Utopia Talk / Politics / India is based

Rugian Member	Mon Dec 09 13:58:17 Funny how the one thing that nearly all of the world is united on, from the US to Europe to China to India, is having a fear and hatred of Muslims. I guess because they're such peaceful and productive members of whatever society they're living in. ---- Indian government pushing new immigration law that would single out Muslims BY ARSHAD R. ZARGAR DECEMBER 9, 2019 / 9:34 AM / CBS NEWS New Delhi — India's Hindu nationalist government is seeking changes in the country's citizenship laws that critics call unconstitutional and anti-Muslim. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government on Monday introduced the Citizenship Amendment Bill, which would extend citizenship rights to only non-Muslim illegal immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The government says the new law will give refuge and rights to people fleeing religious persecution in the three neighboring countries. But critics have railed against the legislation as unconstitutional for singling out Muslims, precluding them from having the same rights as people of other religions. Existing Indian law does not allow illegal immigrants to become Indian citizens. The new bill seeks to change that for refugees from the three countries in question, provided they adhere to one of six religions other than Islam. Rest of article at http://www...single-out-muslims-2019-12-09/
Paramount Member	Mon Dec 09 16:46:47 Well, Netanyahu visited and befriended the Nationalist in India some time ago. He is spreading the zionist hate all around the world. From Brazil to India.
Forwyn Member	Mon Dec 09 16:49:42 Lulz. More people would be granted rights than under the baseline, but can't have that, because muh Muzzies
Habebe Member	Tue Dec 10 02:04:17 I think everyone dislikes Jews more....even through out history. Literally almost every society they've entered has shunned them....iy must be everyone else who is crazy...
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 02:28:10 Habebe What was the Muslim population of Spain in 1503? Or the Hugenot population of Paris in 1573? Or the indigenous religion practitioners in Nothern-Norway in 1740 (I am referring to witch killings - which rather got out of hand)?` Societies shun what is percieved as different at times, even if at other times they embrace it (Ashkenazi Jews are for example not decendents of the Jewish population that Jesus was a part of. They are the decendents of converts to Judaism).
Habebe Member	Tue Dec 10 04:26:33 Well, what ethnicity Do they descend from?
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 05:37:01 Genetically? Predominantly Franco-German (Germans and French are genetically indistinguishable at a population level). I overstated this slightly. There is some ME in the mix, but not much (as stands to reason).
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 05:50:18 I should hasten to add that the prophet following sect that broke away from Judaism had far higher conversion rates. I suppose conversion by the sword does have some advantages in procuring the raw numbers :).
Forwyn Member	Tue Dec 10 11:45:15 "What was the Muslim population of Spain in 1503?" Deporting and oppressing literal armed invaders isn't really the same as oppressing religious minorities and trying to analogize it, yo
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 14:07:54 Forwyn lol, the Muslims were in Spain far longer than the US has existed. Though, I have to admit your thought processes puts an interesting twist on the Hispanic (with mainly indigenous blood) reconquest of North America.
Rugian Member	Tue Dec 10 14:23:09 "I suppose conversion by the sword does have some advantages in procuring the raw numbers :)." *laughs in Diocletian at jergul's atrocious history* Anyway, why are we talking about events from hundreds to thousands of years ago as if they have any relevance to modern standards for civilized behavior? Is it because you have to go that far back in order to come up with examples to feed this whataboutism strategy?
Forwyn Member	Tue Dec 10 14:25:05 "lol, the Muslims were in Spain far longer than the US has existed." And tried to go further. Doesn't make them French. "muh natives" Sure. Even though my ancestors didn't hit American shores until the 1890s, I certainly get lumped in with whining about slavery and Native displacement.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 14:49:32 Ruggy The context was conversion to the Jewish faith that happened many 100ds of years ago in a process that lasted 100ds of years. Forwyn Yepp. To be French, you have to invade from present day Germany (French and Germans being generally genetically indistinguishable). The Hispano-Roman inhabitants in Iberia at the time were invaders too incidentally. At least by your definition of what amounts to invaders.
Forwyn Member	Tue Dec 10 15:15:52 lol. The Greeks have had presence in Iberia for 3000 years. But the Umayyads never wanted to be French, they had no intention of stopping in France. Conquering Anatolia was always about conquering Constantinople.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 18:07:11 Forwyn Humanoids have lived there for 1.2 million years. Invaders upon invaders. So shall we put to rest your silly thoughts on Muslims still being invaders after having lived somewhere for centuries? Or shall we return Iberia to its rightfull neanderthal owners as soon as we can genetweak that breed back into existence?
