Hindu Man stabbed to death by Muslim girlfriend’s family in west Delhi’s Khyala

[Vilander]

On 2/4/2018 at 10:54 AM, Muloghonto said:

Explain why the superior western model of justice cannot work in India. You commit a crime (any crime) = you are brought to justice. This includes assaults, and ANY crime, processed in a timely manner. This is what India should be striving for. 

 

And that's 32 aircraft squadrons gathering rust. We don't need any such thing to protect us from invasion, as the lesson of Pakistan or North Korea should teach us- once you have nukes, you are 'un-invade-able'. 

These massive defence spendings, while our country's law and order situation is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa than the civilized world, is purely for show and chest-thumping. And we certainly don't need purely offensive white elephants like aircraft carriers before we get our own house in order. 

 

IAF has a very high training and routine sortie rate, they are not gathering rust for sure.

 

Nukes are not sufficient to neutralize all defense threats in the world, lol. How to make a credible threat for an air arm mobilization in eastern flank  by making a press announcement from defence minister warning not to send a drone or we will use nukes hehe, what will happen if pak send a drone to study boundary infra or offshore petroleum refineries  etc will India nuke them... there is strategic interaction between belligerents in any war theater ( symmetric or asymmetric)  each one needs a variety of tools to escalate or deescalate/ increase cost for opposition etc.  

 

On 2/5/2018 at 2:17 AM, surajmal said:

I agree with uberBong. Indian military strategy is totally FUBAR. Their leadership likes toys that they can talk about in conferences. 

BTW, I'm glad that Namo and co. are ramming LCA through their throats. Indian industrial capabilities are infinitely more important than the bragging rights for a few generals and commodores. 

 

I'm fairly certain, Indian armed forces officer class (higher ups/decision makers) either possess below average IQs or are desh drohis. 

Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks if you don't have the supporting infra around/behind it. And India doesnt. 

If they really gave a damn about defence of India (keeping in mind the size of indian economy), They would have taken the Russian route. boomers + missiles. For the price of 1 carrier, you can have 3 boomers. (So instead of 3 ACs you could have 9 extra boomers in addition to the 6 they are planning to have) Carriers are for power projection, India isn't at that stage yet (probably won't be for 30 yrs). Navy should have realized this long ago considering their share of the defence budget. But they too have proven to be first rate chutiyas. Less said about the corruption in Army and Air force the better. 

 

The only reason China won't go to a full scale war with you is because of the work of a few scientists working in DAE/DRDO. 

 

Ohh and they are very eager to blame the political leadership for no initiative against Bakistan while it has taken them a decade+ to operationalize cold start. Very Slimy buggers. Many of them are bigger gungadeens than the actual gungadeens. (see how many end up joining foreign think tanks post retirement)

 

Rant over. 

So in a CSG you need a cruiser, a few destroyers ( some have frigates), submarines and supply ships and logistics ships, obvious CSG needs air defence in its carrier and an air wing. India has been operating CSG's the longest in Asia and have the most developed training and tactics, ofcourse CATOBAR (US cleared EMALS for India) will be new it will be a shift from STOVL/STOBAR  which India knows well, but it will be crossed when the time comes, besides India will have two STOBAR's well into the next two decades.  

 

Are you saying India does not have the above mentioned ships ? 

On 2/5/2018 at 8:57 PM, Muloghonto said:

 

First...holy crap you agreed with me on something. 

 

Second- forget supporting infra around aircraft carriers, we don't even have proper planes for INS Vishal yet. Mig-29KUBs are the 21st century flying coffins and cost 3x as much to maintain & service than Su-30s do. The Navy most definitely doesn't want the Mig-29s and its one of the major reason why the next A/C is slated to be a CATOBAR carrier- because Yankees have proven CATOBAR launched naval fighters.

 

But as it stands now, India is spending 4-5 billion dollars on INS Vishaal, so it can be a floating football field.

Brilliant 'need and usage' of our resources.

 

Mig 29k is a high thrust to weight fighter dedicated for stobar operations, stobar's are less expensive than catobar so you save cost there. There are lots of details here, that are to be considered.

 

INS Vishal is in design stage. INS vikrant 2 is in final fitting and aviation complex dev stage, it has its fixed wing air group ready and pilots trained ( the mig 29k). INS vikramditya is in service.  When INS vishal gets completed it will be the most competent offensive platform ever in Indian navy, it will probably have a SSBN's in its carrier srtike grp, and probably rafale m in its air group.  It will be *ing invincible in IA, with all the on shore infra in Andaman etc. It will be unprecedented ability for IN and probably second only to fifth fleet in Indian ocean region.

 

what are you guys smoking ? why are you taking about stuff you have no idea about and denigrating IAF and Indian Navy ?

[Vilander]

^ BTW if anyone wants to know what happens to a country and its civilians when there is no strong absolutely badass armed force protecting it, checkout Iraq and syrian civil war and its impact. Basically people being beheaded burnt alive put below a tank and squashed like a tomato etc. Thats an other option in front of us yup, one that India does not need to worry about though.

[Mariyam]

12 hours ago, kruiser said:

My response was to the assumption that "how come a minority Muslim had the nerve to carry out such attack". 

Crime has got nothing to do with religion. If I do it tomorrow, then punishment will be same for me 

That is untrue in this specific case. The crime had everything to do with religion of the victim. The parents of the girl were just unwilling to come to terms with the fact that their daughter was in a relationship, that too with a non Muslim. 

 

While I agree with you that many of the generalizations on display in this thread are laughable, it would be dishonest to say that an attitude/ world view problem doesn't exist with a section of the Muslim population. There is a false sense of superiority (of ideals) wrt the 'other' which is probably fueled by an insecurity/ inferiority complex seeing the 'other' succeed, relatively speaking.

 

 

[Texy]

19 hours ago, kruiser said:

My response was to the assumption that "how come a minority Muslim had the nerve to carry out such attack". 

Crime has got nothing to do with religion. If I do it tomorrow, then punishment will be same for me 

Ya say that to thousands of Muslims from Burma that went homeless

 

Say that to hundreds of Hindus killed in Bangladesh each year & thousands that were raped/killed by Pakistani army in 

71 in BD. 

 

Say that to all the forced conversion/rape victims in Pakistan

 

Say that to the victims of all the killings that happened in last 4 years in Europe committed by jihadis 

 

SAY THAT TO ALL THOSE KAFIRS WHO DIED IN KASHMIR IN THE 90s at the hands of jihadis

 

You seem to be just another out of touch, libtard. 

[Singh bling]

17 hours ago, dandaroy said:

Why do we need religion man? It is root cause of most evil perpetrated on this phucking earth and it has been this way since the beginning of mankind. I do not know how the phuck humans came up with the concept of religion, and that too, not one, but hundreds of thousands!!! 

 

This shows that you can be the most intelligent species in this planet, but that does not guarantee that you will be free from dogma, closed-minded thinking, brainwashing, and stupid abhorrent behavior. We should not be on top of the pyramid, but at the bottom. Animals engage in killing, but it is mostly to feed their stomachs. Humans are the only species who kill for reasons other than nourishment!! 

WW1 , WW2 , Vietnam war etc had nothing to do with religion .China and India don't have any religious problem

 

Mongols under Ghenghis Khan invaded 

Much of world but He was one of most secular person , his descendents converted to islam and added religious color in their invasions

 

And animal's do kill each other for superiority , if lions of one area will be unable to defend their pride then lions from other area will takeover their pride kill them and their cubs and mate with their females.The genetic lineage of that area lions will be extinct

Edited February 7, 2018 by Singh bling

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

WW1 , WW2 , Vietnam war etc had nothing to do with religion .China and India don't have any religious problem

Mongols under Ghenghis Khan invaded 

Much of world but He was one of most secular person , his descendents converted to islam and added religious color in their invasions

 

And animal's do kill each other for superiority , if lions of one area will be unable to defend their pride then lions from other area will takeover their pride kill them and their cubs and mate with their females.The genetic lineage of that area lions will be extinct

The burden of non-religious wars (WW 1, WW 1 should not be put upon the atheism/liberalism).  They were not fought in name of atheism/liberalism, but they were fought in the name of "Nationalism". 

 

Actually, the religious powers in Pakistan/India also have the monopoly upon "Nationalism". The extremist religious forces in Pakistan/India distribute the certificate of "nationalism" and "patriotism"  or the "traitor". 

Therefore, Liberals have little to do with nationalism as compared to the religious people.

While Liberal have to do more with "Humanity Values" as compared to the religious people, for whom religion precedes the humanity. 

 

Then there are human evils like "Personal Benefits", like Chengiz Khan fought for personal glory. But this disease of "personal benefits" is not only limited to atheists/liberals, but religious individuals could also be equally effected with the emotion.

 

Therefore, religious people kill not only in name of religion, but also in name of "personal benefits". In many cases, they even use the name of religion for their personal benefits and change the personal war into a religious war. 

 

Therefore:

Dangers with Religious Group: They will kill for (1) Purely religious grounds (2) Personal Benefits (3) Nationalism

Dangers with Liberal Groups: (1) Personal benefits. 

 

Thus, religious groups are always much bigger danger to the world peace as compared to the liberals. 

 

 

 

 

 

[MechEng]

5 hours ago, Singh bling said:

WW1 , WW2 , Vietnam war etc had nothing to do with religion .China and India don't have any religious problem

 

Mongols under Ghenghis Khan invaded 

Much of world but He was one of most secular person , his descendents converted to islam and added religious color in their invasions

 

And animal's do kill each other for superiority , if lions of one area will be unable to defend their pride then lions from other area will takeover their pride kill them and their cubs and mate with their females.The genetic lineage of that area lions will be extinct

I've heard that Mongols were Buddhists and Shamanists before they converted to Islam for political purposes. In fact it was the Mongols who brought Buddhism to Iran long before Islam.

[Deleted_User_1]

5 hours ago, Singh bling said:

WW1 , WW2 , Vietnam war etc had nothing to do with religion .China and India don't have any religious problem

 

Mongols under Ghenghis Khan invaded 

Much of world but He was one of most secular person , his descendents converted to islam and added religious color in their invasions

 

And animal's do kill each other for superiority , if lions of one area will be unable to defend their pride then lions from other area will takeover their pride kill them and their cubs and mate with their females.The genetic lineage of that area lions will be extinct

List the number of wars started because of religion vs. the ones that were not since the beginning of mankind. The tally of the former is overwhelming. The balance is not even subtle, that is my point. 

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, dandaroy said:

List the number of wars started because of religion vs. the ones that were not since the beginning of mankind. The tally of the former is overwhelming. The balance is not even subtle, that is my point. 

I somewhere read that only 13% wars were fought because of religion , anyway if you remove islam then there are hardly any wars which are caused be religion

[Singh bling]

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

The burden of non-religious wars (WW 1, WW 1 should not be put upon the atheism/liberalism).  They were not fought in name of atheism/liberalism, but they were fought in the name of "Nationalism". 

 

Actually, the religious powers in Pakistan/India also have the monopoly upon "Nationalism". The extremist religious forces in Pakistan/India distribute the certificate of "nationalism" and "patriotism"  or the "traitor". 

Therefore, Liberals have little to do with nationalism as compared to the religious people.

While Liberal have to do more with "Humanity Values" as compared to the religious people, for whom religion precedes the humanity. 

 

Then there are human evils like "Personal Benefits", like Chengiz Khan fought for personal glory. But this disease of "personal benefits" is not only limited to atheists/liberals, but religious individuals could also be equally effected with the emotion.

 

Therefore, religious people kill not only in name of religion, but also in name of "personal benefits". In many cases, they even use the name of religion for their personal benefits and change the personal war into a religious war. 

 

Therefore:

Dangers with Religious Group: They will kill for (1) Purely religious grounds (2) Personal Benefits (3) Nationalism

Dangers with Liberal Groups: (1) Personal benefits. 

 

Thus, religious groups are always much bigger danger to the world peace as compared to the liberals. 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is not religion then Humans find some other cause to fight.South Indians particularly Tamils are fanatic about their language and culture.

 

As far Nationalism is concerned Even Atheists and liberals are patriots.Just ask Them whether they are ok if few Indian states want to be independent.

 

Also the main reason of war is to dominate and take the resources of others.

[Ranvir]

To defeat a group of extremists you have to have your own group of extremists. It’s the only way.

[rageaddict]

17 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

To defeat a group of extremists you have to have your own group of extremists. It’s the only way.

The Soft Liberals think otherwise, who believe  that treating these people with kiddy gloves will mellow them down and make them more tolerate towards others. 

[Alam_dar]

5 hours ago, rageaddict said:

The Soft Liberals think otherwise, who believe  that treating these people with kiddy gloves will mellow them down and make them more tolerate towards others. 

Liberals may have a problem in case of Islam. 

 

But for sure Liberal Seculars were not wrong in case of Christianity and Judaism. Indeed masses in Europe and US/Canada, Australia etc. became liberals from religious extremists. 

