What's new

"We'll remove every infiltrator from country, except Buddha, Hindus, Sikhs" - Is BJP new Nazi party?

shah_1

shah_1

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Runs
20,811
"We'll remove every infiltrator from country, except Buddha, Hindus, Sikhs" - Is BJP new Nazi party?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We will ensure implementation of NRC in the entire country. We will remove every single infiltrator from the country, except Buddha, Hindus and Sikhs: Shri <a href="https://twitter.com/AmitShah?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AmitShah</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NaMoForNewIndia?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NaMoForNewIndia</a></p>— BJP (@BJP4India) <a href="https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/1116246724119371776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 11, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



This tweet suggest so
 
That's their official twitter account?


Hey [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], you who other day wrote PTI is fascist, this is what fascism looks like!

(and I don't believe India is a fascist nation. But BJP's clowns want it to become one)
 
Key word is infiltrator that is illegals. Legal citizens, no matter of what religion, need not worry.

And this is only fair as india has to play dual role of guardian of secularism for its citizens while being the only homeland of dharmic religions.
 
Yep, it really is an official twitter account.

Disgusting

https://i.imgur.com/1jZp5kY.png

1jZp5kY.png
 
WhenSultansBowled said:
That's their official twitter account?


Hey [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], you who other day wrote PTI is fascist, this is what fascism looks like!

(and I don't believe India is a fascist nation. But BJP's clowns want it to become one)
Click to expand...

What is fascist about it?
 
CricketCartoons said:
Key word is infiltrator that is illegals. Legal citizens, no matter of what religion, need not worry.

And this is only fair as india has to play dual role of guardian of secularism for its citizens while being the only homeland of dharmic religions.
Click to expand...

So if ISI sends a Singh or Hindu infiltrator, will he be safe in new shining India?

:yk
 
Now there's a surprise! Not!

Though I do wonder how many people in India can read English? Why is the tweet not in any other language?
 
CricketCartoons said:
That is another debate. Stick to the topic about how this is fascist.
Click to expand...

I've seen you go from being the embarrassing uncle cracking stupid sarcastic jokes in every post to a serious extremist sympetheiser in the span of a few days. Glad the veil has finally been lifted.
 
So Christians and Muslims will be kicked out legally by implementing NRC all over the country, btw NRC declared ex servicemen and even the brother of former President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad illegal immigrants :)))
 
IMMY69 said:
I've seen you go from being the embarrassing uncle cracking stupid sarcastic jokes in every post to a serious extremist sympetheiser in the span of a few days. Glad the veil has finally been lifted.
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain what is fascist or extremist about it. Let us debate.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Why don't you explain what is fascist or extremist about it. Let us debate.
Click to expand...

Its in the tweet.
When you explicitly mention a few religions and leave out others then that tells you something.
Unless of course your whole purpose in life is to defend the government and the lies no matter what..
 
Btw why do they use the term 'Buddha' instead Buddhists? The way it is written it sounds like they will remove infiltrators if they are young but spare them if they are senior citizens
 
IMMY69 said:
Its in the tweet.
When you explicitly mention a few religions and leave out others then that tells you something.
Unless of course your whole purpose in life is to defend the government and the lies no matter what..
Click to expand...

Read the tweet carefully. It talks about infiltrators, not legal citizens. Apologies if you already knew that.

Assuming your outrage is over why all illegal infiltrators are not being treated equally, that is because India is the natural homeland of dharmic religions, and muslim illegals have better and safer places in the neighbourhood.

Secularism is a right, but a right for legal citizens. Constitution doesnt guarantee rights to illegals.
 
IMMY69 said:
Its in the tweet.
When you explicitly mention a few religions and leave out others then that tells you something.
Unless of course your whole purpose in life is to defend the government and the lies no matter what..
Click to expand...

Don't talk sense bruv, you will only end up confusing the situation!
 
CricketCartoons said:
Key word is infiltrator that is illegals. Legal citizens, no matter of what religion, need not worry.

And this is only fair as india has to play dual role of guardian of secularism for its citizens while being the only homeland of dharmic religions.
Click to expand...
No that’s not what it says. It says legals citizens and illegals as long they are Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist need not worry.
 
