Bossbhai: Pls. answer

[fineleg]

The other thread is locked for a different reason. I am looking for an answer to: "Now, your turn: What do you want to do? Whats your proposed action in this situation? Lets leave aside if what you want is correct or wrong etc. First of all, what do you want to do about this situation?" I believe you are not answering for this reason, namely - if you give a 'soft' answer then others may call you out on it, since you have previously stated all people of certain community must be evicted from India. If you give that same answer, maybe you fear a ban from ICF or something like several folks raising a shout etc. Can you answer this?

"Now, your turn: What do you want to do? Whats your proposed action in this situation? Lets leave aside if what you want is correct or wrong etc. First of all, what do you want to do about this situation?"

[fineleg]

I dont want to evict any community. Dont put words in my mouth. Perhaps u want to evict certain community. Not me. I want the people who do crimes to be punished. And, the rest should be given permission to live their lives with whatever beliefs they follow. Thats it.

[fineleg]

All that is fine, old episode etc. We can leave the old issues apart. What is your proposal? How do you propose the Indian Govt deal with this issue?

[CC1981]

Finey, don't bother getting straight answers from Bossbhai. Hell, try finding on the forum, where he HAS given a straight answer to a political question. Just browse through and quote me if you can. His tactic of non-sequiturs is the age-old game of filibusting. He will come in here armed with his illogic and 10001 edited examples to prove his point. Then he will say ' i will answer your questions but first answer this/that, first confirm this that etc' and then proceed to BURY you with his illogic, which you will get tired of pulling apart, all the while, he REFUSES to give your thoughts the same space. And to prove this hypothesis (which i have several moons ago), here is the strategem: Use Bossby on Bossby : Tell HIM you will answer ALL his queries and questions and extrapolations AFTER he has answered a few of yours for atleast a thread. I can garantee you, nomatter who you are, if your viewpoint is not in agreement with his, he will NOT play by his own rules/tables turned on him. So, its rather pointless trying to argue with this character. And if this character so wishes to prove me wrong, i extend an OPEN INVITATION for him to debate me on icf chat (we can fix up a time sometime) with 5-6 onlookers, where the first 30 min of the chat belongs to ME- i will ask the questions and he will answer and then the next 30 minutes belongs to him. I will also garantee you, this offer will be refused or not met with integrity. The basis of Bossby's arguments rest on him burying you with his slanted story and biassed perspectives. His viewpoints are extremist and lack the cogency or clarity of thorough examination. Therefore, his simple, yet effective strategy is to question YOUR views and ask YOU about scenarios, all the while stalling about his response to the scenario and his course of action. His views are designed to make people angry, indignant and get in the mode of 'violence/insensetivity will cure this malaise' and not at all intellectually provoking for a debate, where his side will undergo cross examination.

[Guest dada_rocks]

fineleg please answer.. ideallism means doing nothing .. you will never reach a goal where only guilty get punsihed so should we abolish constitution altogether.... why this insisitance over somethign which is impractical and defeats the very purpose ..

[fineleg]

DR, I am waiting for answer to this:

"What do you want to do? Whats your proposed action in this situation? Lets leave aside if what you want is correct or wrong etc. First of all, what do you want to do about this situation?"

[Guest dada_rocks]

What do i want bring some tough laws where the people nabbed don;t get bail very next day that's all I want.. Unless some through questioning can be done they should remain in police remand.. Now tell me what's the purpose of your solution when it's bound to fail always..

[fineleg]

Look, do you have no Pak friends? I have Pak friends who are decent people. Dont tell me all of them are bad. There are good and bad folks in them. Whats the point in harming the good ones as well?

[kumble_rocks]

The first thing that must happen is we must fix ourselves especialy the the pseudo-secular lot and their mindset which see's absolutely nothing wrong with the ideology that has only left death and destruction in its wake for Centuries Worldwide (Not just India ). Untill and unless you refuse to learn lessons from history absolutely nothing is going to change and its actually quite easy to hand clean chits even while dead bodies pile up. I mean how can you type with a straight face that majority of Pakistanis & Kashmiris are peacelovers and that we cannot take any actions unless we are pretty darn sure we have all the culprits singled out so that no innocents are harmed ? BTW Omar Abdullah recently blew a big gaping hole in foundation of pseudo-secularim (i.e the 1% Theory) by admitting that they didnt do much to prevent the exodus of KP's. What now ?

