VHP says Answer to terrorism is counter terrorism

[surajmal]

Don't really understand where your ire is directed at here. Did Laloo do anything of note to alleviate the sufferings of his "votebank"? Who gained in the entire process? Out of curiosity, who voted for Nitish Kumar then? What was the % shift (estimated) in votes from Laloo's loyal votebank to Nitish. If Laloo's "votebank" were going to vote him ( or his illiterate) wife into power just on the basis of caste or religious considerations, why did he finally lose?

are you being intentionally thick or do you not grasp the concept of people getting tired of a kleptocracy? The only reason it hasn't happened on mass scale is because large part of this country is still stuck in its shell(s). Its gonna happen one way or other. The only question that these people need to ask is , "are they gonna be on the right side of history or wrong?"

[Mariyam]

are you being intentionally thick or do you not grasp the concept of people getting tired of a kleptocracy? The only reason it hasn't happened on mass scale is because large part of this country is still stuck in its shell(s). Its gonna happen one way or other. The only question that these people need to ask is ' date=' "are they gonna be on the right side of history or wrong?"[/quote'] Are you being intentionally rude or do you just not grasp the concept of people conducting a civilized debate? Believe it or not, caste politics of Bihar is not really an area of interest for me. Seedhi seems like someone who knows what he's talking about, and I asked him a few question. So that I understand him better. Don't see any reason why you should get so agitated. :hmmm: Anyways, thanks for the response.

[seedhi]

Don't really understand where your ire is directed at here. Did Laloo do anything of note to alleviate the sufferings of his "votebank"? Who gained in the entire process? Out of curiosity, who voted for Nitish Kumar then? What was the % shift (estimated) in votes from Laloo's loyal votebank to Nitish. If Laloo's "votebank" were going to vote him ( or his illiterate) wife into power just on the basis of caste or religious considerations, why did he finally lose?

I am just pointing out the absurdity of comparing people in Gujarat voting for Modi with people in Bihar voting for Laloo in the context of votebank politics. Just to give you an example, in the 1990s when the country as a whole had an economic growth rate of around 7%, Bihar grew at around 2%. There were equally bad law and order problems as well. But he kept on winning on caste and religion based voting. He was also lauded as a champion of "secularism" by the left leaning intelligentsia. They obviously forgot that the people in Bihar cannot eat his "secularism". Eventually of course people got fed up of this clown, but it will take decades to make up of for what the state suffered under his rule.

[Tiger80]

I am just pointing out the absurdity of comparing people in Gujarat voting for Modi with people in Bihar voting for Laloo in the context of votebank politics. Just to give you an example, in the 1990s when the country as a whole had an economic growth rate of around 7%, Bihar grew at around 2%. There were equally bad law and order problems as well. But he kept on winning on caste and religion based voting. He was also lauded as a champion of "secularism" by the left leaning intelligentsia. They obviously forgot that the people in Bihar cannot eat his "secularism". Eventually of course people got fed up of this clown, but it will take decades to make up of for what the state suffered under his rule.

Voting pattern in India is Mystery.Nothing can gurantee you that people will vote for you not even development.Atleast people of Bihar voted laloo out in 15 years ,what about Bengal.It takes 34 years for people to vote out Communists despite very poor development and that too When opposition adopted some techniques which were earlier adopted by them.

[seedhi]

I'm no expert on Islamic theology' date=' and from my *limited* study of the Holy Quran, I can say that your choice of words is a little off the mark. From your statement, I'd replace "condemns" with "berates" and "only" with "final". [/quote']Saying that kaafirs are going to suffer eternal hell, is not "berating", it is explicit condemnation. Saying that Jews are turned into apes and pigs is the same.If your reference is to Hinduism, then the difference is that there has been a lot of reform of the caste based dogma in Hindu society. It may take a while, but the effort is there from within the religion. Almost every thing in Hinduism is open to reform and change, and in that sense very little is inherent to it. While recognizing the problems in Hindu society I would say that there is hope for change. On the other hand, those verses in the Koran or in the Hadiths are frozen, they cannot be challenged. It is no coincidence that many of the Islamic countries in the world are among the most parochial and least progressive. I mean just for comparison, the Shia-Sunni in Islam divide is claiming countless lives each year even today, while the analogous Shaivite-Vaishnavite divide in Hindu society was resolved a millennium ago. What do you do if a belief system makes it unquestionably obligatory to consider non-believers as inferior who have to be discriminated against?