Basically ladies and gentlemen, you are not an illegal infiltrator thus are accepted with open arms, will not be removed, in secular India, if you are Buddha, Hindu, or Sikh. If you are Muslim or Christian, (or any other faith not listed) and an illegal, then you will be ejected from India with an ACME rocket on your back.

They very definition of fascism! Though the definition in India may exclude right-wing Hindu nationalism, but I feel this is more to do with language barriers more than anything else.

Oppress the oppressor!
 
Pete Rose said:
No that’s not what it says. It says legals citizens and illegals as long they are Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist need not worry.
Click to expand...

Yup. Though I find it odd that Hindus can be considered illegal in India. Very bizarre. I guess this is the caste system for you.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Read the tweet carefully. It talks about infiltrators, not legal citizens. Apologies if you already knew that.

Assuming your outrage is over why all illegal infiltrators are not being treated equally, that is because India is the natural homeland of dharmic religions, and muslim illegals have better and safer places in the neighbourhood.

Secularism is a right, but a right for legal citizens. Constitution doesnt guarantee rights to illegals.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read the entire tweet again.
NRC in the "entire country" and remove every infiltrator "except for every Buddha, Hindus and Sikhs"
 
IMMY69 said:
I think you need to read the entire tweet again.
NRC in the "entire country" and remove every infiltrator "except for every Buddha, Hindus and Sikhs"
Click to expand...

Infiltrator means illegals.


What is your issue with it? Spell it out so that I don't have to assume.
 
Pete Rose said:
Sir I think you have snorted too much saffron
Click to expand...

This is what you said: "No that’s not what it says. It says legals citizens and illegals as long they are Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist need not worry."

That is not what the tweet says. It doesnt talk about legal citizens at all.
 
Technics 1210 said:
Yup. Though I find it odd that Hindus can be considered illegal in India. Very bizarre. I guess this is the caste system for you.
Click to expand...

A hindu infiltrator from pakistan or bangladesh will be an illegal in india. What is with the collective collapse of comprehension?
 
CricketCartoons said:
This is what you said: "No that’s not what it says. It says legals citizens and illegals as long they are Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist need not worry."

That is not what the tweet says. It doesnt talk about legal citizens at all.
Click to expand...
You mean legals also have to worry if they are not of these three faiths? Then it’s worse than I thought
 
CricketCartoons said:
Infiltrator means illegals.


What is your issue with it? Spell it out so that I don't have to assume.
Click to expand...

Ok look I'm more then happy to accept if I'm wrong here.
But I read this tweet and to me it says illegal infiltrators will be removed EXCEPT for Buddhas, Hindus and Sikhs which not only implies but is explicitly states that Buddhas, Hindus and Silkhs are exempt whether legal or illegal...

Now, please correct me.
 
Pete Rose said:
You mean legals also have to worry if they are not of these three faiths? Then it’s worse than I thought
Click to expand...

Take some time to read it and understand it. Legals are not mentioned in the tweet. It clearly talks only about illegals.
 
IMMY69 said:
Ok look I'm more then happy to accept if I'm wrong here.
But I read this tweet and to me it says illegal infiltrators will be removed EXCEPT for Buddhas, Hindus and Sikhs which not only implies but is explicitly states that Buddhas, Hindus and Silkhs are exempt whether legal or illegal...

Now, please correct me.
Click to expand...

The question of removing legals doesnt arise. Don't know why it is so difficult for some people to understand.

Legals, no matter of what religion, have nothing to worry about. This tweet is clear about that.

It only talks about illegal infiltrators who will be removed, except the dharmic religions.

Your issue is why dharmic infiltrators being given leniency? Is that the whole issue?

India being the natural homeland of dharmic religions, it has moral obligation to protect anyone from these religions who seek refuge here. If a hindu, sikh, buddhist from any other country wants to seek refuge in india, She is morally bound to protect them. Do you disagree?

Muslim illegals have two muslim majority countries in the neighbourhood where they will be happier and safer. Don't you agree with that?
 
CricketCartoons said:
The question of removing legals doesnt arise. Don't know why it is so difficult for some people to understand.

Legals, no matter of what religion, have nothing to worry about. This tweet is clear about that.

