Time to create Pakistan II

by Rishi Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:47 pm

I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:54 pm

Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

have you experienced much hostility from indian muslims?

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:55 pm

the south indian muslims are different from the north indian muslims. south indian muslims wine, dine, lingua and lungi with their non muslm neighbours. please do not extrapolate your observation to all of india. nandri!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:05 pm

Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

I differ.... your method will never solve anything... same "secular" story will repeat - exactly what the Koranists want to do.

Here is a solution:

Invade pakistan and divide pakistan and give one part to our Islamic brethren of India. That is the least we should do for our "brothers." Of course, those who want to live in India should be allowed to do so - if they converted to Hinduism, Budhism, Sikhism or Jainism - hey we are after all secular.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:16 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.
have you experienced much hostility from indian muslims?

Of course not. All the bombs and killings, riots, are caused by Hindu terrorists who take on muslim names and act like muslims, thus bringing a bad name to muslims who respect all religions. This is exactly what happened to the 9/11 incident as well. There it was Jewish groups acting like Muslims and in India it is the Hindus who are the real terrorists.

In fact Indian's home minister Shinde and LeT leader said the same thing. They don't lie like the hindus.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:35 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:...All the bombs and killings, riots, are caused by Hindu terrorists...

not all, but most.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:51 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Of course, those who want to live in India should be allowed to do so - if they converted to Hinduism, Budhism, Sikhism or Jainism - hey we are after all secular.

I am curious... when did you convert to Christianity? If you haven't, is your prescription only for the country that you left decades ago, not for the one you live in?

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:54 pm

Rishi wrote:Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

Yeah, if not for those pesky Muslims, Hindus would live in permanent peace among themselves. Never mind all the caste-related violence!

by southindian Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:33 pm

Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

The Hyderabadi Jinnah II is out there and just as in 1940s Indians are ready to appease 'them', so your dream could soon come true.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:38 pm

Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

Is that the best India can do? I am sure our brilliant rationalistic SU-CH scholars have an idea or two to solve this minor problem (like shipping all chaddis to PakiSatan so that they can all get killed and the brilliant scholars can live in paradise here on earth and "discuss" issues among themselves).

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:58 pm

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Of course, those who want to live in India should be allowed to do so - if they converted to Hinduism, Budhism, Sikhism or Jainism - hey we are after all secular.
I am curious... when did you convert to Christianity? If you haven't, is your prescription only for the country that you left decades ago, not for the one you live in?

No need... As and when hindus indulge in terror acts and the US public perception of Hindus in US become like those of the US muslims, then I certainly will leave the terrorist hindusim...and become a Jehova Witness...

So are you with JM that most terrorist killings and incidents in India are caused by Hindus? Looks like only hindus in India are terrorists. No wonder, the pieceful islam has been trying to convert all muslims for the last 1000 years.

by southindian Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:06 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Of course, those who want to live in India should be allowed to do so - if they converted to Hinduism, Budhism, Sikhism or Jainism - hey we are after all secular.
I am curious... when did you convert to Christianity? If you haven't, is your prescription only for the country that you left decades ago, not for the one you live in?

No need... As and when hindus indulge in terror acts and the US public perception of Hindus in US become like those of the US muslims, then I certainly will leave the terrorist hindusim...and become a Jehova Witness...

So are you with JM that most terrorist killings and incidents in India are caused by Hindus? Looks like only hindus in India are terrorists. No wonder, the pieceful islam has been trying to convert all muslims for the last 1000 years.

Good one.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:38 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:No need... As and when hindus indulge in terror acts and the US public perception of Hindus in US become like those of the US muslims, then I certainly will leave the terrorist hindusim...and become a Jehova Witness...

So terrorism is the distinguishing factor here, eh? If someone from one religion commits terrorist acts, then your prescription is to expel everyone who happens to follow that religion. What if someone who speaks your native language commits terrorist acts -- should you be expelled in that case? How about those who belong to the same case, have similar dress / food habits, or some other similar attribute as a terrorist? Expel them all?