The same Omar Abdullah is being accused by BJP and KP's as communally divisive person . Can you trust this guy to tell the truth ? :--D http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=457677&sid=REG Home > States BJP criticises Omar Abdullah`s comments on Amarnath land row Jammu, July 24: The Jammu and Kashmir BJP on Thursday criticised National Conference president Omar Abdullah for his comments on the Amarnath issue in Parliament during the trust vote, alleging they had hurt the sentiments of Hindus. "Abdullah's recent utterances in Parliament during the Trust vote that Kashmiri muslims were fighting for their land and they will continue to do so in future has badly hurt the sentiments of Hindus in the country," its chief Ashok Khajuria told reporters here. He alleged that Abdullah and many other Kashmiri leaders carried the "separatist" agenda of Hurriyat Conference. "Kuldeep Kumar Dogra laid down his life against the statement of Abdullah and people of Jammu province will not tolerate such outburst from Kashmiri leaders," Khajuria said. Kumar, who was part of a chain hunger strike protesting the revocation of decision to transfer land to Amarnath shrine board, ended his life by taking poison.

[kumble_rocks]

You are saying that as though there doesnt exist things like facts and such that corroborate his statement . Are you suggesting that a very eeny weeny teeny group of Mujahiddins were successfull in driving out the minorities and that the overwhelming majority fought tooth and nail on the side of the minorities ? Iam not even taking into the equation the presence of Indian Army.

I am sure their is some truth to what he is saying , But seriously though , I don't understand why you bring KP issues into every other discussion ...

[Guest dada_rocks]

Communally divisive persons can tell the truth it's possible... people do have once in a blue moon epiphanous moments..

[Guest dada_rocks]

Look' date=' do you have no Pak friends? I have Pak friends who are decent people. Dont tell me all of them are bad. There are good and bad folks in them. Whats the point in harming the good ones as well?[/quote'] Good ones ..let me see u mean those who empathize with the blood suckers or act as apologist for them..

[kumble_rocks]

So why not try to accept it learn from the mistakes ?

Are you kidding me . Why don't you ask posters like DR and Sandtest if they learn from the mistakes . Their blind support for neo-cons is troubling to say the least . The same neo-cons think Pakistan is their ally and poked fun of Obama when Obama spelt out his plan to tackle Islamic terrorism which inlcudes plans to invade Pakistan if necessary . Obama understands the real war on Islamic terrorism . He wants to concenterate on Afghanistan and NW Pakistan and says he will deploy American soldiers in pakistan to contain Al - qaeda . This sample DR endorses this fake Iraq war and then goes on chide Obama .. supports McCain ! Goes to show how twisted and hypocritical DR actually is .You want people to learn from mistakes , then you should also have the guts to question posters on your side like DR , when they talk rubbish.

[fineleg]

BB, Its not "my theory" - it is a commonly accepted concept that it is better to do the max effort to avoid punishing the innocent. I accept that. Lets say you did nothing wrong, and you get punished for it - are you going to say it is a good system? There is no ready made solution for these things, but saying we'll punish the innocent is not a good way to go. ----------- DR: What do you mean "good ones" will support such things? Good ones are those who dont like such activities.

[Guest dada_rocks]

They don't do.. they invariably always have some but u see this or that is why it's happening.. i too have had pakistan acquaintances I don't llike to call these samples friends.. all edcuated same story.. they were good in other matters like anyone else but not there where it mattered....... That theory of max effort to avpid punihs the innocent than to punish guilty is valid for peaceful society's peace-time operation .. in war-like atmpsphere that theory is counter-productive

[kumble_rocks]

Wasnt your stand that Amreeka is a EVIL nation and the root cause of all bad around India :--D Oye Dada ... KR has a point. ( If Obama indeed said that and stands by what he said if elected )

America is not evil nation , their policies have been questionable , you know that , heck they supported nutjob islamofacist like Zia over us .... BTW , Looks like our pal DR is upset that MODS deleted his post , he wants to take a sabbatical...

[fineleg]

Do you realize that inadvertantly you accept innocent casualties / destruction / and eviction of Hindus by making such statements ? It appears that you are least bothered about the fact that no one on the other side subscribes to those theories. You seem to suggest that we forget and keep moving on untill we are hit with the next Kashmir .... and soo on and so forth. Is there such a thing like justice for the Hindus that keep dying in the 1000s every year ?

Yes, we do need justice for Hindus who are victims and we need to punish the perpetrators. I do want our govt to make it a priority. I think we reached a point where we both expressed views cleanly and respectfully. It was good debating :thumbs_up:, we'll continue again later.