It only talks about illegal infiltrators who will be removed, except the dharmic religions.

Your issue is why dharmic infiltrators being given leniency? Is that the whole issue?

India being the natural homeland of dharmic religions, it has moral obligation to protect anyone from these religions who seek refuge here. If a hindu, sikh, buddhist from any other country wants to seek refuge in india, She is morally bound to protect them. Do you disagree?

Muslim illegals have two muslim majority countries in the neighbourhood where they will be happier and safer. Don't you agree with that?
Click to expand...

Thank you.
So yes it is an extremist view and that I'm sorry but calling it Nazi is just about right.
The mere fact that the country can distinguish people by their faith is enough.

By the way, any country that does this should be criticised but more so a country that claims to be secular and takes the moral high ground when it comes to inflicting terror on others.
 
IMMY69 said:
Thank you.
So yes it is an extremist view and that I'm sorry but calling it Nazi is just about right.
The mere fact that the country can distinguish people by their faith is enough.

By the way, any country that does this should be criticised but more so a country that claims to be secular and takes the moral high ground when it comes to inflicting terror on others.
Click to expand...

This is not an extremist view. If this is extremist view, then what about pakistan, which is homeland of Muslims. Will you call Q-e-A an extremist because he did not demand a homeland for all minority religions, but muslims? Answer this.

Also, secularism is a right for legal citizens. It is not a right for illegals. So the question doesnt arise why illegals are not being offered secular treatment.
 
CricketCartoons said:
This is not an extremist view. If this is extremist view, then what about pakistan, which is homeland of Muslims. Will you call Q-e-A an extremist because he did not demand a homeland for all minority religions, but muslims? Answer this.

Also, secularism is a right for legal citizens. It is not a right for illegals. So the question doesnt arise why illegals are not being offered secular treatment.
Click to expand...

Q-e-A wanted a country for the Muslims of India but he also wanted every minority to have their rights protected. Pakistan went in the wrong direction but was formed as an Islamic country.

India have claimed it is a secular country and have stirred their nation in to believing that Pakistan is a war mongering, blood thirsty nation which is far from the truth. That narrative is what has kept the Army strong and prevented Pakistan from developing as a nation. Of course you can add Pakistan's involvement in the war against the USSR and the creation of the Taliban...

Coming back to the Tweet, a buddha, hindu or a Sikh being accepted over any other religion comes across as a smack in the face for everyone else that is living in India. If the UK only allowed illegal Christians to stay over Illegal Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc etc I would be extremely concerned.
 
WhenSultansBowled said:
That's their official twitter account?


Hey [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], you who other day wrote PTI is fascist, this is what fascism looks like!

(and I don't believe India is a fascist nation. But BJP's clowns want it to become one)
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way - I am least interested in what the BJP government does within India. I am not Indian and thus, I have no stake in their domestic policies.
 
IMMY69 said:
Q-e-A wanted a country for the Muslims of India but he also wanted every minority to have their rights protected. Pakistan went in the wrong direction but was formed as an Islamic country.

India have claimed it is a secular country and have stirred their nation in to believing that Pakistan is a war mongering, blood thirsty nation which is far from the truth. That narrative is what has kept the Army strong and prevented Pakistan from developing as a nation. Of course you can add Pakistan's involvement in the war against the USSR and the creation of the Taliban...

Coming back to the Tweet, a buddha, hindu or a Sikh being accepted over any other religion comes across as a smack in the face for everyone else that is living in India. If the UK only allowed illegal Christians to stay over Illegal Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc etc I would be extremely concerned.
Click to expand...

Why don't you get this simple thing. Secularism is promised to citizens, not illegals. So applying secularism to illegals doesnt arise.

Q-e-A only talked about minority rights in Pakistan, he didn't demand a homeland for all minorities. He was very clear in demanding a homeland for muslims. This is extremist in your logic, not mine.