Most Indian Muslims have been living in India for several generations. Their attachment to and claims over India are much stronger than yours and mine in this country.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:So are you with JM that most terrorist killings and incidents in India are caused by Hindus?

Jerji's delusions are entirely his own problem, not mine.

You mentioned "bombs and killings, riots." Most terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Islamist extremists, although there are exceptions. And the bulk of other killings and riots are perpetrated by Hindus, although there are exceptions.

by goodcitizn Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:53 pm

Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

I just saw this. You need to have your head examined. I am not sure if a brain scan detects bigotry.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:55 pm

goodcitizn wrote:I am not sure if a brain scan detects bigotry.

If anyone wants to try and design such a scan, there's an excellent experimental group right here on SuCH.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:21 pm

panini press wrote:So terrorism is the distinguishing factor here, eh? If someone from one religion commits terrorist acts, then your prescription is to expel everyone who happens to follow that religion. What if someone who speaks your native language commits terrorist acts -- should you be expelled in that case? How about those who belong to the same case, have similar dress / food habits, or some other similar attribute as a terrorist? Expel them all?

Most Indian Muslims have been living in India for several generations. Their attachment to and claims over India are much stronger than yours and mine in this country.

1. wake up and smell the coffee... are you living on the red planet ? SOMEONE from ONE religion ? ask 10 american or international colleagues in your office INFORMALLY (please dont count islamis when you do a survey on islamis). how many terrorist acts are by budshist, hindus, or even christians in the last 2 years ? hm..hm.... INCIDENTS...dont count Gujarat - ONE incident and 600 muslims killed and twist it like Rashmullah Jehadi Sir ji.

2. Most Indians living in India lived for generations as FORMER hindus. why did they ask for a separate land ? once given a piece of land and signed on the dotted line, they lost rights to India even if they lived here for generations. They should NOT have asked for a separate land if they are so much attached to India and should not bomb and kill hindus if they so much thought their ancestors were after all hindus.

by Rishi Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:35 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

I just saw this. You need to have your head examined. I am not sure if a brain scan detects bigotry.

In my plan, Pakistan II will be an independent country. If you conduct a secret poll among Indian Muslims, I bet they will vote 99% for Pakistan II.

by goodcitizn Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:42 pm

Rishi wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Rishi wrote:I think, as long as Muslims are more than 0.005% of the population, There is going to be riots and killings. Pakistan I does not want them.

Hindus and Muslims simply cannot live together.

Why not set aside a part of India for Pakistan II where all the Muslims in India can move to and manage their own affairs? There will be permanent peace then.

I just saw this. You need to have your head examined. I am not sure if a brain scan detects bigotry.

In my plan, Pakistan II will be an independent country. If you conduct a secret poll among Indian Muslims, I bet they will vote 99% for Pakistan II.

I don't agree.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:49 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Rishi wrote:
In my plan, Pakistan II will be an independent country. If you conduct a secret poll among Indian Muslims, I bet they will vote 99% for Pakistan II.

I don't agree.

I also don't agree. The Koranists have figured out that they are closer to their goal of annexing the whole of India. They thought 50 years ago slicing India in stages was the best way to islamise entire India. Now they realize that their numbers are close to 25% they can simply take the whole of India in one big piece and in a much shorter time.

Why should they agree for Paki II ? they are not as dumb as hindus. With friends like PP, Rashmunullah Jehadi, JM, and Maulana Merlot, they have no worries.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:51 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:how many terrorist acts are by budshist, hindus, or even christians in the last 2 years ?

I told you, most terrorist acts are committed by Islamists. The exceptions are those committed by the Hindus. Have you heard of the one in Sriperumbudur where they killed the Leader of the Opposition of India's parliament? It was the terrorist attack that killed the highest profile politician ever killed by terrorists in India.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:2. Most Indians living in India lived for generations as FORMER hindus. why did they ask for a separate land ? once given a piece of land and signed on the dotted line, they lost rights to India even if they lived here for generations. They should NOT have asked for a separate land if they are so much attached to India and should not bomb and kill hindus if they so much thought their ancestors were after all hindus.

The Muslims who live in India now chose to live in India. They chose secular India over theocratic Pakistan.

by Rishi Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:07 pm

The Muslims who live in India now chose to live in India. They chose secular India over theocratic Pakistan.

Not really.

Many Muslims in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh wanted to go to Pakistan. It was impossible given the logistics.

by Rishi Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:11 pm

Have you heard of the one in Sriperumbudur where they killed the Leader of the Opposition of India's parliament? It was the terrorist attack that killed the highest profile politician ever killed by terrorists in India.

Religion had nothing to with it.

Most of the Hindus in TN have no kindred feelings towards LTTE anyway.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:13 pm

Rishi wrote:The Muslims who live in India now chose to live in India. They chose secular India over theocratic Pakistan.

Not really.

Many Muslims in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh wanted to go to Pakistan. It was impossible given the logistics.

The Muslims of UP who really wanted to go to Pakistan did. The Muslims of Bihar who really wanted to go to Pakistan did -- but ended up in Bangladesh.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:14 pm

Rishi wrote:Have you heard of the one in Sriperumbudur where they killed the Leader of the Opposition of India's parliament? It was the terrorist attack that killed the highest profile politician ever killed by terrorists in India.

Religion had nothing to with it.

Most of the Hindus in TN have no kindred feelings towards LTTE anyway.

I was asking Saamiyaar if religion is the only basis on which his proposed expulsions should work. You are welcome to answer it as well. Why does religion get put on a pedestal and become the primary driver of a person's identity?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:15 pm

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:how many terrorist acts are by budshist, hindus, or even christians in the last 2 years ?
I told you, most terrorist acts are committed by Islamists. The exceptions are those committed by the Hindus. Have you heard of the one in Sriperumbudur where they killed the Leader of the Opposition of India's parliament? It was the terrorist attack that killed the highest profile politician ever killed by terrorists in India.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:2. Most Indians living in India lived for generations as FORMER hindus. why did they ask for a separate land ? once given a piece of land and signed on the dotted line, they lost rights to India even if they lived here for generations. They should NOT have asked for a separate land if they are so much attached to India and should not bomb and kill hindus if they so much thought their ancestors were after all hindus.
The Muslims who live in India now chose to live in India. They chose secular India over theocratic Pakistan.

1. When was it ? 1990? 1991? for every 1991, there are at least 25 11/26 killings by Koranists.

2. They chose ? what are you trying to do ? Akbarising the Indian partition history?

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:19 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:1. When was it ? 1990? 1991? for every 1991, there are at least 25 11/26 killings by Koranists.

Right, and that's why I said most terrorist attacks were by Islamists. Duh.

But tell me this... why is religion the only basis on which your proposed expulsions should work? Why not language? After all, no Islamist group has ever succeeded in killing an ex-PM or a Leader of the Opposition.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:2. They chose ? what are you trying to do ? Akbarising the Indian partition history?

Are you saying they stayed against their will? If they did, then your entire theory that they sought a separate country for themselves falls apart!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:32 pm

panini press wrote:
Rishi wrote:Have you heard of the one in Sriperumbudur where they killed the Leader of the Opposition of India's parliament? It was the terrorist attack that killed the highest profile politician ever killed by terrorists in India.

Religion had nothing to with it.

Most of the Hindus in TN have no kindred feelings towards LTTE anyway.
I was asking Saamiyaar if religion is the only basis on which his proposed expulsions should work. You are welcome to answer it as well. Why does religion get put on a pedestal and become the primary driver of a person's identity?

It is not OTHERS but the Koranists who put religion on a pedestal and attribute all their terrorist acts to their religion.

Nothing wrong in using the same terminology by which they swear their allegiance.

in 1991 - note in 1991 - the killing was done for political reasons and no terrorist claimed in the name of Hinduism. Naturally, it is not right to drag hinduism into that act. When communists kill it is in the name of Communism; Nagas do it it in the name Nagas. When it is done by Muslims in the name islam - then it is only natural to drag in Islam.

if you deny this, then I agree you win.

Om Namoh Rashmnunaiya Namah.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:36 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:It is not OTHERS but the Koranists who put religion on a pedestal and attribute all their terrorist acts to their religion.

Nothing wrong in using the same terminology by which they swear their allegiance.

It is stupidity to concede the terms of the debate to your enemy. If you adopt the same manner of thinking as the Islamists, they win and you lose.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:in 1991 - note in 1991 - the killing was done for political reasons and no terrorist claimed in the name of Hinduism. Naturally, it is not right to drag hinduism into that act.

It was done in the name of Tamil-speaking people. So are you calling for the expulsion of Tamil-speaking people from India? That is my question. Why is religion the only attribute of significance, when others have been the basis for terrorism in history?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:42 pm

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:It is not OTHERS but the Koranists who put religion on a pedestal and attribute all their terrorist acts to their religion.

Nothing wrong in using the same terminology by which they swear their allegiance.
It is stupidity to concede the terms of the debate to your enemy. If you adopt the same manner of thinking as the Islamists, they win and you lose.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:in 1991 - note in 1991 - the killing was done for political reasons and no terrorist claimed in the name of Hinduism. Naturally, it is not right to drag hinduism into that act.
It was done in the name of Tamil-speaking people. So are you calling for the expulsion of Tamil-speaking people from India? That is my question. Why is religion the only attribute of significance, when others have been the basis for terrorism in history?

I would rather lose and live another day than win by dying in a bomb.

by Idéfix Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:46 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:It is not OTHERS but the Koranists who put religion on a pedestal and attribute all their terrorist acts to their religion.

Nothing wrong in using the same terminology by which they swear their allegiance.
It is stupidity to concede the terms of the debate to your enemy. If you adopt the same manner of thinking as the Islamists, they win and you lose.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:in 1991 - note in 1991 - the killing was done for political reasons and no terrorist claimed in the name of Hinduism. Naturally, it is not right to drag hinduism into that act.
It was done in the name of Tamil-speaking people. So are you calling for the expulsion of Tamil-speaking people from India? That is my question. Why is religion the only attribute of significance, when others have been the basis for terrorism in history?

I would rather lose and live another day than win by dying in a bomb.

You adopt their manner of thinking, but are not motivated enough to act on that style of thinking? Yeah, that's what I thought!

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:49 am

panini press wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:I am not sure if a brain scan detects bigotry.
If anyone wants to try and design such a scan, there's an excellent experimental group right here on SuCH.

You and Merlot obviously belong to the control group. Mani Shankar Iyer is another brilliant scholar who is well versed in pouring life into tiger bones.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:01 am

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:It is not OTHERS but the Koranists who put religion on a pedestal and attribute all their terrorist acts to their religion.

Nothing wrong in using the same terminology by which they swear their allegiance.
It is stupidity to concede the terms of the debate to your enemy. If you adopt the same manner of thinking as the Islamists, they win and you lose.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:in 1991 - note in 1991 - the killing was done for political reasons and no terrorist claimed in the name of Hinduism. Naturally, it is not right to drag hinduism into that act.
It was done in the name of Tamil-speaking people. So are you calling for the expulsion of Tamil-speaking people from India? That is my question. Why is religion the only attribute of significance, when others have been the basis for terrorism in history?

I would rather lose and live another day than win by dying in a bomb.
You adopt their manner of thinking, but are not motivated enough to act on that style of thinking? Yeah, that's what I thought!

Yeah rite... you and other fakularists are involved in actual back door diplomacy between Owaisi Akbar and Togadia and actively spreading peace...or are you doing it Nakeeran style ?.... Razz

by Captain Bhankas Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:21 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:south indian muslims wine, dine, lingua and lungi with their non muslm neighbours. please do not extrapolate your observation to all of india. nandri!

hahaha

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:33 am

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:It is not OTHERS but the Koranists who put religion on a pedestal and attribute all their terrorist acts to their religion.

