Search4Some1 Forum Posts (74)

RE: My Boy

I know how that feels. RIP :)

RE: Would you date a little person?

Dating a dimunitive person? Why not? I believe the mind matters most, the body, if at all it matters, comes a far second.

RE: terror in london

May I ask what your point is, sir? We are discussing terrorism in london, aren't we? And even Theresa May herself has finally woken up to reality, and started addressing the situation as 'islamic extremism' and admitting that there had been 'far too much tolerance of islamic extremism' in UK. She was previously not inclined to term that so bluntly, for fear of losing popular opinion which was still stuck in loving terrorists, giving them hugs, human rights, lighting candles after every incident, and forgetting it and moving on until the next attack? In retrospect, isn't that a post-mortem examination of facts when a lot of innocent people have died from terrorist attacks in the UK? Isn't it regrettable that a stricter, less politically correct measures have checked this? Perhaps the authorities knew they could check this with such measures, but refused to do so for fear of becoming unpopular. Because the larger public still believed in showing love and compassion to the monsters.

Even though this goes out of context, let me answer you.
Significant decline was caused by huns, turks, persians-islamic invasions and consequent islamic rule. As you have rightly put it, BR Ambedkar holds the islamic rule responsible for the decline. And the modern day threats to the same are caused by islamic terrorists as well.
Competition with Hindus and Jains weren't major factors for the decline of buddhism. Fragmentation of the gupta empire meant that it lost revenue and patronage, but it still existed even with competition from other religions. The loss of revenue meant that it could not propagate, but by and large it did exist. And Jains were never so large a community that it threatened the existence of buddhism per se. Those statements are inaccurate. ( A word of caution-wikipedia is an open editable knowledge source, which means anyone can fill it with information which may not exactly be accurate. I would suggest you do not take the statements per se, but rather read between the lines. And what you read on every other dubious site isnt exactly correct.)

RE: terror in london

When were Buddhists killed in India? Against, just by islamists during their conquests. And they are harassed in a pocket in the extreme north of India, again by islamists. A huge sect of hindus were chased away, ethnically cleansed, from the same place by islamic militants before the indian army stepped in. Not surprisingly, given the current trends, there were no expressions of solidarity with these people from the apologists who claim to be doing the same for muslims claiming to take a 'humanitarian' view of things. Tell me, how are those incidents less humanitarian than this? Reeks of selective hypocrisy and delusions? That is my point. And again, close to 100% of terrorists incidents nowadays are done in the name of islam, so blaming other religions right now when radicalization and killing in the name of islam is beind discussed, only serves to dilute focus and shift the blame away.

Will the overwhelming majority of people who have been indoctrinated since childhood and conditioned to think that the lives of people of other faiths do not matter, and that they are meant to be simply killed, understand the language of love, breaking the cycle of violence, respecting each other as people? No, they simply won't. Law enforcement has to deal with them with a stern, heavy hand, to protect the lives of ordinary people who have nothing to do with all this violence. If they have to take a particular religion to task because members of that religion are involved in perpetrating most of the violence, then so be it, until you can be sure that ordinary citizens are free from this menace.

The take that religion must be kept out of politics, and must never be allowed to impose itself on anyone else, or be allowed to indulge in violence, is something I agree with you totally. But how will you achieve that, given the current circumstances-by sweet talk to hardened indocrinated terrorists, or by drastic action?

RE: terror in london

True. But in case you are bizarrely justifying the terrorist incident, does that hold relevance for what is happening now to people who weren't even born then? How do you hold them accountable?

RE: terror in london

Now that all of that is clear, one more, I patronized the person because of the opinions she had, and not because she was a woman. Would have received the same treatment if it was a guy. And then you would have reported me for being 'patronizing/misandry'? Where is the logic? Over and out too.

RE: terror in london

Btw, back to the original topic-terror in london. My being a sarcastic person, or you misunderstanding stuff does not really matter in the grand scale of things.

RE: terror in london

Yes, I do patronize opinions which have no factual substance. And if you aren't aware of politics, and what is going around you, well, maybe you should be more of a responsible citizen. Helps you, and your country when you vote. Oh, I wasn't aware of good humoured/good mannered guys on here. Am so sorry about tarnishing their image.

Or maybe I should come up with a new term, now that there is one for every school of thought-sarcasm perhaps? Is that acceptable in the universal dictionary of political and social correctness?

RE: terror in london

The likes of you, who focus more verbal niceties, rather than the point in what is being said.

For example, Obama is a great president, because he talks well, is politically correct, as are his actions, even though there was a terrorist incident every other month. People hail him as a great president, and he is even re-elected. The same goes for Justin Trudeau.

Trump who happens to be elected in the same manner as Obama, is vilfied because he isn't exactly politically correct and nice when it comes to terrorism. And he does go hammer and tongs at the people who support terrorism, directly or indirectly. So, he is rebelled against, vilified as a rascist, and what not. And his party is labelled as white supremacist by a good number because they do not exactly see eye to eye with hare-brained refugee policies, and rather choose to protect their own people.