India is the homeland of dharmic religions and holds moral obligations to protect them if they want to seek refuge. Dont you think the moral obligation for taking care of muslim illegals should go to pakistan and banglades, like the moral obligation for dharmic goes to india. Dont know why people are outraged, when I am agreezing with the TNT which is the basic foundation of Pakistan.
 
shah_1 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We will ensure implementation of NRC in the entire country. We will remove every single infiltrator from the country, except Buddha, Hindus and Sikhs: Shri <a href="https://twitter.com/AmitShah?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AmitShah</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NaMoForNewIndia?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NaMoForNewIndia</a></p>— BJP (@BJP4India) <a href="https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/1116246724119371776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 11, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



This tweet suggest so
Click to expand...

So why should infiltrators be allowed in India? They are illegal. They have no reason to be here.

Buddhists Sikhs and Hindus may be allowed on basis of the partition agreement. But even that should not be allowed according to many.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Why don't you get this simple thing. Secularism is promised to citizens, not illegals. So applying secularism to illegals doesnt arise.

Q-e-A only talked about minority rights in Pakistan, he didn't demand a homeland for all minorities. He was very clear in demanding a homeland for muslims. This is extremist in your logic, not mine.

India is the homeland of dharmic religions and holds moral obligations to protect them if they want to seek refuge. Dont you think the moral obligation for taking care of muslim illegals should go to pakistan and banglades, like the moral obligation for dharmic goes to india. Dont know why people are outraged, when I am agreezing with the TNT which is the basic foundation of Pakistan.
Click to expand...

I think every country in the world should have a moral obligation for taking care of an illegal irrespective of their faith but particularly a country which claims to be secular and has approximately 200 million muslims and 20 million christians.
 
Election nonsense and nothing more.

What they are saying is that they will kick out every illegal Muslim and Christian from the country.

Either way it is a shameful tweet. Why is anyone surprised about this? It’s bjp and you have to expect from these morons.
 
IMMY69 said:
I think every country in the world should have a moral obligation for taking care of an illegal irrespective of their faith but particularly a country which claims to be secular and has approximately 200 million muslims and 20 million christians.
Click to expand...

Well no. No one has a moral obligation of taking care of a infiltrator. He illegally entered, there by breaking the law and is a criminal.

Secularism is a right of every Indian. Not a foreigner who has broken the law.

If a Muslim from BD or Pakistan wants to illegally enter India, why should he be allowed? Muslims of BD and Pakistan chose to separate in 1947. Thats it. They dont get to decide to choose where to live every few years.
 
cricketjoshila said:
So why should infiltrators be allowed in India? They are illegal. They have no reason to be here.

Buddhists Sikhs and Hindus may be allowed on basis of the partition agreement. But even that should not be allowed according to many.
Click to expand...

I don't know how the system of asylum seekers works in India but yes every country should have a right to remove those that are illegally there BUT this should surely apply to every religion and not just those are affiliated with a religion that was born in that country??
 
cricketjoshila said:
Well no. No one has a moral obligation of taking care of a infiltrator. He illegally entered, there by breaking the law and is a criminal.

Secularism is a right of every Indian. Not a foreigner who has broken the law.

If a Muslim from BD or Pakistan wants to illegally enter India, why should he be allowed? Muslims of BD and Pakistan chose to separate in 1947. Thats it. They dont get to decide to choose where to live every few years.
Click to expand...

Well of course... Thats why I brought up Asylum seekers... Not all illegals are deported some are allowed to live in a country due to the hardship they encountered in another country... its all very subjective.
Also the tweet does not mention that infiltrators from Pakistan or Bangladesh but does state that certain religions are exempted...
 
Last edited:
IMMY69 said:
I don't know how the system of asylum seekers works in India but yes every country should have a right to remove those that are illegally there BUT this should surely apply to every religion and not just those are affiliated with a religion that was born in that country??
Click to expand...

The basis of partition was religion. Muslims demanded a country, they got a country. Now they simply cant move back to India since India is doing better.

Ideally this should apply to everyone. But many raise the point that non muslims are under oppression after partition and that non muslims never got a say when the partition happened hence they should be allowed to come to india if they want.
 
IMMY69 said:
Well of course... Thats why I brought up Asylum seekers... Not all illegals are deported some are allowed to live in a country due to the hardship they encountered in another country... its all very subjective.
Also the tweet does not mention that infiltrators from Pakistan or Bangladesh but does state that certain religions are exempted...
Click to expand...

