Jump to content
Gollum

Opposition, libtards opposing Citizenship Amendment Bill

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Deucalion said:

Modi voters were waiting for Pakistan Army response on kashmir article 370, well this the response of Pakistan Army and ISI .

its beyond Kashmir, inside in indian cities and all signs leads to only one Symbol. 

 

6b6c842b2d91f0209491681b00c1ad4a.jpg

 

 

 

Keyboard Warrior, having multiple accounts is a violation. 

 

Also, if this is the best Pakistani Army can do, then it proves that they have thrown up the White flag. Keep protesting like this when we take over PoK as well :phehe:

Edited by FischerTal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deucalion said:

so a fake twitter handle is a reliable news in india then media reports , from where you got this news of his resign ? 

according to the news, he completes his 3 year tenure as DGISPR , now he got promoted .

before him Asim Bajwa also served as DGISPR for 3 years.

Naila Inayat is a blue ticker from your country, not a fake news peddler like your PM and Ghafoor sahab tweeting old videos as though it happened yesterday,

 

4 hours ago, Deucalion said:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1528680

 

Modi is here , so is the ISI. its long battle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

How any other country deals with their internal affairs is none of India's business.

 

I don't understand this logic of comparing ourselves to others - "Hey, we may be bad but at least we are not as bad as them!"

This is not a case of 'we are not as bad as them'. This is a case of 'every country will safeguard their vested interests'. West doesn't have the right to preach preach India how to form laws and run the nation. 

26 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

 

Pakistan probably asked themselves the same question in 1947.

 

Their entire identity is based on religion. 70 odd years after partition, look how they turned out.

Yes, no nation can be Nationalistic if it has to unite it's population based on religion. If you are equating Hinduism to that of Pakistani mindset, I reset my case. India is not Pakistan because of Hindu majority. If not, it would have turned into another Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc.

26 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

If Yogi Adityanath is your poster boy for peace and tolerance, I am truly terrified.

 

Yes, in a world where Al-Baghdadi is a austere religious leader, and Yogi is a militant monk, yes, the narrative has to be corrected. If not poster boy, he is not the terrorist as you make him to be. Again, use facts and data to back your argument. Everybody can make statements.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

How any other country deals with their internal affairs is none of India's business.

 

I don't understand this logic of comparing ourselves to others - "Hey, we may be bad but at least we are not as bad as them!"

 

 

Pakistan probably asked themselves the same question in 1947.

 

Their entire identity is based on religion. 70 odd years after partition, look how they turned out.

 

If Yogi Adityanath is your poster boy for peace and tolerance, I am truly terrified.

 

What’s the problem here? Just because he wears a saffron robe and calls himself a yogi Automatically makes him a rabid communal goon?

 

Is he a wanted Terrorist or been involved in such activities?

 

The guy has been a seasoned politician from a young age and has consistently delivered for his constituency. He has earned his stripes.

 

I think the phobia comes from how he looks or carries himself for a lot of folk.

 

You can criticize him for his political decisions etc but You can’t equate him to guys like Baghdadi, Khomeini etc.

 

 Yogi might as well make some radical decisions for the criticism he gets anyways but his only so called religious politicking is limited to changing names of places. 
 

Anyways he has done some great things to improve the law and order in UP Which benefitted everyone regardless of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

What’s the problem here? Just because he wears a saffron robe and calls himself a yogi Automatically makes him a rabid communal goon?

He is another confused Hindu. Since birth, many has been taught and brainwashed that minorities are always insecure and eternal victims. Thus, consequently, it has resulted in Muslim veto power which is being challenged first time. That should be welcomed in a secular country. 
 

Another consequence is hatred for anybody who is “too Hindu” or expresses it well. So some Hindu prefers to be timid and wants all Hindus to follow their way of life, else it is communal. That speaks for their intolerance and the secularism mess in our country. As on the other hand, there is the Muslim identity politics which gets conveniently covered in the burqa of secularism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

What’s the problem here? Just because he wears a saffron robe and calls himself a yogi Automatically makes him a rabid communal goon?

 

Is he a wanted Terrorist or been involved in such activities?

 

The guy has been a seasoned politician from a young age and has consistently delivered for his constituency. He has earned his stripes.

 

I think the phobia comes from how he looks or carries himself for a lot of folk.

 

You can criticize him for his political decisions etc but You can’t equate him to guys like Baghdadi, Khomeini etc.

 

 Yogi might as well make some radical decisions for the criticism he gets anyways but his only so called religious politicking is limited to changing names of places. 
 

Anyways he has done some great things to improve the law and order in UP Which benefitted everyone regardless of religion.

What's the problem with Yogi Adityanath? 

 

Let's start with his long history of genocidal statements. Google is your best friend.

Edited by EnterTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

This is not a case of 'we are not as bad as them'. This is a case of 'every country will safeguard their vested interests'. West doesn't have the right to preach preach India how to form laws and run the nation. 

Nobody is preaching to India.

 

The opposition to India being a Nationalist state is coming from within. And rightly so.

