providing an answer to such sacrilege. lol
 
A true atheist would never find justification for any supposedly chosen people of any god to commit genocide anywhere in the world.
 
RexRex said:
If you take a look at the Hamas leader assassination thread, you'll see wannabe pakistani @sweepshot justifying physical violence for apostasy (leaving Islam).
Click to expand...
he is a Bangladeshi. EOD
 
HalBass9 said:
A true atheist would never find justification for any supposedly chosen people of any god to commit genocide anywhere in the world.
Click to expand...
A true atheist would identify the death cults which want to enforce their views on the world and fight it.
 
RexRex said:
But he adores Pakistan and wants to be like y'all lol.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Once again
rpant_gabba said:
A true atheist would identify the death cults which want to enforce their views on the world and fight it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rpant_gabba said:
A true atheist would identify the death cults which want to enforce their views on the world and fight it.
Click to expand...
Therefore, please cease supporting and finding excuses for supposedly God-chosen people to commit genocide and rape prisoners. :)
 
The Bald Eagle said:
If wikipedia is a credible source then please someone answer this wikipedia page that in detail covers Modi's crimes in gujrat riots.

en.wikipedia.org

India: The Modi Question - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
I asked this question to @rpant_gabba in post 162 too here but still waiting for answers
Click to expand...
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
 
Stewie said:
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.
Click to expand...
and who died and made halbass9 decide what athhiest shoudl and shouln;t do?

Athiesm is lack of belief in deity. thats it.
 
HalBass9 said:
Therefore, please cease supporting and finding excuses for supposedly God-chosen people to commit genocide and rape prisoners. :)
Click to expand...
why would I bother with two death cults going at each other? world is better place if they wipe each other out .
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
Everybody here can see that you are chickening out. Just wonder why can't you answer this simple query directly for once lol.
 
rpant_gabba said:
and who died and made halbass9 decide what athhiest shoudl and shouln;t do?

Athiesm is lack of belief in deity. thats it.
Click to expand...
.. 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.
 
@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
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Everybody here can see that you are chickening out. Just wonder why can't you answer this simple query directly for once lol.
Click to expand...
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
 
rpant_gabba said:
why would I bother with two death cults going at each other? world is better place if they wipe each other out .
Click to expand...
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. ;)
 
The Bald Eagle said:
@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
Click to expand...
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
 
HalBass9 said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...
now who is chickening out?
 
rpant_gabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top