Infiltrators from any place. Only official asylum is given to Lankan Tamils and Tibetan buddhists due to agreements signed in 1950s-60s.
 
cricketjoshila said:
So why should infiltrators be allowed in India? They are illegal. They have no reason to be here.

Buddhists Sikhs and Hindus may be allowed on basis of the partition agreement. But even that should not be allowed according to many.
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that it can be and probably would be used carte blanche even against legals (Muslims) as we all know how frenzied the bhaakts can get.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cricketjoshila said:
The basis of partition was religion. Muslims demanded a country, they got a country. Now they simply cant move back to India since India is doing better.

Ideally this should apply to everyone. But many raise the point that non muslims are under oppression after partition and that non muslims never got a say when the partition happened hence they should be allowed to come to india if they want.
Click to expand...

So the whole premise of the tweet was for people of Pakistan or Bangladesh coming to India illegally or a general statement that covers all illegal people from around the world?
 
cricketjoshila said:
Infiltrators from any place. Only official asylum is given to Lankan Tamils and Tibetan buddhists due to agreements signed in 1950s-60s.
Click to expand...


So a Hindu will be given preference over a muslim convert from Europe?
Or a Hindu from elsewhere over a Muslim from say Africa?
 
troodon said:
Election nonsense and nothing more.

What they are saying is that they will kick out every illegal Muslim and Christian from the country.

Either way it is a shameful tweet. Why is anyone surprised about this? It’s bjp and you have to expect from these morons.
Click to expand...

Illegal muslims and christians? If given a chance they will even kick out legal muslims and christians. :inti
 
Why are people up in arms about this? They're illegal immigrants, and India can do whatever they want with them. Let them stay, kick them out, etc.

Kroll said:
The problem with this argument is that it can be and probably would be used carte blanche even against legals (Muslims) as we all know how frenzied the bhaakts can get.
Click to expand...

It can't be used against Muslims who are in India legally. There is nothing that indicates that. There are around 200 million Muslims in India, 15% of the population. No one wants to kick them out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sachin136 said:
Why are people up in arms about this? They're illegal immigrants, and India can do whatever they want with them. Let them stay, kick them out, etc.



It can't be used against Muslims who are in India legally. There is nothing that indicates that. There are around 200 million Muslims in India, 15% of the population. No one wants to kick them out.
Click to expand...

Illegal Immigrants except for Buddha, Hindus and Sikhs.....
 
Illegal immigrants and the subsequent vote bank politics is a developing problem and has already caused massive rifts in areas which face this issue.

But the way this tweet has been aggressively and selectively worded - this is not some slip of the tongue. This is deliberate and shows the BJP have become desperate :))

And what is this infiltrator term. Is this some political/sociological term or something a fool handling the twitter account chose.

And lol at some of the Indian posters here using phrases like 'kick out'. The only kicking out, come May, is gonna be done to Modi-Shah.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Key word is infiltrator that is illegals. Legal citizens, no matter of what religion, need not worry.

And this is only fair as india has to play dual role of guardian of secularism for its citizens while being the only homeland of dharmic religions.
Click to expand...

So if you are Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist; you can live in India illegaly? Hmm nice. Someone tell ISI to hire more hindu, sikh agents please. :afridi
 
pillionrider said:
And what is this infiltrator term. Is this some political/sociological term or something a fool handling the twitter account chose.
Click to expand...

Infiltrator, illegal immigrant, illegal alien (mostly in the US), etc are all common words for it.
 
Sachin136 said:
Why are people up in arms about this? They're illegal immigrants, and India can do whatever they want with them. Let them stay, kick them out, etc.



It can't be used against Muslims who are in India legally. There is nothing that indicates that. There are around 200 million Muslims in India, 15% of the population. No one wants to kick them out.
Click to expand...

The problem is except Hindu, Bhuddist and Sikhs. There wouldn't be a problem if Amit Shah said that we will all stop illegal imigrants from entering India without any discrimination. Why selectively target Muslim and Christian?
 
