Modi scolds Trudeau over Sikh protests in Canada against India
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
Well, I least you moved away from going "all ultra-nationalist indignant outrage hissy fit" regarding this fatal wounding of Modi and India's global prestige via the employment of that horrific, 'this means all out war' word fugly'.I did not know you paid attention to Modi that way Andy.
Here is the right forum for you:
Something you actually agreed was wrong but then continue to attempt to justify.
"Huge in Ukraine"? No it wasn't. Ukraine had the lowest rate of antisemitism in Europe at the time.
And I'm repeating myself here, but Hitler didn't only hate Jews. Not everyone who died in the gas chambers and was imprisoned in concentration camps and hunted by death squads was because they were Jewish. It's entirely possible for people to sympathize with Hitler because of a hatred for homosexuals, for example, and not because of views on Judaism and the Jewish people. Or are you going to say homophobia never took root in India either?
In any case, your comment about Jews killed in Ukraine is a bit misleading. At the time the Jews were killed, Ukraine was under German occupation. Had India fallen to Germany too, do you really believe they would have spared the Jews there?
1.5 million Jews killed by the Nazis in power in Ukraine is tragic and shows the evil and depravity of the Nazis. Now how many Ukrainians were killed by the Soviets in the Holodomor been 1932 and 1933? Between 3.5 and 5 million. In one year. If Hitler had been able to achieve that death rate, then instead of killing 6 million Jews in 4 years, he would've killed 14 to 20 million, or in other words, he would've succeeded in exterminating them because there were only about 9.5 million Jews in Europe and 14 million Jews in the world.
So if you were living in Ukraine, and you watched family members, friends and neighbours killed by Stalin, and Nazis show up and start fighting the Soviet Union and killing Jews, which of those reasons do you think would motivate you to join them more? But you aren't evaluating them on that, you're evaluating them based on the rate of antisemitism only. Worse yet, you're not even using the rate of antisemitism in Ukraine, which you don't know, you're using the rate for all of Europe.
The "historical and cultural contexts" that you say are so important you completely ignore. You even admit you don't know the historical and cultural contexts, but then keep talking like you do.
Why are we taking anyone at face value? Or why aren't we taking them all at face value? You're also not taking Bose at face value, you're actively dismissing any concerns. Bose blocked Jews fleeing Nazis from settling in India, and he's reportedly published an article saying he supported antisemitism and the Holocaust. Your only argument against that is "Well there was no antisemitism in India ever and still isn't." Except there is, and while it never took root in India, that doesn't mean there were never any antisemites there at all. Nor does that mean Bose couldn't have been pro-Nazi because of the persecution of homosexuals or any other group. But there is no reason to scrutinize someone with no indications of antisemitism more than someone who does have indications of antisemitism simply because of their background, and to do so is bigotry.
If we remove the names and ethnicities, you would never take the position you have. If I said, "We have 2 members of the Waffen SS, let's call them SS1 and SS2, how much scrutiny should we give to evaluating whether they should be investigated for war crimes?" You would 100% say, "The exact same." If I said, "SS1 said Jewish refugees shouldn't be allowed to leave Germany and that he partly blames them for the oppression and murder of his countrymen and ancestors, but we have no indication that SS2 ever said anything antisemetic," you would say, "We should definitely have more scrutiny towards SS1." But then I say, "SS1 is Indian and SS2 is Ukrainian," and you say, "Oh, no, then definitely more scrutiny for SS2 then." Yet you say it's not the ethnicity that's the factor here? The only difference that caused you to change your opinion, assuming I'm correct in how you would've reacted, is that one person's background is Indian and the other is Ukrainian
There is no reason to take anyone at face value and no need to. We should investigate and evaluate equally. Anyone who joined the Waffen SS or the Nazi party should face the same scrutiny. End. Done. You'll probably even claim you agree with that, but then go on to try and justify different levels of scrutiny based on ethnicity.
You say Hunka should face extra scrutiny because of his ethnicity, but then say it has nothing to do with his ethnicity? You say this is about being aware of the respective cultural and political contexts of their time, but then about you only understand the cultural and political contexts of one of the two ethnicities in question? This is exactly why it's prejudice and bigotry.
You've explained it well enough. The problem is you think your declarations that it's not prejudice carry more weight than the subsequent explanations that demonstrate prejudice.
It's like those people who say, "I'm not racist, but black people commit more violent crime." The "I'm not racist part" is invalidated by the subsequent racist comments. Likewise, you say, "It's not prejudice, but..." and then go on to say a bunch of prejudiced stuff. Now you're surprised. "I already said I wasn't prejudiced. What else can I do?" Stop saying the prejudiced stuff. Stuff defending it. You could do that. But you won't, because you think it's justified. Which is why I reject your statements that you aren't prejudice.