[Lurker]

I am just pointing out the absurdity of comparing people in Gujarat voting for Modi with people in Bihar voting for Laloo in the context of votebank politics. Just to give you an example, in the 1990s when the country as a whole had an economic growth rate of around 7%, Bihar grew at around 2%. There were equally bad law and order problems as well. But he kept on winning on caste and religion based voting. He was also lauded as a champion of "secularism" by the left leaning intelligentsia. They obviously forgot that the people in Bihar cannot eat his "secularism".Eventually of course people got fed up of this clown, but it will take decades to make up of for what the state suffered under his rule.

'suppose thats one way to look at it. Another way to look at things is - Would Muslims "eat" Gujarat opulence if they were being slaugheted in streets under Modi? I can not beleive I have to defend Laloo Yadav. Never thought that day would happen. But here is the bottomline. I have lived through the worst days of Bihar casteism. Right from the days when Mandal Commission happened and students from Patel Chatravaas went out swinging with talwaar-bhaalas in the backwaters of Ramanujam Hostel in Patna. Yes Laloo Yadav was a thief and someone who ran Bihar into the ground. But during his, and those before him, from my teenage years to when I was at Engineering college, I never had to worry about religious riots. This in a state where the population of Muslims is one of the highest in the country. This in a state where poverty is more than most states. But people did NOT turn up against each other on religious lines, they did however on caste lines. Laloo's "secularism" had absolutely nothing to do with this. Had it been Nitish or somebody else we would still have been well off. Bihar, unlike Gujarat, does not suffer from religious insecurity. Now if your assertion is casteism screwed up Bihar I agree completely. heck that was my first post saying Hindus have screwed up India with their nonsense. Muslims tend to become soft targets. xxx

[seedhi]

'suppose thats one way to look at it. Another way to look at things is - Would Muslims "eat" Gujarat opulence if they were being slaugheted in streets under Modi?

Obviously not, and I suppose Muslims must have voted against Modi unanimously in 2002 elections, and legitimately so. But after that there hasnt been any communal flare up, and certainly those guilty of riots in 2002 will be punished. The cases and investigation is going on. The point is that, for 15 years Laloo Yadav willfully neglected his state, he caricatured its citizens and made his state a laughing stock of the country. The man used to boast how he is anti-development. Will he ever be punished for this? Is there any deterrent for malgovernance?

I can not beleive I have to defend Laloo Yadav. Never thought that day would happen. But here is the bottomline. I have lived through the worst days of Bihar casteism. Right from the days when Mandal Commission happened and students from Patel Chatravaas went out swinging with talwaar-bhaalas in the backwaters of Ramanujam Hostel in Patna. Yes Laloo Yadav was a thief and someone who ran Bihar into the ground. But during his, and those before him, from my teenage years to when I was at Engineering college, I never had to worry about religious riots. This in a state where the population of Muslims is one of the highest in the country. This in a state where poverty is more than most states. But people did NOT turn up against each other on religious lines, they did however on caste lines. Laloo's "secularism" had absolutely nothing to do with this. Had it been Nitish or somebody else we would still have been well off. Bihar, unlike Gujarat, does not suffer from religious insecurity. Now if your assertion is casteism screwed up Bihar I agree completely. heck that was my first post saying Hindus have screwed up India with their nonsense. Muslims tend to become soft targets. xxx

Firstly, I think you have forgotten Bhagalpur riots. Some of the biggest riots during partition took place in Bihar. But I was not talking about the religious culture in Bihar. I was not even criticizing Laloo Yadav for his "secular" pretensions. I was only commenting about the attitude of the leftists of whitewashing misgovernance under the pretext of secularism.

[coffee_rules]

Religion is not at fault, relgious people are. They should keep their religious beliefs in their head and not on their sleeves. The same is true about athiests as well. They wear their belief on their sleeve, and tend to be fundamentalists. I believe in Dont-ask-Dont-tell policy for religious beliefs.

[Sachin=GOD]

Don't really understand where your ire is directed at here. Did Laloo do anything of note to alleviate the sufferings of his "votebank"? Who gained in the entire process? Out of curiosity, who voted for Nitish Kumar then? What was the % shift (estimated) in votes from Laloo's loyal votebank to Nitish. If Laloo's "votebank" were going to vote him ( or his illiterate) wife into power just on the basis of caste or religious considerations, why did he finally lose?

