Agnostic_Indian
Regular Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2010
- Messages
- 930
- Likes
- 246
I never said hindu terroirm = islamic terror, don't try to create a smoke screen, i very well know that and acknowledged the fact that hindu terrorism is very rare where as islamic trrrorism is very big. If i spoke about dadri here then it's becuse of the type of audience here, that's tue same reason I didn't post on malda thread..its obvious that you all condemn the incident, i agree and share your sentiments.we all agree on that. There used to be a poster from pakistan called Neo, i have had many dabtes with him on kashmir issue and other things on another forum, but here i never bothered to debate him, becuse here there is already a big pool of posters defending indian position against him.Guy goes on and on about secularism/progressive/rationality but :-
1. Repeatedly uses false equivalences and sophistry to make absurd claims like Hindu terror = Islamic terror. You'll never catch this guy speaking on Malda or the recent story in his own home state where a man's studio was burnt down for criticizing Islamic practices :-
http://www.thenewsminute.com/articl...ld-studio-burnt-down-criticising-purdah-37201
But ask him about Dadri and he will give you entire essay's on the subject.
Yes i opposed uncontrolled freedom of expression. I dont see pk to be offensice, sensor bord has given the green signal too. I didnt find kamal hassan's viswaroopam too to be okey although islamic groups protested against it, what do you say about that ? Where is selected fos ?2. In this free speech thread, one can see how he keeps arguing against absolute FOS :-
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...jp-watches-silently.74585/page-4#post-1114219
This is after he supports PK movie and cow slaughter despite both being offensive to Hindus. Why this selectiveness about FOS comes into question when Islam is on receiving end ?
In the same thread he gets into an argument with mad_indian over islam, repeatedly told mad_indian that he was spreading "false things about islam ",says terrorists are misinterpreting quran, asks mods to take action against mad_indian for criticizing islam. :-
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...inions-demographics.74505/page-2#post-1112310
Such keen interest to defend Islam by a self proclaimed "agnostic". Always uses the "logical/illogical" trope against Hinduism though.
However i mentioned somthing really offensive, which is painting hindu godess in nude and vulgar mannner, that was offensive IMO.
Cow is not holy for non hindus and non belivers and in a secular state others right to eat cannont be restricted based on someone elses beliefs.others have no obligation to follow hindu scriptures. And i thought you agreed with me on that if i support Salman Rushdiees and Taslima nasreens books and support criticising islam and koran etc. And i agreed with you on all those things ? Did i disappointed you by agreeing to thise things ?
Lastly I dint complain against criticism against islam, mad indian was calling muhmmad a pedophile, so only i opposed it. There itself i mentioned my stand that abusing with illintention is not criticism.
FOr the xxxth time, there is plenty of other sources and a sight being islamic doesn't automatically make things posted there to be wrong. So don't try to clutch on to straws.3. Uses islamist propoganda sites that have obvious ulterior agendas against Hindus. "Islam-Hinduism initiative" and "Sunni tigers" talking about Beef in Hinduism. He could not come up with a Hindu source or even an atheist/agnostic source.
And here is my perfectly rational explenation for that.4. You can see more of his tom foolery in the paris terror thread, where he was in doubt about paris being a religiously motivated attack :-
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/paris-terror-attack-13-11.73898/page-9#post-1101812
Standard "terror has no religion" trope.
He think people on this forum are foolish enough to think that are isolated incidences and people can't add up things or smell the bias in his posting patterns. There are many more e.g. but I'll leave it for people to judge.
I said most probably it's a islamic terrorism. If my position was " ferror has no religion " then i would not have named the terrrorism as islamic terrorism, would i ?
"I said most probably.... in this case it is 99 %..If french govt confirmed it then its 100%. "
I had missed the post which said some terrorist grope claimed the responsibility, thats why my post said " most probably ". but given the hostility you have i don't expect you to belive that i missed that part, lets say I saw that comment and yet said most probably. Even then most probably is enough and apt term to use there. the terrorist claimed responsibility then it's 99 % sure that it's an islamic terrorism. Why leve the 1% chance ? Terrorists often take credit for ops that have not done, so only govt confirmation can make it 100% sure.