Nankana Sahib Altercation: News & Discussions

[SIPRA]

At least your retardedness went from "ALL MINORITIES ARE GONE FROM PAKISTAN AND I HAVE A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN SMALL DICK"
to "OKAY MINORITIES ARE INCREASING BUT I STILL HAVE A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN SMALL DICK"

Tun kay rakho, tun kay rakho
Ganguyan noon tun kay rakho

 

[Ultima Thule]

Get some help. Medical is free in Canada.

Ok, he has a small dick and will be treated accordingly but you have no brain but instead of brain you have a cow dung in your head which has no cure

 

[Haris Ali2140]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213454424640774144

 

[Windjammer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213460567010267142

 

[US North Won]

There is a difference between a State pushing discrimination upon their own citizens within their laws and mobs taking up criminal acts.

• When you declare Muslims as non-Muslims you are a state sanctioned discriminator.
• When you have constitutional laws that minorities in your state cannot hold high offices because of their religion. You are a discriminator as a state.
• When you have blasphemy laws that can be used against poor and minorities with little to no evidence by some village head in cohorts with under-educated judges in lower level courts, you are state discriminator.

In conclusion, this incident as with the lynchings in India are criminal activities by mobs and not state sanctioned.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Buddy, it's the supreme court of the country that gave out the award. No one can question that in India. They could appeal but as far as I know those petitions were also repealed. So it is a done deal.

One can go against majoritarianism but cannot against constitution. Because constitution is the one that is giving them the rights in the first place. If it is not there, no one gives a $hit to your feelings.

Yeah you see the problem arises when the supreme court is actually wrong. They are human. They are susceptible to the same weaknesses (making a mistake, being misled, being bribed, being coerced) as any other human being. Media, civil society, military and cultural institutions have all been threatened in recent times to toe the Hindutva line. Why would SC be any different? Recall the refusal of Indian cultural boards to support any artist who simply performs with a Pakistani or Pakistan-origin organization abroad.

The ideology is embedded in your cultural, sports, media and military institutions - that Pakistan, mughals, Muslims in India must all be opposed as enemies of the state and legacy of Hindustan. Why should judges be any different? It's laughable that you even think the opposite is possible.

 

[hussain0216]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213461488649867265

All resolved

 

[masterchief_mirza]

There is a difference between a State pushing discrimination upon their own citizens within their laws and mobs taking up criminal acts.

• When you declare Muslims as non-Muslims you are a state sanctioned discriminator.
• When you have constitutional laws that minorities in your state cannot hold high offices because of their religion. You are a discriminator as a state.
• When you have blasphemy laws that can be used against poor and minorities with little to no evidence by some village head in cohorts with under-educated judges in lower level courts, you are state discriminator.

In conclusion, this incident as with the lynchings in India are criminal activities by mobs and not state sanctioned.

The state of India has sanctioned, codified and endorsed policies that discriminate against Muslims. Is this so hard to accept when yogi, Modi and Shah all state so themselves clearly?

 

[US North Won]

The state of India has sanctioned, codified and endorsed policies that discriminate against Muslims. Is this so hard to accept when yogi, Modi and Shah all state so themselves clearly?

I have a propensity to deal in facts. What laws can you cite to backup your claims of state sanctioned discrimination?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I have a propensity to deal in facts. What laws can you cite to backup your claims of state sanctioned discrimination?

Do you know what CAA is?

Is your question the dumbest possible attempt I have seen to date at trying to sound smart with big words but no actual understanding of the basic realities that present themselves to you?

 

[US North Won]

Do you know what CAA is?

Is your question the dumbest possible attempt I have seen to date at trying to sound smart with big words but no actual understanding of the basic realities that present themselves to you?

I have studied CAA with great interest and detail. If Pakistanis who are agitating against it had bothered to read it, they would be ashamed that Imran Khan has taken up this cause. IK has, for reasons unknown, brought upon a self-inflicted wound by arguing that India should take Pakistani persecuted Muslims too. He is openly confessing that Pakistan persecutes minority sects among Muslims and that they too should be allowed to apply for asylum under CAA law.

• CAA is an asylum law for claimants outside of the country to apply or illegal immigrants residing in India
• All democracies have asylum laws, and all democracies have some discrimination in their asylum laws.
• CAA asylum law is offered to communities coming from non-muslim minority religions who are claiming to be persecuted in certain Islamic Republics. India is promising a fast track to citizenship if approved.
• We see several examples of discrimination under asylum laws in every country.
• Germany took in only Syrians under their asylum laws and no other country. 150K Syrians are said to be killed while 450K Sudanese were killed under similar war-torn circumstances. Yet Germany did not allow Sudanese this option.
• In my country, we don't allow Muslims from certain countries to apply under immigration laws.
• In Pakistan, people were very upset when there was some talk about allowing Afghan refugees to be citizens

Asylum laws are intentionally discriminatory in nature in every country

Seemingly, you too have not bothered to read the law and have followed the pied piper.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I have studied CAA with great interest and detail. If Pakistanis who are agitating against it had bothered to read it, they would be ashamed that Imran Khan has taken up this cause.