You keep arguing that you're not racist because you don't accept that Muslims or Castes qualify as racism as they aren't biological.
You might as well be arguing you don't think racism can exist because you don't think asians are people.
Racism includes discrimination based on religion.
Islamaphobia is recognized in this country as a form of racism.
These are Canadian standards, you must get past your immigrant views and understand what Canadians believe.
You did stereotype the Eastern Europeans. What is the difference between an Eastern European and an Indian who fought the allied forces in tandem with the Nazis? Their aim was to kill the allied forces and prevent them from defeating the Nazis.......Period!!
Listen for once. Punjab is a part of India. Now when we have the criminals etc holding innocent victims as hostages, the cops or military first try to persuade the criminals to release these innocent hostages. When the actual Indian High Court's verdict was that no such action was taken by the military forces in storming the temple, then why can you o accept that basic fact? Of course you wont comment about this decision!!
Why have you not commented about those despicable ones in Gujarat who gang raped a woman in a violent manner, beat up her child and then murdered her family members in a terrorist style manner in a very similar manner to what Hamas did very recently. Yet Modi's Party pardoned these despicable and hideous individuals who did not serve a full sentence, and even elevated them to a hero status on their platforms? But Modi's Government have no problem in ordering the killing of a foreign citizen in Canada who is campaigning for a separate state. They provided the Canadian Government with absolutely no sufficient proof of any acts of terrorism by Nijjar Singh. Otherwise, no doubt that the Canadian Government would have arrested him and eventually arranged for his extradition to India.
They are supposed to be "Dalits" :
More than 160 million people in India are considered "Untouchable"—people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure, less than human.
Human rights abuses against these people, known as Dalits, are legion. A random sampling of headlines in mainstream Indian newspapers tells their story: "Dalit boy beaten to death for plucking flowers"; "Dalit tortured by cops for three days"; "Dalit 'witch' paraded naked in Bihar"; "Dalit killed in lock-up at Kurnool"; "7 Dalits burnt alive in caste clash"; "5 Dalits lynched in Haryana"; "Dalit woman gang-raped, paraded naked"; "Police egged on mob to lynch Dalits".
"Dalits are not allowed to drink from the same wells, attend the same temples, wear shoes in the presence of an upper caste, or drink from the same cups in tea stalls," said Smita Narula, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, and author of Broken People: Caste Violence Against India's "Untouchables." Human Rights Watch is a worldwide activist organization based in New York.
India's Untouchables are relegated to the lowest jobs, and live in constant fear of being publicly humiliated, paraded naked, beaten, and raped with impunity by upper-caste Hindus seeking to keep them in their place. Merely walking through an upper-caste neighborhood is a life-threatening offense.
Nearly 90 percent of all the poor Indians and 95 percent of all the illiterate Indians are Dalits, according to figures presented at the International Dalit Conference that took place May 16 to 18 in Vancouver, Canada.
Crime Against Dalits
Statistics compiled by India's National Crime Records Bureau indicate that in the year 2000, the last year for which figures are available, 25,455 crimes were committed against Dalits. Every hour two Dalits are assaulted; every day three Dalit women are raped, two Dalits are murdered, and two Dalit homes are torched.
India's "Untouchables" Face Violence, Discrimination
More than 160 million people in India are considered "Untouchable"—people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure, less than human.
www.nationalgeographic.com
Maybe your hero Modi should fix this inequality first before sticking his nose into what Canadian Sikhs are involved in. If the West or other nations point a finger at that pathetic inequality, then it has zero to do with colonial attitudes!!
You said it was wrong to have double standards and you usually wouldn't do it. You admit it's wrong. But then you do indeed try to justify it. Just like you say prejudism and bigotry is wrong and you keep trying to justify it.
In German occupied Ukraine. Just like Jews would've died in India if Germany had occupied India. Convenient you ignored that part. What was that you said about muddying the waters?
But you also acknowledge you had no idea there was a freedom struggle between Ukraine and the USSR and continue to say Hunka should face greater scrutiny simply because of his ethnicity. It speaks to your argument of "historical and cultural contexts". You only know the "historical and cultural context" of one group.
I don't answer hypothetical questions. You ask them, say you already know the answer, then wonder why I didn't answer them? What kind of nonsense is that? The answer is exactly the point: you're using it to justify prejudice. Every racist in the would says they are justified because of statistics. So for you to say you aren't prejudiced because of the statistics, does not convince me.
"I'm not prejudiced, but let me reinforce my prejudicial beliefs." The question I asked that you ignored wasn't hypothetical: why shouldn't we apply the same level of scrutiny to everyone? What does that hurt? In what way is that unjust or unfair? Well, it's hypothetical now. I just don't care anymore. You've delivered enough proof of who you are and what you believe.
At the end of the day I said I didn't think you really were prejudiced and you were just not clear what you said, but you've justified and reclarified enough to confirm that you are. I hope you rethink your view. As I said, it's a disappointment. But I'm not going to keep going back and forth. Your words have spoken for themselves. It's astonishing to me that an immigrant and a minority, who has likely been on the receiving end of prejudice several times, would justify doing it to others.
Its not colonial to use the internationally accepted definition of racism just because you don't accept it as it would mean you'd have to admit you are racist.
You think its antisemitic to call for a ceasefire?
That's fucked up.
Leave your racial prejudices at the border.
The Government of Canada Intends to Appoint a Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia - Canada.ca
The special representative on combatting Islamophobia will be part of the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackle all forms of racism, hate and discrimination
It is not antisemitic to say no country has a right to exist. That applies to all countries.
It is not antisemitic to say that the 54 year old occupation and apartheid rule is the cause of the continuing strife.
It is not antisemitic to say that you do not have a right to self defence for an illegal occupation. Are you going to argue that Russia has a right to fight Ukrainians and Ukrainians do not have a right to defend themselves in the occupied areas? Only a racist would argue it doesn't count for Palestinians.
It is antisemitic to claim that a Palestinian state has a right to exist but not Israel - that racist double standard.
It is antisemitic to claim that going door to door, butchering old women and children is justified while complaining that Israel shooting back at Palestinian gunmen is terrorism.
I stand with IJVCanada.
You can stand with the death camp if you want.
I agree, which is why I would never and have never said any of those things.
The difference you would never call out Israelis for the same acts, which they are doing right now.
You are doing a great Dershowitz impression these days.
What a train wreck.
I'll contact the Heavy Lift Emergency Response Team to extract you from the carnage.
Last edited:
An observation I’ve noticed, many many times, in many comments.
Frank says, he is not racist, has no antisemitism. Yet over and over, he repeatedly says Isreal ( a country) has no right to exist.
But mention Ukraine, or Canada Palestine. And he somehow, magically makes the leap to people. Ukrainians, Canadians, Palestinians.
Israel and therefor Israelis are not people and don’t have the right to exist.
So Frank. Palestine doesn’t have the right to exist? And what exactly would you say to anyone that said the US or Israel should turn Palestine to glass.
Frank says, he is not racist, has no antisemitism. Yet over and over, he repeatedly says Isreal ( a country) has no right to exist.
But mention Ukraine, or Canada Palestine. And he somehow, magically makes the leap to people. Ukrainians, Canadians, Palestinians.
Israel and therefor Israelis are not people and don’t have the right to exist.
So Frank. Palestine doesn’t have the right to exist? And what exactly would you say to anyone that said the US or Israel should turn Palestine to glass.
Last edited:
Yes, we must remember this.
"Everyone but I, Modi and Indian ultra-nationalists, is utterly unreasonable and totally partisan. And to question this unassailable, established fact is not only wrongheaded, but also futile.
Last edited:
No, my recommendation would have been for Netanyahu to have stopped the settlers storming the Al Aqsa and stopped the massive increase in settler terrorism and land theft that lead to this attack. My recommendation would have been for Israel to settle on the two state solution decades ago or now to end the blockade and and end apartheid.
This board seems to be 90% blaming Hamas for the attack but in Israel its 80% blaming Netanyahu. Guess they're all terrorist supporters/enablers/antisemites.
56% of Israelis believe Netanyahu should resign at end of conflict with Palestine: Poll
4 of 5 Jewish Israelis attribute blame to government, Netanyahu for Hamas’ Operation Al-Aqsa Flood against Israel
How can I forget when every day in the "Modi and Kautilya scolds ....." is a glaring and blazing trainwreck day.I am sure you will forget your own rule by evening.
BTW what is an ultra-nationalist?
C'est toi.
Last edited:
No country has a 'right' to exist. That's an imaginary right. Canada, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Palestine. None. That is not a right. Its a piece of land.
Do the people living in those arbitrarily decided borders have a right to defend their homelands? Yes. People have rights. Not pieces of land.
That's so antisemitic, isn't it?
This is a really, incredibly moronic statement.