Quote

Yes, no nation can be Nationalistic if it has to unite it's population based on religion. If you are equating Hinduism to that of Pakistani mindset, I reset my case. India is not Pakistan because of Hindu majority. If not, it would have turned into another Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc.

I don't know what "Pakistani mindset" you are referring to. Pakistani's are Indian Muslims who went down the Nationalism path during partition.

 

Nobody is equating Hinduism to the "Pakistani mindset" (whatever that is). I am simply asking, if India goes down the Nationalism path, how is it any different to them doing the same in 1947.

 

Quote

Yes, in a world where Al-Baghdadi is a austere religious leader, and Yogi is a militant monk, yes, the narrative has to be corrected. If not poster boy, he is not the terrorist as you make him to be. Again, use facts and data to back your argument. Everybody can make statements.

What does Al Baghdadi or anyone else got to do with anything?

 

Yogi Adityanath has been sprouting communal nonsense since the get go. It's no secret, it's all written down.

 

You shouldn't deny it either. Not when he himself seems to revel in it. 

Edited by EnterTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, someone said:

He is another confused Hindu. Since birth, many has been taught and brainwashed that minorities are always insecure and eternal victims. Thus, consequently, it has resulted in Muslim veto power which is being challenged first time. That should be welcomed in a secular country. 
 

Another consequence is hatred for anybody who is “too Hindu” or expresses it well. So some Hindu prefers to be timid and wants all Hindus to follow their way of life, else it is communal. That speaks for their intolerance and the secularism mess in our country. As on the other hand, there is the Muslim identity politics which gets conveniently covered in the burqa of secularism...

:phehe::phehe:

 

Good joke. But I doubt you set out to tell a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

What's the problem with Yogi Adityanath? 

 

Let's start with his long history of genocidal statements. Google is your best friend.

Do you know meaning of term “genocide”. Should he say Hindus should let their daughters and women raped without reacting? Should he not call out upon systematic abuse of power by Indian politicians on “Vote bank “ politics. His message that he is pro “Vikas” and if need be to be violently opposed to politics of “Tushtikaran” touches chord with everyone in state of Uttar Pradesh.

 

BTW, on overall administration and infrastructure development, He did a quantum jump of UP state. I can proudly say that he took UP atleast 25-30 years ahead in the two areas. Don’t spread ignorance as you have no idea about ground reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

Nobody is preaching to India.


 

yes, you are. Reading media reports and forming blind opinions. Read about the history of partition, untold stories  of minority persecution and the wrongs that had to be corrected.

3 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

The opposition to India being a Nationalist state is coming from within. And rightly so.

People voting BJP since 2014 means its policies are liked by people of India.

3 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

I don't know what "Pakistani mindset" you are referring to. Pakistani's are Indian Muslims who went down the Nationalism path during partition.


 

Pakistani mindset is not nationalism. It is an Islamic supremacist mindset. Don’t compare that with Hinduism or Hindutva. Read about Direct Action day to know Pakistani mindset.

3 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

Nobody is equating Hinduism to the "Pakistani mindset" (whatever that is). I am simply asking, if India goes down the Nationalism path, how is it any different to them doing the same in 1947.

india is democratic country and it has to unite under one drive . If you want to call it nationalism and bring in Pakistan each time, then you don’t get it at all. You can be culturally nationalistic and build a nation like Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Vietnam and even the USA.

3 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

 

What does Al Baghdadi or anyone else got to do with anything?

 

Yogi Adityanath has been sprouting communal nonsense since the get go. It's no secret, it's all written down.

 

You shouldn't deny it either. Not when he himself seems to revel in it. 

I think you don’t get it, people like al-Baghdad I are saints for liberals. Yogi as CM is a different ballgame for liberals. He was painted communal and made him a villain, just like they did to Advani, Modi. Shah and now Yogi. Now, his performance is contrary to his image that was built up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, someone said:

He is another confused Hindu. Since birth, many has been taught and brainwashed that minorities are always insecure and eternal victims. Thus, consequently, it has resulted in Muslim veto power which is being challenged first time. That should be welcomed in a secular country. 
 

Another consequence is hatred for anybody who is “too Hindu” or expresses it well. So some Hindu prefers to be timid and wants all Hindus to follow their way of life, else it is communal. That speaks for their intolerance and the secularism mess in our country. As on the other hand, there is the Muslim identity politics which gets conveniently covered in the burqa of secularism...

You want to defend the right to act "too hindu", yet criticize assertive expressions of religious identity by "others".  Hypocrisy is well represented in Bhakt land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sandeep said:

You want to defend the right to act "too hindu", yet criticize assertive expressions of religious identity by "others".  Hypocrisy is well represented in Bhakt land.

No, he is saying that secularists are blind to Muslim identity assertions, but call somebody who is too Hindu as communal. In yout case, calling somebody Bhakt is mild humor, but calling somebody "peaceful" is bigotry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sandeep said:

You want to defend the right to act "too hindu", yet criticize assertive expressions of religious identity by "others".  Hypocrisy is well represented in Bhakt land.