• CAA is an asylum law for claimants outside of the country to apply or illegal immigrants residing in India
• All democracies have asylum laws, and all democracies have some discrimination in their asylum laws.
• CAA Asylum law if offered to communities from minority religions being persecuted in certain Islamic Republics to apply for asylum in India, with a fast track to citizenship if approved.
• We see several examples of discrimination under asylum laws.
• Germany took in only Syrians under their asylum laws and no other country. 150K Syrians are said to be killed while 450K Sudanese were killed under similar war-torn circumstances. Yet Germany did not allow Sudanese this option.
• In my country, we don't allow Muslims from certain countries to apply under immigration laws.
• In Pakistan, people were very upset when there was some talk about allowing Afghan refugees to be citizens

IK has, for reasons unknown, brought upon a self-inflicted wound by arguing that India should take Pakistani persecuted Muslims too. He is openly confessing that Pakistan persecutes minority sects among Muslims and that they too should be allowed to apply for asylum under CAA law.

Seemingly, you have too not bothered to read the law and have followed the pied piper.

No it isn't about refugees arriving on boats with babies under each arm. it's about those who have lived and worked and even been born in india, but for miscellaneous reasons don't have the paperwork to prove it. This is a third world problem that doesn't exist in USA or Europe so your comparison to European or American immigration laws is ridiculous.

Those who don't have the necessary paperwork will be rejected under NRC.

Then, only non-muslims have a route back into the system via CAA.

The discrimination arises at that point.

Irrespective of the above, which debunks your nonsense off the bat, the specific asylum laws you mentioned require elaboration. In Germany, there was no religious discrimination. Refugees from a specific nation received precedence because of prevailing political conditions in that country. Do you honestly think Germany could selectively accept or decline individuals based on religion?

The USA reasoning was ostensibly for security reasons regarding the nations of origin. That said, many disagreed with Trump's move because it was termed discriminatory. How is this widely ridiculed law somehow being used to justify Indian actions? They're both discriminatory - discussion over.

 

[US North Won]

No it isn't about refugees arriving on boats with babies under each arm. it's about those who have lived and worked and even been born in india, but for miscellaneous reasons don't have the paperwork to prove it. This is a third world problem that doesn't exist in USA or Europe so your comparison to European or American immigration laws is ridiculous.

Those who don't have the necessary paperwork will be rejected under NRC.

Then, only non-muslims have a route back into the system via CAA.

The discrimination arises at that point.

Irrespective of the above, which debunks your nonsense off the bat, the specific asylum laws you mentioned require elaboration. In Germany, there was no religious discrimination. Refugees from a specific nation received precedence because of prevailing political conditions in that country. Do you honestly think Germany could selectively accept or decline individuals based on religion?

The USA reasoning was ostensibly for security reasons regarding the nations of origin. That said, many disagreed with Trump's move because it was termed discriminatory. How is this widely ridiculed law somehow being used to justify Indian actions? They're both discriminatory - discussion over.

Question: Should millions of afghans living in Pakistan for decades under refugee status be allowed Pakistani citizenship? Should 'other' illegal immigrants living in Pakistan for decades be allowed Pakistani citizenship?

Earlier I stated that I have the propensity to deal with facts.

Fact: CAA has absolutely nothing to do with legal residents or citizens of India. Show me the verbiage in the CAA law that proves your claim. I prefer citation over your need to opine on the law, please. At a minimum, it will prove if you have indeed read the law or chose to follow the pied piper blindly.

Fact: You can be an illegal resident of a country regardless if one has resided there for decades upon decades, worked and had a family. US just deported the mother of a US army soldier because she has been living here illegally for 30 years! It is not against the law to do so.

Fact: NRC is not CAA, CAA is the example you cited as state-sponsored discrimination. I would take a guess you have not read NRC too.

Fact: Discrimination does not simply come in the form of religion. Discrimination can be race, sex, gender, and even against people from certain countries when we discuss asylum laws. If you want to argue discrimination then the discussion has to be in totality and not just religion. India argues you can't be a Muslim and be considered a religious minority in an Islamic Republic.

FACT: Citing groups of people who were against some asylum law is not proof that discrimination in asylum laws does not exist everywhere. Our SCOTUS approved the ban on people coming from certain countries, making it legal and lawful

Fact: You are arguing that in Pakistan, minority sects among Muslims are persecuted too, and thus feel India should include them under CAA.