[Kriterion]

Explain death penalty on people who want to exit Islam and embrace any other religion .... then we there is this terminology used to identify those who do not beleive i.e Kaffirs ... and a elaborate set of rules on how to treat them in a Muslim state. Then there is Sharia ..... Pls tell me how those are not discriminatory and reek of us-vs-them mentality .... there is more but this should suffice for now.

other thread got locked... 1) chapter and quranic verse for this death penalty for those who leave islam? hadiths don't work because a) they don't have the standing which the quran has i.e the quran trumps the hadith every time they differ b) they differ in many cases because the hadith are human transmissions; all muslims will attest to this c) there are also hadiths which attest to the "peaceful" nature of islam; which hadith is accurate and how do we know? 2) kaffir simply comes from kufr which means 'disbelief' so kaffir means disbeliever. similar to term goyim which means gentile in hebrew i guess. i'm sure there is a word in hindi or sanskrit to describe those who are not hindu. of course any word can be used derogatively. again their treatment is manifestly eye for eye according to the quran, which being a right winger, i'm sure you support tit for tat. but in the event you're a liberal, eye for an eye is just another way of stating the golden rule, "treat others as you would like to be treated". as before, i am sure the hadith has a very brutal ruling, but if you ask any muslim, from the pork eating liberal to the bomb strapping fundementalist, they will all tell you that the quran takes precedence over the hadith. 3) the quran never speaks about sharia. the goons running around stoning adulterers to death have not an iota of understanding about the quran and its relation to the hadith.this is no different than KKK klansman believing that god hates jews and blacks. for the most part these are illiterate mullahs with no jobs. and for those sportin PhDs and such, education is no medal of truth. otherwise there would only be one religion which owned all the fancy degrees.

[CC1981]

hadiths don't work because a) they don't have the standing which the quran has i.e the quran trumps the hadith every time they differ

This is most categorically false. Yes, technically speaking, hadith is on lower 'sunnah' level than the Koran. But FACT is, the hadith is used as a 'guide' for the Koran, which is written in a much more archaic and nebulous form. Every single school of Islam prescribes many many hadiths ( one of which is kill the apostate) as study aid for the Koran.

b) they differ in many cases because the hadith are human transmissions; all muslims will attest to this

And so is the Koran. It was penned by a human, it didnt just magially plop down on the prophet's lap with God's own handwriting. And for those who say the Koran is unchanged since its origin, i have a question for you : where is the original koran ? where is the original copy of the koran that the prophet made his followers write down ?? Can you please show me this original koran and compare it with the koran i can buy today to show the 'unchanged since conception' factor ?

2) kaffir simply comes from kufr which means 'disbelief' so kaffir means disbeliever. similar to term goyim which means gentile in hebrew i guess. i'm sure there is a word in hindi or sanskrit to describe those who are not hindu. of course any word can be used derogatively.

Yes. Kaffirs in Sanskrit = mlecchas.

but in the event you're a liberal, eye for an eye is just another way of stating the golden rule, "treat others as you would like to be treated".

1. Gandhi destroyed the logic behind 'eye for an eye' by stating the obvious : eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. 2. Eye-for-an-eye is NOT logical for a divinely inspired scripture. Nobody except the old school hebrews and muslims prescribe to the eye for an eye philosophy because it makes absolutely no sense to prescribe to 'eye for an eye' when you are told that God will reward/punish you according to your own individual deeds and if you are in his good books, you will end up in jannat/new world etc. ( i dont find it a coincidence that the two religions which prescribe 'eye for an eye', islam and judaism, are the product of a barbarian society far removed from civilized existence of their times, its akin to the taleban or some hilltribe in the andamans comming up with a new religion- it is the historical truth, for judea or arabia are as far from civilized world as it gets in the pre-ottoman times). 3. The golden rule isnt very golden. ' Treat others as you would like to be treated' is very rough/lose idea that cannot be practically implemented. Eg: if i am a theif, i consider theiving okay and i prescribe to theiving for all, then by the golden rule, i should treat everyone as a theif. The golden rule also doesnt work for those who have mental problems ( i dont mean dumb/stupid people, i mean mental problems in the broadest of terms that most people have in some aspect or another). Some are kinkier than others, some more religious, some less, etc etc. The golden rule was exposed as nonsense by none other than Fredreich Neitzche, who categorically demonstrates that the golden rule can be valid if and only if we ALL had the same inherent personality, desires and considerations towards others. Ie, golden rule works for the Borg. It doesnt for any individualistic society.