He did absolutely nothing which would lead to any kind of development in the state while his party was in power. I guess there's a limit to how much misgovernance people can take.

[Lurker]

Religion is not at fault' date=' relgious people are. [b']They should keep their religious beliefs in their head and not on their sleeves. The same is true about athiests as well. They wear their belief on their sleeve, and tend to be fundamentalists. I believe in Dont-ask-Dont-tell policy for religious beliefs.

Quite right on both. Athiests (some of them) are no different than religious fundamentalists. They can be steadfast that God does not exist and will spare no argument to prove the beleivers wrong. A good example is the comedian Bill Maher. While I personally like the chap I detest how whenever religion pops up for discussion he would just try to run the person down. All of a sudden Live and let Live goes for a toss.

[Lurker]

Obviously not, and I suppose Muslims must have voted against Modi unanimously in 2002 elections, and legitimately so. But after that there hasnt been any communal flare up, and certainly those guilty of riots in 2002 will be punished. The cases and investigation is going on. The point is that, for 15 years Laloo Yadav willfully neglected his state, he caricatured its citizens and made his state a laughing stock of the country. The man used to boast how he is anti-development. Will he ever be punished for this? Is there any deterrent for malgovernance?

I fail to see where you are disagreeing with me(are you)? If Lalloo neglected his state who should be primarily blamed for still voting him in? Shouldnt the onus lie with the electorate as well, bulk of which would be Hindus? Isnt that what I have suggested in my very first post? That biggest culprits who have pulled India down tends to be Hindus, are almost always voted in by Hindus and yet people end up taking religious card and go after a section which in the larger scheme of things have hardly done as much damage.

Firstly, I think you have forgotten Bhagalpur riots. Some of the biggest riots during partition took place in Bihar. But I was not talking about the religious culture in Bihar. I was not even criticizing Laloo Yadav for his "secular" pretensions. I was only commenting about the attitude of the leftists of whitewashing misgovernance under the pretext of secularism.

Bhagalpur is same to Bihar, what Godhra is to India. Anytime somebody mentions India's pluralism and Secularism those who are critical will bring up Godhra. As if had Godhra not happened they were completely on board with India as the secular cradle of the world. Same with Bihar. All that one needs to do is to bring up Bhagalpur as if it negates everything before and after. Funny thing is I roamed around Bhagalpur with my Muslim room partner in early 90s when religious divide was sharp across bulk of India. We both were there to write Engineering exams and in the night just wandered around streets as young kids typically do. And while for you (I dont mean that disrespectfully) it may be a city with riots, for me it remains the city by Ganges that had no religious undercurrent during some of the worst times in Indian history. I do digress of course, but whats life if one stays in designated corridors all the time?? The exam center at TNB Bhagalpur, one of the pristine colleges of East, sleeping on the railway platform over a stack of local newspapers and walking leisurely on a night that had no hatred smells like a million bucks even today. xxx

[Tiger80]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Atheism#Where_to_Find_Atheists Where to Find Atheists Most atheists don't exist outside of the Internet. Although you may not notice them at first, they are easy to find when you start looking for them. The average atheist will spend 95% of his or her life sitting by the computer, rather than leaving his or her grandparent's basement in search of actual social interaction. Most atheists believe they exist for the purpose of championing the cause of atheism and the advancement of evolution. They choose to do this online, because it is the single easiest place to find material for constructing strawmen. The average male atheist choses to do this by maintaining a blog on "rational thinking" or "evolution", which he will update 2 to 20 times a day. He will devote the rest of his day to searching for forums discussing God, creationism, or religion in general, on which he will hurl ad hominem attacks at any theist, but especially Christians, who the average atheist perceives as having a parasite attached to the brain, that will only stop feeding when the host cracks open anything written by Dick Dawkins. He will also use any response by Christians to stuff his strawman. Although the male atheist knows that, deep down inside, this time could be better spent meeting girls, he holds off in the belief that someday, when religion is banned, science will be cool and everyone who reads Darwin will finally get laid. These men are usually proud to call themselves apes and so constantly fling feces. These atheists can also be found on any forum that comes close to mentioning a Divine Power, twisting it into a debate on religon. For example, to bait atheists, start a thread with a subject like "Oh my God, Britney Spears is so ****ing hot" or "God bless the guy who invented peanut butter." The typical female atheist, on the other hand, prefers vlogging, and will use bare legs or cleavage to attract Christians to insult, or to excite fellow unbelievers into an unrighteous fury. They, like some male atheists, will randomly make up statistics pertaining to the number of people in the United States who don't believe in evolution or aren't bright enough to believe the same things they do. Of course, this doesn't apply to all atheists. The other 0.00009% actually have a life.

