Secularism is now a National Security Threat

[SirHatesALot]

people abuses khaki chaddis

They deserve it,every bit of it.

 

[Yogijaat]

They deserve it,every bit of it.

've no problem mate, abuse them as much as you can

 

[scorpionx]

raping.... you are damn angry

and people abuses khaki chaddis too
aur apne hi toh kar rahe hain baahar waalon ko nahi karne denge

There is a slight difference. Abusing a particular community and criticizing certain principles are two wholly different thing. I have no trouble in accepting the truth that Nehruvian policies had indefinite limitations. His version of secularism may not be applicable in an westernized sense in a traditionalist country like India. But when criticism of his policies does not respect a certain boundary and starts blaming people whose states might not have voted for BJP so far is bit juvenile. I think Bengalis and Keralites will recover some respect here when a particular political party will gain power in these two states and trust me, its juvenile.

 

[Juggernautjatt]

 

[Yogijaat]

I think Bengalis and Keralites will recover their respect when a particular political party will gain power in these two states and trust me, its juvenile.

you mean BJP, right ?

 

[ranjeet]

View attachment 154625

Why stop at this? how about this one?

 

[Juggernautjatt]

How about this one?
http://punjabtimeline.com/rss-march-pistols-faridkot-dc-bans-brandishing-arms/

 

[RISING SUN]

I am sorry

It's all ok now.

 

[ranjeet]

How about this one?
http://punjabtimeline.com/rss-march-pistols-faridkot-dc-bans-brandishing-arms/

Yup I am sure they were own their way to kill the minorities and enslave their womenfolk like ISIS does. Like you were trying to point towards in that first post of yours.

 

[RISING SUN]

No body denied the threat of Islamic terror in India or beyond, but how many civilian casualties has been caused by Indian muslim terror outfit, compared to Naxals or Bodo or Kamtapuri terror organizations? And how a Hindu India can be beyond the threat perceived from Islamic terror outfits?

I believe even if you go by numerical logic, people killed due to Pan Islamic violence have died more compared to maoism or naxalism. Bodo and Kamtapuri violence doesn't come near numerical ranges nor it is wide spread in other geographical areas as Naxalism was and Islamic terror still is. There is no wrong if state foundation is built upon fake promises. In my state if Hindu was not safe, should Hindu say yes you are secular state and I have no problem if you butcher my people. People of West Bengal and Kerala may opt for but still I have hope for them. Secularism is state affairs, not personal practice. In personal life person is free to do anything which doesn't hurt other's feeling. But if some random people start claiming seculars, that is wrong as people can never be secular(as the concept of secularism will be proved wrong). Secularism means you turn blind toward religion, not against it nor towards it. It should suffice I think.

 

[RISING SUN]

No body denied the threat of Islamic terror in India or beyond, but how many civilian casualties has been caused by Indian muslim terror outfit, compared to Naxals or Bodo or Kamtapuri terror organizations? And how a Hindu India can be beyond the threat perceived from Islamic terror outfits?

I believe even if you go by numerical logic, people killed due to Pan Islamic violence have died more compared to maoism or naxalism. Bodo and Kamtapuri violence doesn't come near numerical ranges nor it is wide spread in other geographical areas as Naxalism was and Islamic terror still is. There is no wrong if state foundation is built upon fake promises. In my state if Hindu was not safe, should Hindu say yes you are secular state and I have no problem if you butcher my people. People of West Bengal and Kerala may opt for but still I have hope for them. Secularism is state affairs, not personal practice. In personal life person is free to do anything which doesn't hurt other's feeling. But if some random people start claiming seculars, that is wrong as people can never be secular(as the concept of secularism will be proved wrong). Secularism means you turn blind toward religion, not against it nor towards it. It should suffice I think.

 

[lightoftruth]

View attachment 154625

Way to go.!!

 

[RISING SUN]

Click it, if secularism is a crime, then prosecute me in any fucking court you got.

Secularism doesn't exist in personal life as per its details.

 

[AugenBlick]

There is a slight difference. Abusing a particular community and criticizing certain principles are two wholly different thing. I have no trouble in accepting the truth that Nehruvian policies had indefinite limitations. His version of secularism may not be applicable in an westernized sense in a traditionalist country like India. But when criticism of his policies does not respect a certain boundary and starts blaming people whose states might not have voted for BJP so far is bit juvenile. I think Bengalis and Keralites will recover some respect here when a particular political party will gain power in these two states and trust me, its juvenile.

Don't worry they won't.

 

[AugenBlick]

View attachment 154625

Get them banned I say