Forwyn Member	Tue Dec 10 18:10:18 "your" Nothing unique to me. Europeans looked at Al-Andalus as land to be reclaimed, and the invaders put to the sword. They did. Jews that enabled and profited under Islamic rule got the same treatment.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 18:16:42 Incidentally, Greece lasted for a few centuries before binging conquered by Carthage. The Romans took over, then the Visigoths a century and change before the Muslims did. The Visigoths conquered the Byzantine province you may have been referring to.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 18:25:44 So the Visigoth reconquest of Iberia? Though they were absorbed into both Muslim Iberia and the Frankish culture. But hey, is there any place the rather barbaric christian principalities did not feel they should retake? I ask you as you seem to identify with the mindset.
Forwyn Member	Tue Dec 10 19:47:58 Call it whatever you like, Christendom, pan-Europeanism, racism, xenophobia, greed for unclaimed lands, w/e. European infighting was clearly a hallmark of the age. Whether Romans or Celts or Visigoths rule seems to be largely irrelevant on the grand scale. Muslims roll in and many banners united and put aside their differences. Again, mistreating invaders following a successful conquest/reconquest isn't anything out of the ordinary. It certainly didn't reach Mongol levels.
Rugian Member	Tue Dec 10 20:37:44 jergul large member Tue Dec 10 14:49:32 Ruggy The context was conversion to the Jewish faith that happened many 100ds of years ago in a process that lasted 100ds of years. That still doesn't explain the applicability of any of this to today. As far as I can tell you have no argument here at all, other than "I wish the Muslims had won at Tours so I could have legal sanction to rape my multiple wives."
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 20:51:30 Forwyn Muslims role in and things continued exactly as before as invasions replaced invasions. The Franks would have been just as happy to invade a Visigoth Iberia. Ruggy I was responding the habebe who framed a comment in a way that suggested that bigotry was particular against Jews. I felt it was a general thing aimed at "others" and gave some examples. I clarified that I did not mean Jewish conversion as a slur (it is often used that way). Any group gets to define who is part of it and they do this in practice, not according this or that rule they may head-nod to for religious or cultural reasons.
Rugian Member	Fri Dec 27 10:42:12 Jergul, And yet, Islam tends to result in an unusually harsh backlash wherever it goes. Generally because it is incapable of not being a force for death and destruction wherever it goes. When the language of your Prophet has it's own word for annual military raids against the infidel, you might have gone to far with the whole conversion by the sword thing.
Rugian Member	Fri Dec 27 10:48:30 Anyway, back on topic. Internet banned in India's Uttar Pradesh amid anger over killings As citizenship law protests enter third week, curbs imposed across BJP-governed state which witnessed 19 of 27 deaths. Indian authorities have stepped up security in major cities and mobile data services were suspended in some places amid nationwide protests against a new citizenship law. The administration of Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, banned mobile internet services in many parts of the state on Thursday night, including the provincial capital Lucknow, the state government said. Some television channels reported that police had imposed emergency law in some parts of the capital, New Delhi, that prohibits gatherings. Such prohibitions have been in place for more than a week in Uttar Pradesh, which has witnessed the worst crackdown. The state's police force has been accused of killing 19 people there, most of them Muslims. At least 27 people have been killed in protests across the country since the Citizenship Amendment Act was adopted on December 11. The law is seen as discriminatory towards Muslims, who make up about 14 percent of India's 1.3 billion population. The legislation makes it easier for people from non-Muslim minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who settled in India prior to 2015 to get Indian citizenship. Critics say the exclusion of Muslims violates India's secular constitution by making religion a basis of citizenship. The backlash against the law pushed through Parliament by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the biggest challenge he has faced since he was first elected in 2014. Violence peaked last Friday as police clashed with protesters in several cities, especially in Uttar Pradesh, where Muslims form nearly 20 percent of its 204 million people. More protests were held on Friday, with hundreds demonstrating at New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, where a protest march last week ended in violence. In Mumbai, India's financial capital, authorities denied protesters permission to conduct a 6-km (3.7-mile) march. Elsewhere in the city, the BJP held a rally in support of the law. Fury after deaths in Uttar Pradesh Meanwhile, distrust and anger among Muslims in areas where most deaths happened have deepened, as protests against the law enter their third week. In Uttar Pradesh's Meerut town, 70 kilometres (43 miles) from New Delhi, Zaheer Ahmed had just returned home from work on December 20 and stepped out for a smoke before