[Sachinism]

lolwut

[Andrew Peter]

The problem should have been solved in 1947 itself , if you want to establish your Islamic sultanate then take all your brothers along with yourself. Understand this, Islam in subcontinent divorced itself from the Hindu majority in 1947 officially with the creation of Pakistan, although their general apathy towards India was pretty much visible throughout the freedom movement barring a few token examples. Would rather prefer to live in a tiny nation where majority of the people belong to your religion ( Only Nominal ) and speak your language than see your state get divided due to religious differences only to be part of some fake Union of Billion People where the only binding connection of religion is proudly discarded and Islamization becomes rampant right after partition .

[Tiger80]

If Lalloo neglected his state who should be primarily blamed for still voting him in? Shouldnt the onus lie with the electorate as well, bulk of which would be Hindus? Isnt that what I have suggested in my very first post? That biggest culprits who have pulled India down tends to be Hindus, are almost always voted in by Hindus and yet people end up taking religious card and go after a section which in the larger scheme of things have hardly done as much damage.

In politics ,Politicians always pick up any card,Religion,Region,Ethnic,Language , Caste etc People just go and vote for parties whose feelings are strongly related to their heart.The people like laloo got elected because caste feelings were strongest at that time.The argument of electing corrupt politicians is not applicable on Hindu's only but on democracies of entire world as majority in many many countries vote for corrupt politicians, so one can say that this is one of the negative point of Democracy

[seedhi]

I fail to see where you are disagreeing with me(are you)?

I was only trying to point out that nine years after the Gujarat riots, to compare the darkest phase of Gujarat in 2002 with the abject failure of governance in Bihar for over a decade is disingenuous. The former had a dynamic of its own which overwhelmed the state while the latter was a deliberate and systematic ruination of a state for 15 years.

[Mariyam]

The problem should have been solved in 1947 itself , if you want to establish your Islamic sultanate then take all your brothers along with yourself. Understand this, Islam in subcontinent divorced itself from the Hindu majority in 1947 officially with the creation of Pakistan, although their general apathy towards India was pretty much visible throughout the freedom movement barring a few token examples. Would rather prefer to live in a tiny nation where majority of the people belong to your religion ( Only Nominal ) and speak your language than see your state get divided due to religious differences only to be part of some fake Union of Billion People where the only binding connection of religion is proudly discarded and Islamization becomes rampant right after partition .

But it is 2011, not 1947. You are stuck with this "problem", and its here to stay. Woulda/ Shoulda/ Coulda talk in 1947, 1857, 1100, 30000045 BC is not going to change ground reality today. Its up to you, you can try to reconcile the differences and solve the "problem", or continue being belligerent. Its a shame that you look upon an entire section of your own countrymen and women as a problem. Whats worse is you want some kind of linguistic unity. Where is that coming from? If religious and linguistic homogeneity were ready recipes for success, Tunisia or Nepal or Taiwan would be the greatest countries in the world. They are not.

[Mariyam]

Saying that kaafirs are going to suffer eternal hell, is not "berating", it is explicit condemnation. Saying that Jews are turned into apes and pigs is the same. What do you do if a belief system makes it unquestionably obligatory to consider non-believers as inferior who have to be discriminated against?

Seedhi, you ask some very profound questions. I'm afraid, I do not have the answer to all. But I'll give you my best attempt. Jews turned into Apes and Pigs is not something I have come across. If it really is in the Holy Quran, it is appalling. I would like to see the context too. I was under the impression that Jews (and Christians) were Ahl al Kitab , people of the book, for their prophets are also the prophets of Islam. There is a verse from the Holy Quran, that I would like to share with you. Its from the Surat al Kaffirun. ( Sura on Non Believers) It was revealed when prophet Mohammad ( S.A.W) was prosecuted by the non believers in Mecca. " Non believers, I do not worship that you worship. You do not worship that I worship. I shall not worship that you worship and you will not worship that I worship. For you be thine way (religion) and for me mine. " Lakum deenakum waleya deen Just wanted to let you know. Yes, Islamic countries today are among the most parochial and least progressive. But that wasn't always the case. Either ways, we are not an Islamic country. Why should we compare ourselves to them? And no Seedhi, Islam does not make it unquestionable obligatory to consider non believers are inferior. Yes, an interpretation , you can say, makes it obligatory for believers to consider the non belief as inferior. I can cite verses too. But then again, I'm not the right person to discuss scriptures. I'm sure you'll find many more who are better qualified than me who can do that.