Do not get me wrong, I am not talking politics here, just giving you a parallel to drive home the point.

RE: terror in london

So, going by that, if I call a guy a gentleman, am I being a misandrist?

Or am I being respectful?


Patronizing, yes, that was the intention. Misogynistic, no.

RE: terror in london

Oh, I get it. Calling a person, a lady, is being misogynistic? What am I supposed to refer to a woman as then?

Lol, you people have terms for everything. A person calling someone a lady is misogynistic, a person speaking out against refugees is rascist, and so on.... Aren't you all a bit deluded?

RE: terror in london

None of the above. This is my own profile, not some proxy.

Just a thought, aren't you curtailing my freedom of expression by reporting me because I wasn't agreeing with your views at all, and calling a spade, a spade? Isn't that exactly what some of you were hollering about a while back?

RE: terror in london

Get this clear lady.

I do respect all religions as long as they do not form a basis of killing one another in its name.

Yes, we both condemn terrorist attacks, but I do look beyond to see why these attacks happen, and what is the motivation. Surely a reference to islam there?


I do not hate anyone, except those who go around killing people. And most of that recently happens to be conducted in the name of a particular religion. Sounds familiar?

RE: terror in london

Oh, and you did not mount any personal attacks? Isn't most of what I said a response to what you said? And does my 'rhetoric' lose it factual validity just because I had a few personal niceties for you in my reply? Well, if you are so holy that personal responses to you make the facts in them lose their validity, then you must be god? Am sorry god. May that assuage your bruised ego.

And if your concern is your cocoon of family and friends, and not beyond, do you have a moral right to voice your opinions in public? Please give that a thought.

Personally, I am sorry if my comments were harsh, you are much older than me, and at the end of the day it isn't right to go so ballistic at an older person. But it was to drive home the points. Bid you goodbye too.

RE: terror in london

O holy angel of peace, please tell me exactly who is responsible if not the islamic cult.

RE: terror in london

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to blurt nonsense in public, lady

So your heart aches? What are you doing about it?

Vilifying an entire culture? Please, do read what I have just written above about your glorious culture, and tell me why I should not.

RE: terror in london

Contd....
So please, please remove your head out from the sand, look around, read the writing on the wall, and change your thoughts before it is too late, and god forbid, someone in your family dies the same way. I would like to see you voice such holy opinions if that happens.

And btw, I do not smoke. Maybe, you do, you might be high on weed, that is why you do not see things that are so obvious, and refuse to take facts as it is, just because you have a few muslim friends. Aren't you the egoistic, touchy, emotional being who cannot see beyond your own cocoon of family and friends? And aren't you, by standing up for islam, in a way, condoning terrorists incidents the world over. 18000+ terrorist incidents have occured in the previous decade, all committed in the name of islam. Handiwork of a few? How 'few' is few, given the sheer scale? For all considerations, atleast one among every other one of them must be a terrorist, or supports them discreetly. If you look at most people who have committed terrorist attacks in recent times, many of them led normal lives and their families and friends were oblivious to the monster within. Therefore, it leaves no choice but to be wary of them, it isn't a very nice thing to do, but give me an alternative? I am sorry lady, but I prefer to call a spade a spade, rather than be delusional, whether I have muslim friends or not.

RE: terror in london

Not at all egoistical. I do not seek to impose my personal opinion for the sake of ego, rather a desperate attempt to make the likes of you understand the ramifications of what you are saying.

And why am I not surprised at your islamic considerations? I knew this familiar rhetoric about standing up to islam, it is the religion of peace, this is the handiwork of a few, this isn't the representation of islam, terrorism must be condemned, christians did it in the middle ages, uk is guilty of colonial past etc would be coming up. What next, would you light candles and forget the incident? Stuff and nonsense. Islam tells you to tax non-muslims (jizya tax) with a view to put financial burden as an incentive to convert. Islam permits you to take women from other religions, convert them to islam and breed. Highly convenient as women as woman have very less capacity to rebel against this once in islamic society (given their subjugation with stringent laws). It again gives you the death penalty for leaving islam. Don't you see it? It is perfectly designed to increase numbers in a cunning manner. And it tells you to kill the infidel, kill anyone who dissents against the religion. A watertight compartment eh? That is why they kill, because their religion condones it, simple as that. And that 72 virgins are waiting for them if they achieve martyrdom for islam. Does that not tell you what kind of barbaric culture that is, and its respect for women? Now, you will ask me what is wrong with people going to islam. Look around. They refuse to coexist with modern values, changing times. You will lose your advanced cultures to be replaced by a representation of a medieval, barbaric cult which will take away your freedom, subjugate your women, kill dissent, science and logic. Ultimately it will consume itself, because islam itself is always at war with every other sect within itself. If you ask them, they will refute all this, because again, islam tells them to lie in order to deceive others to achieve their purpose. Pretty much thought of everything in the handbook.