the goons running around stoning adulterers to death have not an iota of understanding about the quran and its relation to the hadith

Completely disagree. The hanafi, wahabbi, ibadi, deobandi, etc. mullahs who are pro-stupidity ( ie, suicide bombings, treating women like cattle, etc) are ALL very well read in the Koran as well as hadiths. I've met/known/still know a few who will precribe such despicable actions and they can recite the koran from front to back. Based on that, i see zero credibility in your assertion that these 'stoning adulterer people' have not an iota of understanding - if anything, they have complete understanding and the consistency of their fanaticism/despicable behaviour for 1400 years is proof positive of the shortcommings in the Koran itself. Furthermore, i must say that i do not respect Mohammed ibn Abdullah as a prophet, messenger or servant of God ( al-nabi, rasool and abd, respectively). Life history of mohammed is starkly different from life history and conduct of ALL would-be-prophets before/after him. Lets look at it objectively : the religious teachers who've influenced the world most profoundly in the last 3000 years : Siddharta, Mahavira, Adi Shankara, Jesus, Mani, Mithra, Zarathusthara, Lao-Tze, Confucious and Mohammed. All but one never waged war, never married indiscriminately or for power, never advocated a philosophy of military subjugation in the name of God ( which is fundamentally flawed - if God is God, why the heck does he need us humans to pick up sticks and swords for his behalf ? what kind of a lamer God is that ?). All but one advocated the prevalence of peace, tolerance and nondiscrimination between believers/non-believers. Only ONE of them married for power ( young guy with little prospects marrying older woman who's a widow and of considerable wealth = marrying for power. As cut and dried as it gets. No courtship between the two, so it wasnt like Mo fell in love and married the older widow for love. It was a simple hollywood-esque power-marriage. She got a young virile man in bed and a man who could protect her/her assets, he got power by gaining access to her substantial wealth), only ONE of them picked up a sword and went killing people, only ONE of them ordered the genocide and enslavement of innocent men,women and children ( banu Kurayzaa) and only ONE of them was morally repulsive enough to sleep with a 9 year old girl when he was old enough to be her grandfather. I will leave you to guess who that 'exception' is and how his conduct throughout his life does not speak of a divinely inspired man but is more in line with personal ambition and accomplishments similar to a Chinggis Khan or Alexander of Macedon. My token respect of mohammed is simply from the fact that he was an ubermensch. If you don't know what an ubermensch is, it is a person who through the power of his/her will and resourcefulness accomplishes their desires in life and leaves a mark on many. For good or bad or neutral, i respect that, even if nominally. For those who are ubermensch most certainly are overlords over the untermensch (those who are the no-names, who history doesnt remember, who's lives and accomplishments are ordinary) and even an ubermensch who is evil still deserves some respect for his/her ability to accomplish. But the buck stops there with mohammed - beyond the fact that he was an ubermensch (probably the first arab ubermensch), i find him an ordinary warmongering, glory-hunting guy who strengthened his position in his illiterate society by playing the biggest boolsheet card of alltime : 'i am from God' card. In my eyes, mohammed is on the same plane as the Chinggis Khans, Alexander of Macedon, Kshayarshah(Xerxes), Pushyamitra Sungas of the world. He doesnt belong in the same echelon as Buddha,mahavira,jesus,lao-tze, confucious, etc. who, regardless of how their ideologies turned out, were men of excellent character who any human being would find lovable and praiseworthy. The sad reality is that the 'rot' in Islam didnt start with any of these goons or self-serving modern individuals or ancient monarchs as you like to think. The rot in Islam started with the man who started Islam : Mohammed ibn Abdullah and so far, the history of islam and its exceptionally unique,brutal and violent history is mirrored by the exceptionally unique,brutal and violent life of Mohammed Ibn Abdallah himself. And that is a no-brainer too: Islam reveres Mohammed as the 'perfect man', ahl-al-Islam, yadda yadda. Stands to reason, if you are bombarded non-stop to follow the 'perfect example' of a man who's activities, when described, would include words like 'genocide, murder, warfare, paedophilia,etc', you are gonna end up with a very effed-up religion which is evident for all to see today. I hope you arnt going to take this personally, because i find most muslims see themselves as some sort of love-child of Mohammed - criticizing mohammed is akin to criticising them or their parents, which is an absurd level of blind faith.

[CC1981]

Is there any hindi equivalent?

hindi equivalent : achyoot ( untouchable). Sanskrit equivalent : mlechcha .