Nothing wrong in using the same terminology by which they swear their allegiance.
It is stupidity to concede the terms of the debate to your enemy. If you adopt the same manner of thinking as the Islamists, they win and you lose.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:in 1991 - note in 1991 - the killing was done for political reasons and no terrorist claimed in the name of Hinduism. Naturally, it is not right to drag hinduism into that act.
It was done in the name of Tamil-speaking people. So are you calling for the expulsion of Tamil-speaking people from India? That is my question. Why is religion the only attribute of significance, when others have been the basis for terrorism in history?

I would rather lose and live another day than win by dying in a bomb.
You adopt their manner of thinking, but are not motivated enough to act on that style of thinking? Yeah, that's what I thought!

Bwahahaha...Upps Aunty in fact would need to slit many a goat's throat before s(he) summons up enough courage to step outside after 8pm, leave alone do something violent - like daintily slap a Muslim.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:09 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Bwahahaha...Upps Aunty in fact would need to slit many a goat's throat before s(he) summons up enough courage to step outside after 8pm, leave alone do something violent - like daintily slap a Muslim.[/quote]

You keep a goat? Hmm.....

by Propagandhi711 Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:18 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:the south indian muslims are different from the north indian muslims. south indian muslims wine, dine, lingua and lungi with their non muslm neighbours. please do not extrapolate your observation to all of india. nandri!

bwaahahaa@south indian muslims lingua, lingum & lungi-ing with their non muslim neighbors!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:40 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Bwahahaha...Upps Aunty in fact would need to slit many a goat's throat before s(he) summons up enough courage to step outside after 8pm, leave alone do something violent - like daintily slap a Muslim.

You keep a goat? Hmm.....[/quote]

Shhhhhhh...somethings you just dont ask... you infer - Disappearance during bombings, support for and gay exchanges with Rashmunullah Jehadi, Freq Goat references, constant fantasies of walking through "friendly neighborhood" expecting Goat-ish experience from Goateed men .

And, note that he posts a long post indicating his fantasies on a thread on Hyderabad Bombing - but with not a word of comment/condemnation of the bombing. The only ones who have not condemned are those who placed the bombs. Infer and infer.

by Idéfix Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:01 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The only ones who have not condemned are those who placed the bombs. Infer and infer.

Psst... you better issue a condemnation quickly, or else you might start "inferring and inferring" that you placed the bombs yourself. After all, you haven't condemned the attacks yourself!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:27 pm

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The only ones who have not condemned are those who placed the bombs. Infer and infer.
Psst... you better issue a condemnation quickly, or else you might start "inferring and inferring" that you placed the bombs yourself. After all, you haven't condemned the attacks yourself!

Thot you labeled me as a hindu fanatic. A condemnation is needed only for those iSlamic sympathizers who are masquerading as hindus - otherwise their cover will come off.

My condemnation has no meaning - bcz what else do you expect from me ?

by Idéfix Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:34 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The only ones who have not condemned are those who placed the bombs. Infer and infer.
Psst... you better issue a condemnation quickly, or else you might start "inferring and inferring" that you placed the bombs yourself. After all, you haven't condemned the attacks yourself!

Thot you labeled me as a hindu fanatic. A condemnation is needed only for those iSlamic sympathizers who are masquerading as hindus - otherwise their cover will come off.

My condemnation has no meaning - bcz what else do you expect from me ?

Oh, so your rules apply only to others, not yourself. I see.

Your proposal in this thread is one that would make India more like Pakistan. So you better issue a condemnation, so people don't wonder about your motives. Razz

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:05 pm

panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The only ones who have not condemned are those who placed the bombs. Infer and infer.
Psst... you better issue a condemnation quickly, or else you might start "inferring and inferring" that you placed the bombs yourself. After all, you haven't condemned the attacks yourself!

Thot you labeled me as a hindu fanatic. A condemnation is needed only for those iSlamic sympathizers who are masquerading as hindus - otherwise their cover will come off.

My condemnation has no meaning - bcz what else do you expect from me ?
Oh, so your rules apply only to others, not yourself. I see.

Your proposal in this thread is one that would make India more like Pakistan. So you better issue a condemnation, so people don't wonder about your motives.

Ok..... you win.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:28 pm

Winning is an important rationalistic end point! For this, brilliant rationalists temporarily borrow an idea from Hinduism - all paths lead to the same goal!

I remember my nephew playing with his friends when he was a toddler. He won't quit until he wins (or convinces himself that he won). If anyone praises the other guy, he would start crying!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:36 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Winning is an important rationalistic end point! For this, brilliant rationalists temporarily borrow an idea from Hinduism - all paths lead to the same goal!

I remember my nephew playing with his friends when he was a toddler. He won't quit until he wins (or convinces himself that he won). If anyone praises the other guy, he would start crying!

Hahaha.... I know some kids like that.

If anyone wants to do a Psychoanalysis and study on such characters we have a small - but ideal group of such people....

by Idéfix Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:43 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The only ones who have not condemned are those who placed the bombs. Infer and infer.
Psst... you better issue a condemnation quickly, or else you might start "inferring and inferring" that you placed the bombs yourself. After all, you haven't condemned the attacks yourself!

Thot you labeled me as a hindu fanatic. A condemnation is needed only for those iSlamic sympathizers who are masquerading as hindus - otherwise their cover will come off.

My condemnation has no meaning - bcz what else do you expect from me ?
Oh, so your rules apply only to others, not yourself. I see.

Your proposal in this thread is one that would make India more like Pakistan. So you better issue a condemnation, so people don't wonder about your motives.

Ok..... you win.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize I was in this competition. I thought it was between you and the Islamists.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:34 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:...All the bombs and killings, riots, are caused by Hindu terrorists...
not all, but most.

Really

Most = at least 51%..?

Or, do you have some other definition from Queen's Dictionary?

Care to explain the arithmetic ?

by Rishi Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:48 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:...All the bombs and killings, riots, are caused by Hindu terrorists...
not all, but most.

Really

Most = at least 51%..?

Or, do you have some other definition from Queen's Dictionary?

Care to explain the arithmetic ?

I think I know what JM is implying.

He says most of the times, the Hindus provoke Muslims into retaliating violently.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:00 pm

Rishi wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:...All the bombs and killings, riots, are caused by Hindu terrorists...
not all, but most.

Really

Most = at least 51%..?

Or, do you have some other definition from Queen's Dictionary?

Care to explain the arithmetic ?

I think I know what JM is implying.

He says most of the times, the Hindus provoke Muslims into retaliating violently.

I will give you even better explanations:

Ancestors of 95% of muslims were hindus once upon a time. Therefore, all muslim-initiated terror acts may be considered acts of hindus.

another skewed explanation: Muslims are peaceful and respect all religions equally - even Koran says that. Therefore, any muslim terror act COULD have been initiated by non-muslims - hence, hindus in India.

by goodcitizn Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:44 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rishi wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:...All the bombs and killings, riots, are caused by Hindu terrorists...
not all, but most.
Really
Most = at least 51%..?
Or, do you have some other definition from Queen's Dictionary?
Care to explain the arithmetic ?
I think I know what JM is implying.
He says most of the times, the Hindus provoke Muslims into retaliating violently.
I will give you even better explanations:

Ancestors of 95% of muslims were hindus once upon a time. Therefore, all muslim-initiated terror acts may be considered acts of hindus.

another skewed explanation: Muslims are peaceful and respect all religions equally - even Koran says that. Therefore, any muslim terror act COULD have been initiated by non-muslims - hence, hindus in India.

Why is the need for people to interpret what JM means by what he says?
I think it is a waste of time to suggest Pakistan II. That is not happening. Looks like this is just an opportunity for finger pointing based on religious bigotry, nothing else.

by Rishi Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:11 am

I think it is a waste of time to suggest Pakistan II.

99.9% of what people do here is a waste of time.

by Kris Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:24 am

Rishi wrote:I think it is a waste of time to suggest Pakistan II.

99.9% of what people do here is a waste of time.

>>>>Which threads constitute the other 0.1%, if I may ask? Smile

by Sponsored content