Btw did someone notice; they used the word Buddha instead of Buddhists. What a bunch of jahils. :yk
 
IMMY69 said:
Illegal Immigrants except for Buddha, Hindus and Sikhs.....
Click to expand...

shah_1 said:
The problem is except Hindu, Bhuddist and Sikhs. There wouldn't be a problem if Amit Shah said that we will all stop illegal imigrants from entering India without any discrimination. Why selectively target Muslim and Christian?
Click to expand...

How many other countries are there with a large Hindu population? I believe Hindus are a majority only in India and Nepal, maybe Mauritius. And no country has more than a million Sikhs apart from India. We all know how they have to deal with being oppressed, forcefully converted, etc in some other countries. So I see nothing wrong with allowing some people from marginalized religious groups to stay.
 
shah_1 said:
The problem is except Hindu, Bhuddist and Sikhs. There wouldn't be a problem if Amit Shah said that we will all stop illegal imigrants from entering India without any discrimination. Why selectively target Muslim and Christian?
Click to expand...

Because Muslims and Christians have better places to seek refuge, not just the western world, but immediate neighbourhood.

Or you don't believe in TNT?
 
Infiltrator is generally used as a military term to denote a spy or saboteur who wishes to inflict harm on the place or organisation that he/she has infiltrated. Therefore the language implies that anybody who is an illegal immigrant is thus a security threat to the nation of India. And it therefore logically further implies that security threats are dealt with in the harshest of manners.
 
the Great Khan said:
Infiltrator is generally used as a military term to denote a spy or saboteur who wishes to inflict harm on the place or organisation that he/she has infiltrated. Therefore the language implies that anybody who is an illegal immigrant is thus a security threat to the nation of India. And it therefore logically further implies that security threats are dealt with in the harshest of manners.
Click to expand...

Not if you are Buddha...
 
IMMY69 said:
Thank you.
So yes it is an extremist view and that I'm sorry but calling it Nazi is just about right.
The mere fact that the country can distinguish people by their faith is enough.

By the way, any country that does this should be criticised but more so a country that claims to be secular and takes the moral high ground when it comes to inflicting terror on others.
Click to expand...

I think you don't understand where CricketCartoons is coming from. Hindu extremists are keen students of the Islamic fundamentalist doctrines, if you look at movements like ISIS or Taliban, they don't believe in borders, the aim is to establish a Caliphate where all Muslims can seek refuge and prosperity under Islamic rule.

The Hindutvas have compared this to India's historic wishy-washy attitude with regard to their own religion and are now trying to model Islam and Sharia such is their admiration for the resolute and comprehensive nature of the Muslim creed.

Read every post by a Hindutva and you will see a weak echo of fundamentalist Islam, hence when they are challenged they will always revert to whataboutism. The comparison is only valid if you take into consideration they are modelling against Islamic nations themselves.
 
Slim said:
So if you are Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist; you can live in India illegaly? Hmm nice. Someone tell ISI to hire more hindu, sikh agents please. :afridi
Click to expand...

It won't be illegal if they are granted a refugee status.

Budhists, Hindus and Sikhs imo should always be welcome in India, they have nowhere else to go.
 
BlackShadow said:
It won't be illegal if they are granted a refugee status.

Budhists, Hindus and Sikhs imo should always be welcome in India, they have nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...

Western countries should be their first choice, as they are meant for all people. India should be the option only when they cannot go to one of the western countries.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I think you don't understand where CricketCartoons is coming from. Hindu extremists are keen students of the Islamic fundamentalist doctrines, if you look at movements like ISIS or Taliban, they don't believe in borders, the aim is to establish a Caliphate where all Muslims can seek refuge and prosperity under Islamic rule.

The Hindutvas have compared this to India's historic wishy-washy attitude with regard to their own religion and are now trying to model Islam and Sharia such is their admiration for the resolute and comprehensive nature of the Muslim creed.

Read every post by a Hindutva and you will see a weak echo of fundamentalist Islam, hence when they are challenged they will always revert to whataboutism. The comparison is only valid if you take into consideration they are modelling against Islamic nations themselves.
Click to expand...

Please don't give Islam so much importance. Not everything is about Islam and Hindus don't want anything to do with it. No one wants a Hindu version of Sharia either.

Allowing certain refugees and asylum seekers is not some novel concept invented by Islam.
 