It's hilarious being called a "Confused Hindu" by some random dude on the Internet. :phehe:

 

His posts get the respect they deserve: 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coffee_rules, you keep shifting the goal posts so often, it's hard to know for sure what you are advocating for. Or advocating against. Or whether you are advocating for anything at all. And whether you are just arguing for time pass.

 

Still don't understand what your opposition is towards Indians who oppose India becoming a Hindu Nationalist state. If people want to identify themselves as Indian first and not some x, y, z religion, not sure why you are losing sleep.

 

You say that all religions are equally tolerated. Yet, you come across as an apologist for Yogi Adityanath, a right wing extremist who has been spouting "racial purity" nonsense since get go. His shenanigans aren't even up for debate, all his speeches are on the record and can be easily accessible by anyone who can be bothered typing his name into Google.

 

If him and others like him feel so emboldened in a Secular Democracy (on paper at least), it's truly terrifying what they think they will get away with in a Hindu Rashtra.

 

In a country as ethnically diverse as India, not sure why you feel it is a good idea to give a certain group preference simply because of the religion they are born into. This has been done umpteen times in the past and in almost all cases, it didn't end well - Countries have been split along racial and ethnic lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

coffee_rules, you keep shifting the goal posts so often, it's hard to know for sure what you are advocating for. Or advocating against. Or whether you are advocating for anything at all. And whether you are just arguing for time pass.

 

Still don't understand what your opposition is towards Indians who oppose India becoming a Hindu Nationalist state. If people want to identify themselves as Indian first and not some x, y, z religion, not sure why you are losing sleep.

 

You say that all religions are equally tolerated. Yet, you come across as an apologist for Yogi Adityanath, a right wing extremist who has been spouting "racial purity" nonsense since get go. His shenanigans aren't even up for debate, all his speeches are on the record and can be easily accessible by anyone who can be bothered typing his name into Google.

 

If him and others like him feel so emboldened in a Secular Democracy (on paper at least), it's truly terrifying what they think they will get away with in a Hindu Rashtra.

 

In a country as ethnically diverse as India, not sure why you feel it is a good idea to give a certain group preference simply because of the religion they are born into. This has been done umpteen times in the past and in almost all cases, it didn't end well - Countries have been split along racial and ethnic lines. 

“Persecuted religious minorities” now which part of that makes the CAA a hindu rashtra ideology.

 

That includes Abrahamic religion like Christianity and  foreign religions like Zoroastrianism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@EnterTheVoid a non-Muslim cannot be a leader in our neighboring Islamic countries. They have laws embedded in their constitution to enforce that.

 

Now sure a certain groups or sects within Islam might be persecuted within these countries as well  but it is an internal conflict, not our problem because they are not a victim of the actual state policies on paper. It is no different then some castes being oppressed when their rival caste is in power. That is not exactly a textbook definition of persecution.

 

How is this so difficult to understand?


Didn’t Australia give refuge to a lot of Anglo indians after the partition? Why Couldn’t  they have let other religions in?

 

Where should a poor hindu or Sikh From Pak,Afghan or Bangladesh supposed to turn to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

coffee_rules, you keep shifting the goal posts so often, it's hard to know for sure what you are advocating for. Or advocating against. Or whether you are advocating for anything at all. And whether you are just arguing for time pass.

 

Still don't understand what your opposition is towards Indians who oppose India becoming a Hindu Nationalist state. If people want to identify themselves as Indian first and not some x, y, z religion, not sure why you are losing sleep.

Your argument is India will become a Hindu rashtra if it amends an act making persecuted minorities , repeat minorities. That is the same illogical illiberal commentary peddled by certain sections of media, that we have secularism in our constition preamble, and this is against. I have proven that it is not hurting any of it.

41 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

You say that all religions are equally tolerated. Yet, you come across as an apologist for Yogi Adityanath, a right wing extremist who has been spouting "racial purity" nonsense since get go. His shenanigans aren't even up for debate, all his speeches are on the record and can be easily accessible by anyone who can be bothered typing his name into Google.

Again, we don't believe in mere tolerance of all religions, it has to be mutual respect. You can't tolerate religions that believe the others are sinners and go to hell for practicing our religion. Whenever I say this, you bring in Yogi. He is misrepresented and because of the way we form our government, he can't become a Hindu supremacist. Let's agree to disagree on Yogi

41 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

If him and others like him feel so emboldened in a Secular Democracy (on paper at least), it's truly terrifying what they think they will get away with in a Hindu Rashtra.

 

41 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said:

In a country as ethnically diverse as India, not sure why you feel it is a good idea to give a certain group preference simply because of the religion they are born into. This has been done umpteen times in the past and in almost all cases, it didn't end well - Countries have been split along racial and ethnic lines. 

Call it Hindu nationalism or Indian nationalism, we have to fix the errors of the past and move on. You can't have a bunch of elite patronising the 

majority and get by. The next step is for inclusion of all, not just minorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...