You aren't a terrorist, lady, you are worse as an apologist who does not see what is happening right in front of your eyes. Do read into islamic history since its inception, and then get back to me. This is one cult which is a cancer. If you look around, no other sect or religion has so much of a problem co-existing with others. And many people in UK used to think along your lines-that I have muslim friends, and parrot what they say whenever there are terrorist incidents. And governments couldn't do anything for fear of being against such popular opinion. And they have come to this reckoning. A little girl was killed in london, stabbed 15-20 times, while they said-this is for allah. The last words of the child was-save me. Are you not ashamed of standing up for such a cult and their people? And police were there on the scene, yet they couldn't do anything because they weren't armed and got stabbed themselves. And the logic some people have for it is that police shouldn't be armed since that gives terrorists an incentive to be armed proportionately. And a lot of people buy that logic once it is on the internet. Please tell me, shouldn't such people be better off keeping their mouths shut?

RE: terror in london

Of course. Niceties must be observed. I am so sorry that my language isn't upto the mark, and that I think that half-baked opinions should not be raised in public. That is what we should focus on, right, rather than terrorists, apologists, and other people who think that a cocooned kid-glove approach is the way to go.

These concepts about entitlement to voicing opinions, freedom of speech, religion etc are envisioned with a responsible citizen in mind. Please tell me, how many of people in general are responsible, patriotic citizens, who can see beyond their own cocoons? Rights come hand in hand with duties. And a primary duty being-to stay well-informed, logical, and responsible towards yourselves and your country as citizens. It would be enshrined in the values of every state, be it in asia to the americas. Now, when you voice such half-baked opinions, you are actually convincing yourself, and a larger number of lesser informed people about your own ideas which are perfectly incompatible with dealing with the situation. (Face it, if you look around yourselves, a lot of people have no idea what is going on, or the background of it, and hence to most people it would seem that stern approaches are too much, we are overdoing it etc.) Now when this goes on a larger scale, politicians and governments will hesitate to take stern decisions, and react against terrorism they way they should. And terrorists and their handlers would most likely know this. And time and again, they strike with impunity. So, by not shouting down such opinions, aren't we actually being idiotic? Do give it a thought.

Rather than debating about my language, and going off at a tangent, shouldn't you be focusing on terrorism, as the thread is about? I promise you that I will apologize and tone down my language once people start addressing terrorism the way they should be, if that helps you focus.

RE: terror in london

Please be my guest. If it in any way serves the purpose, or atleast makes these kind of people shut up...

RE: terror in london

Sorry about that outburst. But I have had it with people speaking gibberish without actually realizing what it means.

RE: terror in london

And how many people died in those 8 mins with police officers present at the scene? Ever heard of contingency planning, reaction time, ma'am?

And criminals will arm themselves because they know police are armed? So the alternative is not to arm the police so the criminals 'might' not arm themselves in proportion? Do me a favour please, please stay off wthout venturing an opinion. That is beyond dumb.

RE: terror in london

Are you telling me your police arent all armed, and they have to call for separate armed police to confront armed criminals? Was this always the case? If law enforcement arent adequately armed, you are all sitting ducks.

RE: terror in london

Ok, so we should keep mum and look the other way when someone is killed in britain just because there is no noise when someone is killed in syria? You would be doing the world a big favour if you do not venture to give out such opinions.

RE: terror in london

72 virgins waiting in heaven for each. That is the best example of what a woman's place is in islamic culture. And they die for it. Isn't that enough to say what kind of barbarism it is?

RE: terror in london

Why then should you say that this is the price to pay for invading iraq, war in syria, when these people who died have nothing to do with all this? And in the first place, how do you justify killing an innocent person?

RE: terror in london

Quite true about saddam hussein. But why must you justify all that some idiots have done in the past? And do you think that by putting your head in sand, and looking the other way whenever there is a terrorist incident, and going soft on them, is atonement or redemption for what bush or tony blair did? Stupid to the core you are.

Get your heads straight please. Speaking up for muslims, or rather covering up for them, does not in any way condone what you have done over there. Neither do you need to pay with your blood, and the blood of your innocent citizens. Did they have any say in what bush or blair did? None. The ones that did, are the war industry and other vested interests. They are the ones who influenced the decisions to invade iraq, among other 'diplomatic considerations' by hare-brained leaders who could not fathom long-term implications. The larger public, ordinary citizens have nothing to do with those decisions to invade iraq, or the war in syria. Why then, should you feel guilty, and act as an apologist?

RE: Lights off or on

Muted dim light, soft, no glare...
Moonlight
Candle light

RE: Would you date someone from a different race/religion/culture?

Race-Yes
Religion-Unless they are fundamentalists/hypocritical double faced people, like many muslims
Culture-Yes

RE: Terror on the Streets of London:

Or perhaps islam could be the driving force behind the deranged fantasy? Stop apologizing for them dude. It is not clear whether it is islam or not at this stage, but since you have started the apologist rhetoric, here goes. You do no justice to the victims or society at large by simply hiding the truth. Believe me, you are not doing any good by hiding facts. You are not preventing panic, you are not promoting peace, or anything positive. You are rather creating a conducive atmosphere for such elements to carry on, and letting other people live in a delusion which would end only when they are killed, or have their entire freedom taken away and your beloved sharia imposed.