IMMY69 said:
Its in the tweet.
When you explicitly mention a few religions and leave out others then that tells you something.
Unless of course your whole purpose in life is to defend the government and the lies no matter what..
Click to expand...


You ask 1000 times he will still say infiltrators means illegal citizens. Can wake up a sleeping person but you cannot wake up who pretends to sleep unless they themselves decide to wake up.

A nationalist ruling party outrightly tweets like this and gets away with it + their bhaakts reiterate it to make the voice louder. I don’t know what secularism or democracy they are talking about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I think you don't understand where CricketCartoons is coming from. Hindu extremists are keen students of the Islamic fundamentalist doctrines, if you look at movements like ISIS or Taliban, they don't believe in borders, the aim is to establish a Caliphate where all Muslims can seek refuge and prosperity under Islamic rule.

The Hindutvas have compared this to India's historic wishy-washy attitude with regard to their own religion and are now trying to model Islam and Sharia such is their admiration for the resolute and comprehensive nature of the Muslim creed.

Read every post by a Hindutva and you will see a weak echo of fundamentalist Islam, hence when they are challenged they will always revert to whataboutism. The comparison is only valid if you take into consideration they are modelling against Islamic nations themselves.
Click to expand...

As usual you are trying to malign a legitimate cause by linking it with extremists. If Hindus want a hindu homeland, it is not ISIS or Taliban they are emulating, but it is Israel and Pakistan which they want to emulate. Having a homeland for your qaum is a basic right. Minorities can be given rights to live with dignity, but the majority religion must be the first among equals.
 
ask_analyse_act said:
You ask 1000 times he will still say infiltrators means illegal citizens. Can wake up a sleeping person but you cannot wake up who pretends to sleep unless they themselves decide to wake up.

A nationalist ruling party outrightly tweets like this and gets away with it + their bhaakts reiterate it to make the voice louder. I don’t know what secularism or democracy they are talking about.
Click to expand...

What is the other meaning of infiltrator, which is obvious to you? I am always open to diverse opinions as long as people are willing to debate to back their opinions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs have no where to go if they get ousted from India. There are many Muslim and Christian countries but India is only one for hindus.

Really dissapointed with BJP not to implement this NRC long time ago. Hope its not an election gimmic and they really would do it.
 
Just noticed the thread title, so BJP is a Nazi party because they would accept Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist refugees over others? Doesn't that make half the religions Nazi too? :))
 
Last edited:
Kroll said:
The problem with this argument is that it can be and probably would be used carte blanche even against legals (Muslims) as we all know how frenzied the bhaakts can get.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Even though it says nothing about legal muslims, but it is only going to alienate them further.


Sorry to offend anyone. It was not intended.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CricketCartoons said:
As usual you are trying to malign a legitimate cause by linking it with extremists. If Hindus want a hindu homeland, it is not ISIS or Taliban they are emulating, but it is Israel and Pakistan which they want to emulate. Having a homeland for your qaum is a basic right. Minorities can be given rights to live with dignity, but the majority religion must be the first among equals.
Click to expand...

Where did I malign the cause? If you say to a Muslim extremist, "sir you are a fundamentalist", he will puff up his chest and say, "yes I believe in the fundamentals of Islam to the core so am proud to be a fundamentalist".

Shows your lack of conviction in your own cause that you consider me to be maligning by describing as extremist. What is it you consider wrong in being extremely Hindu?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
[VIDEOS] Is the UK racist? The Trevor Noah vs Piers Morgan debate
Replies
42
Views
3K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Sher Khan
[VIDEO] A new low for Pakistan politics: Maryam Nawaz using a disabled child as a prop
Replies
5
Views
876
Cpt. Rishwat
Cpt. Rishwat
MenInG
Imran Khan reviews 2022: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"
Replies
8
Views
1K
Technics 1210
Technics 1210
MenInG
Is the Karachi media behind the push for removal of Babar & appointment of Sarfaraz as captain
Replies
79
Views
8K
shamaan
S
MenInG
[VIDEO] "If you want to live in this country, you have to say Jai Sri Ram"
Replies
55
Views
5K
DeadlyVenom
D
Back
Top