Fact: Mr. Imran Khan and his supporters' concern over CAA has everything to do with India and not for the Indian Muslims. He is mum about the Uighur situation where over a million are being persecuted, tortured and 'trained' in China's version of acceptable Islam. He feigns ignorance of what is happening in China. IK's CAA stance is a blatant play to politics under the guise of concern for Muslims.

 

[Crixus]

Not sure about the actual impact of this issue but this this literally gave some ammuntion to CAA supporters in India to counter the protests actually its totally internal matter of Pakistan , has nothing to do with India directly or indirectly

I'm sorry but what? This is blatantly a cover-up. This was not a clash between two Muslim groups but a communal attack led by a man and his family/friends.

Has he been arrested for inciting religious hatred and threatening acts of terror?
What about the blasphemy law, in this case using the name of the Prophet(saws) to incite people to murder and arson!
No nothing......

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Question: Should millions of afghans living in Pakistan for decades under refugee status be allowed Pakistani citizenship? Should 'other' illegal immigrants living in Pakistan for decades be allowed Pakistani citizenship?

Whether they are or not is a security issue, not their religious affiliation.

Fact: CAA has absolutely nothing to do with legal residents or citizens of India. Show me the verbiage in the CAA law that proves your claim. I prefer citation over your need to opine on the law, please. At a minimum, it will prove if you have indeed read the law or chose to follow the pied piper blindly.

I clearly argued the case against CAA by describing how it impacts on those who cannot prove their legal status for various reasons and how the fallout of failing to do so will negatively impact Muslims, not non-Muslims. Where did I state it has anything to do with those who can already claim legal status? You have not read my post, let alone NRC or CAA. You are deliberately obfuscating because you know my claim is right and you also know this is precisely the intention of CAA. I have no doubt that you followed the history of NRC and were aware that it affected more Hindus and fewer Muslims than it was intended to. You also know full well that CAA came in response to that failed effort in order to allow Hindu non-citizens a route back, thus short circuiting NRC to the detriment of Muslims.

Fact: You can be an illegal resident of a country regardless if one has resided there for decades upon decades, worked and had a family. US just deported the mother of a US army soldier because she has been living here illegally for 30 years! It is not against the law to do so.

refer to the above answer. Under the NRC/CAA double play, such a potential deportee will be saved by being a non-Muslim.

Fact: NRC is not CAA, CAA is the example you cited as state-sponsored discrimination. I would take a guess you have not read NRC too.

CAA is indeed where the discrimination comes in blatant form. NRC was intended to covertly remove the "termites" (Shah terminology) I.e. Muslim bengalis without raising eyebrows or blatantly stating It was an assault only on Muslims. When that failed, and the numbers showed as many Hindus would also be eliminated, Shah needed a plan B, CAA, which was more blatant in its wording. You know this already though.

India argues you can't be a Muslim and be considered a religious minority in an Islamic Republic

Ok I understand your logic here but the immigration laws under CAA are still discriminatory against Muslims whether they are a majority in their origin country or not.

Our SCOTUS approved the ban on people coming from certain countries, making it legal and lawful

Be clear and transparent please. SCOTUS accepted the argument that these individuals were to be barred on the basis of them being a SECURITY RISK. While it remains a violation of your 1st Amendment and highly dubious, with many many professional judges calling it out as discriminatory on religious grounds, the reasoning behind it is at least ostensibly due to security of the state. NO SUCH REASONING is given for CAA. I.e. CAA is based purely and unashamedly on a desire to discriminate on the basis of religion. We can strongly speculate that Trump's law are discriminatory on the basis of religion but he cites security as the motivator and we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt to the contrary. He gets the benefit of the doubt. With CAA there is no doubt as it is openly touted and by definition a means of removing illegal Muslims while saving illegal jains, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and parsees. Nowhere is there even the facade of "security".

I would add here that if Pakistan was to deport any afghans, it would follow the Trump model of declaring it a security issue, not a demographic issue.

Fact: You are arguing that in Pakistan, minority sects among Muslims are persecuted too, and thus feel India should include them under CAA.

Whether they are actually persecuted or not is irrelevant to this discussion. If they are however claiming as such when they flee to India, they should not be discriminated against and turned back by India on the basis of their religion. That's what I'm saying. I am holding India to account by the high moral standards it sets for itself by declaring itself "secular". If India wishes to admit it is now simply a Hindutva state and remove this fig leaf of secularism, fair enough, I shall respect their honesty and withdraw my complaint and leave Indian muslims to their fate. It bugs me that Hindustan makes a mockery out of "secularism".

Regarding China, it is of no relevance because again, they don't claim secularism as their guiding principle. Moreover, China wouldn't tolerate Hindu supremacists as much as Islamic ones. In this regard, they treat everyone equally, brutally, but equally.

I therefore have no complaints about China's policies towards uighurs.

Clearly you think this is about Islam or the ummah. No. It's about fair treatment of Muslims.

Hope you understand all that and it rectifies some misconceptions you may have had.