[Mariyam]

Funny thing is I roamed around Bhagalpur with my Muslim room partner in early 90s when religious divide was sharp across bulk of India. We both were there to write Engineering exams and in the night just wandered around streets as young kids typically do. And while for you (I dont mean that disrespectfully) it may be a city with riots, for me it remains the city by Ganges that had no religious undercurrent during some of the worst times in Indian history. I do digress of course, but whats life if one stays in designated corridors all the time?? The exam center at TNB Bhagalpur, one of the pristine colleges of East, sleeping on the railway platform over a stack of local newspapers and walking leisurely on a night that had no hatred smells like a million bucks even today. xxx

Thanks for sharing. This is the kind of stuff that makes ICF fun. I'm digressing too, but what the hell. A few years ago, I had to attend a marriage in Lucknow. I can't remember why, but we flew to Kanpur and had people pick us up from there. On the way, there is a bridge across river Ganga that has to be crossed. At that stretch the river is enormous. Its even wider than the Thane Creek. It leaves you spell bound. For someone not used used to rivers, or used to the small rivers in Maharashtra, the sheer size of the Ganga is intimidating. Here's a pic I took. On the right is Kanpur and left (behind) is the side on which Lucknow is situated. Did you clear the exam? :P

[seedhi]

Seedhi, you ask some very profound questions. I'm afraid, I do not have the answer to all. But I'll give you my best attempt. Jews turned into Apes and Pigs is not something I have come across. If it really is in the Holy Quran, it is appalling. I would like to see the context too.

A section of Jews is cursed as apes in The Koran, and the meaning is made clear in a Hadith. Anyway, this is not a discussion of theology, but you dont have to be a a scholar to realise that the religious discourse in Islamic societies is dripping with hate for non-muslims, especially Jews.

I was under the impression that Jews (and Christians) were Ahl al Kitab , people of the book, for their prophets are also the prophets of Islam. There is a verse from the Holy Quran, that I would like to share with you. Its from the Surat al Kaffirun. ( Sura on Non Believers) It was revealed when prophet Mohammad ( S.A.W) was prosecuted by the non believers in Mecca. " Non believers, I do not worship that you worship. You do not worship that I worship. I shall not worship that you worship and you will not worship that I worship. For you be thine way (religion) and for me mine. " Lakum deenakum waleya deen

One verse does not make a book, and certainly not a religion. Take for example the concept of jaziya - something that was implemented in Islamic countries all over the world. What is it if not a form of economic discrimination? Before you point to the inequities in Hindu society (caste discrimination etc), let me point out that these are condemned by Hindu religious scholars of today and there is an attempt to reform through legal and religious discourse. But can any Muslim stand up and say that jaziya(for example) is wrong and discriminatory? Impossible, since that will contradict the following verse:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Just wanted to let you know. Yes, Islamic countries today are among the most parochial and least progressive. But that wasn't always the case. Either ways, we are not an Islamic country. Why should we compare ourselves to them?

Sure, at some point of time Christian dicourse was even more regressive than Islam. But then there was the renaissance and things changed and Europe emerged as more secular than religious.

And no Seedhi, Islam does not make it unquestionable obligatory to consider non believers are inferior. Yes, an interpretation , you can say, makes it obligatory for believers to consider the non belief as inferior. I can cite verses too. But then again, I'm not the right person to discuss scriptures. I'm sure you'll find many more who are better qualified than me who can do that.

Depends of what you consider to be Islam. If you include the Hadiths then there is simply no question about this. Even the Koran has enough in it, and the interpretation of almost every Islamic scholar (especially in Islamic countries) lends support to what I have said. For example, refer to the verse I have quoted. Only a very tortuous interpretation can attempt to whitewash it.