 

In fact, till some 40 years ago (before 1980s) Muslims were also becoming liberal. But then came Islamic Revolution in Iran, then Afghan war started which brought Jihadi Culture along with it, then came al-Qaeda. 

 

Also, in the mean time Saudi Arabia got itself established through oil money, and for the first time it started exporting the extremist Salafi Islam, which was the main reason why Muslim conversion towards liberalism stopped. 

 

Then due to Media, this Jihadi culture spread very very quickly all over the Muslim countries.

 

But off course Liberals learnt from it and they are also now in favour of fighting the extremist Islam.

 

NOTE:

Liberalism not only made a mistake in case of Islam, but it also made a mistake in case of Extremist Hinduism in few Indian States. Unfortunately, they also didn't turn towards the true Secular values as the Christians of Europe turned towards secularism. 

 

Religious extremism is not good for the humanity overall, irrespective of it being Muslim extremism, or Jewish extremism, or even Buddhist extremism as we see in Burma. 

 

 

Secular way of opposing vs extremist way of opposing:

 

If Muslims don't reform them, then sooner or later Liberals of Europe will also turn against them (as we already watching in form of introduction of strict laws in Europe regarding Burqa and children rights etc. and also in form or social boycott of extremist Muslims in Europe as they don't get good jobs etc. 

And this trend will only increase in the future. 

 

While response of religious extremists is out of proportion and it indeed brings destruction along with it. 

 

In India, what RSS and Akali Dal brought in name of response to Muslim extremism, it was also carried very much negative along with it. 

 

Hindu extremism not only reacted against Muslims, but they also made other communities fearful of them. Christians and Sikhs are fearful of Hindutva. Hindu Seculars are fearful of Hindutva. In fact, even moderate Hindu supporters of BJP are also fearful of this extreme Hindutva practices by RSS and others. 

 

It would be better for India if all other forces could unite against the extremist Islam (even the moderate secular Muslims also to share the boat against extremist Islam). It seems BJP is trying to achieve it in some cases which is a positive development. 

 

The biggest issue with extremist Hindu approach is this that it is turning the Moderate Muslim population into extremist Muslim population, and thus making the problem worse overall. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Alam_dar

[coffee_rules]

Extreme Hinduism is a misnomer, there is fringe. People at right of center are diillusioned with the appeasement politics of INC, SP, BSP, JD,  now AAP as well, and hence have moved more right. Hence, the change in stance of INC with its soft hindutva policy. The liberals of India hate Hindus, but support the appeasement of muslims. This hypocrisy will not stand forever. Hinduism in its true form is the most liberal and secular way of life. Most Hindus are by nature more democratic. Instead of embracing true Hinduism, the Liberals, commies have made people seem to be more extreme. Majority of hindus dont like the extreme fringe elements because of the very nature of the religion.  

 

Extreme Islam is not a product of 80s as you think, it is been there since 1940s when Israel was formed. Arabs felt betrayed by the West, had started to turn against the west ever since in different forms. After losing the six day war in 67, the policy of arabs has been towards terrorism that is fed by ideological influence. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by coffee_rules

[Singh bling]

45 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

Extreme Islam is not a product of 80s as you think, it is been there since 1940s when Israel was formed. Arabs felt betrayed by the West, had started to turn against the west ever since in different forms. After losing the six day war in 67, the policy of arabs has been towards terrorism that is fed by ideological influence. 

Extreme islam is their from the time of islam came

[FischerTal]

 

this is indian secularism.....

[FischerTal]

heres the video proof... poor man is crying. I'm pretty sure he was a strong AAP supporter and he feels betrayed by Kejriwal for his behavior 

 

http://abpnews.abplive.in/videos/watch-ankit-s-father-breaks-down-during-debate-on-arvind-kejriwal-leaving-condolence-meet-midway-791172 

Edited February 13, 2018 by FischerTal

[FischerTal]

he had money to give to Akhlaque who wasn't even a resident of Delhi but Ankit's family cannot demand anything. Vote bank zindabad!!

[Yoda-esque]

Extreme islam is their from the time of islam came

Tautology

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dial_100]

^ Yoda, it appears that way because of large population of the followers carry extreme views. That is because they dont understand the real meaning. Islam means surrender. The one who is surrendered, no matter whatever religious views he/she follows cannot have extreme views. The issue is the followers are not surrendered. 

 

That is my personal view. I aint liberal, I aint religious.