lunch. Minutes later, he was dead, shot in the head. His death, and the killing by gunfire of four other Muslim men in the same afternoon in the mainly Muslim neighbourhood, made it the most intense burst of violence in two weeks of protests. The families of the five dead men say they were shot and killed by police as a protest flared against the new law. Reuters News Agency said it could not independently verify those accounts, and none of the more than 20 individuals the agency interviewed saw police open fire. Police say they used baton charges and tear gas, and opened fire to control the crowd but did not kill anyone. Police add that the men must have been killed by violent armed protesters whose shots went astray. An investigation into the violence is under way. Residents say police broke several security cameras in the area before the violence began. Reuters was unable to independently verify those accounts but did review security camera footage from two cameras at shops in the area. In both cases, the footage ends abruptly after a policeman waving a baton is seen trying to hit the cameras. Akhilesh Singh, the police superintendent of the Meerut City zone, said police had not destroyed any cameras and that all of the victims were involved in what he called rioting. "Obviously they must be in the midst of the violence. That's why they must have been killed," Singh told Reuters. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said in a televised statement last week that he would take "revenge" against those behind the violence and make them pay for the public damage. 'How can they kill innocent people?' Zaheer Ahmed's home lies in a jumble of lanes that make up the crowded Lisari Gate area. The 45-year-old, who sold cattle fodder for a living, had coloured his hair that day for a family wedding, his 22-year-old niece, Shaheen, said. When Zaheer returned from work, he told Shaheen that he wanted to smoke and stepped out to go to a small stall in the next lane that sold beedis, a small Indian cigarette. Zaheer's friend, Naseem Ahmed, said he was standing in the lane across from the beedi stall at the time. He described seeing Zaheer buy the beedi and sit down on a ledge next to the shop. Around that time, there was chaos on the main road beyond the lanes, Shaheen and several other residents said. According to them, they could hear the sound of people screaming and saw tear gas clouds. Many men ran into the lanes, some followed by police. "I suddenly saw Zaheer fall down," said Naseem, adding that he had seen some policemen rushing into the lane just before. "I thought he fell unconscious. It all happened within minutes." Through the clouds of tear gas, Shaheen said she heard someone scream that Zaheer had been shot. Neighbours brought his body home. "I don't know who engaged in the violence, but my husband didn't," said his wife Shahajahan. "Why did they kill my innocent husband? How can they kill innocent people?" The families of the other four men who died that day said the men were either out for work or prayers when they were hit by gunfire. None of them has received post-mortem reports. According to their families, Mohammed Mohsin was buying fodder for cattle. Asif, a tyre mechanic, had stepped out to fix tyres at someone's home. Another man also called Asif, a rickshaw-driver, was returning home after prayers. Many people in the impoverished area use just one name. 'Unnecessary, deadly force' Aleem Ansari had gone to the restaurant where he worked making rotis, the Indian bread. "He was shot dead by police. They shot him in the head and killed him," said Ansari's mother Saira. "I swear if I find that policeman I will not spare him." Reuters reviewed a copy of a case report of the violence that day that police registered at Meerut's Lisari Gate police station. The report, dated December 20, includes a police officer's statement that a crowd of about 1,000 protesters armed with sticks charged down the main road at about 2:30 pm. Police asked them to disperse, saying the large gathering was not permitted, according to the police report. The officer who filed it, Ajay Kumar Sharma, did not immediately respond to calls for comment. "Suddenly there was chaos when the crowd started pelting stones at us and firing at us," the report says. In response, police used batons and fired tear gas and rubber bullets, the statement says. Singh, the Meerut police superintendent, said the police and paramilitary personnel around Lisari Gate that day were armed with AK-47 rifles, pistols and chilli bombs. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said Indian police have used "unnecessary, deadly force" in controlling the protests. At a hospital in Meerut, two paramilitary policemen being treated said they were injured when fired at by protesters last Friday. A doctor said they had been treated for bullet injuries on the leg and forearm. When asked about civilians who had been shot and killed, one of them, Vidya Dhar Shukla, sat upright on his bed. "There was so much chaos, who knows where the damned people died?" "If I had a gun I would fire at them that day," he said. "India shouldn't harbour such snakes." http://www...-killings-191227060434667.html
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 27 11:50:37 Lol. Literally killing people because you're pissed that oppressed minorities get refugee status. But demand it in the West.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: