PDA

View Full Version : Hindu holy man reveals truth of terror attacks blamed on Muslims



KingKhanWC
13th January 2011, 02:44
India is being forced to confront disturbing evidence that increasingly suggests a secret Hindu terror network may have been responsible for a wave of deadly attacks previously blamed on radical Muslims.


Information contained in a confession given in court by a Hindu holy man, suggests that he and several others linked to a right-wing Hindu organisation, planned and carried out attacks on a train travelling to Pakistan, a Sufi shrine and a mosque as well as two assaults on Malegaon, a town in southern India with a large Muslim population.

He claimed the attacks were launched in response to the actions of Muslim militants. "I told everybody that we should answer bombs with bombs," 59-year-old Swami Aseemanand, whose real name is Naba Kumar Sarkar, told a magistrate during a closed hearing in Delhi. "I suggested that 80 per cent of the people of Malegaon were Muslims and we should explode the first bomb in Malegaon itself. I also said that during partition, the Nizam of Hyderabad had wanted to go with Pakistan so Hyderabad was also a fair target. Then I said that since Hindus also throng [a Sufi shrine in] Ajmer we should also explode a bomb in Ajmer which would deter the Hindus from going there. I also suggested the Aligarh Muslim University as a target."

Police in India have suspected for some time that Hindus may have been responsible for the attacks carried out between 2006 and 2008, and in November of that year several arrests were made, including that of a serving military officer. But the confession of Swami Aseemanand, obtained by an Indian news magazine, is perhaps the most damning evidence yet that Hindu extremists were responsible. It also suggests those involved were senior members of a religious group that is the parent organisation of India's main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

"The evidence is not conclusive but people have to take notice of this," said Bahukutumbi Raman, a former national security adviser and now a leading regional security analyst. "This could aggravate tensions between India's [Hindu and Muslim] communities. It will create problems."

The revelations in Tehelka magazine, bear added significance following the comments of Rahul Gandhi, widely expected to be a future prime minister, in which he said he believed the growth of Hindu extremists presented a greater threat to India than Muslim militants. According to a cable obtained by WikiLeaks, last year Mr Gandhi told the US ambassador to Delhi, Timothy Roemer: "Although there was evidence of some support for Laskar-e-Taiba among certain elements in India's indigenous Muslim community, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community."

At the time, Mr Gandhi's comments were strongly condemned by the BJP. But the main opposition party has been pushed on to the back foot by the testimony of Swami Aseemanand, which suggests many of those involved in the bombing plots were members of religious organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The RSS is considered the BJP's ideological parent. This week, the RSS's leader, Mohan Bhagwat, claimed extremists had been forced out. "Elements nurturing extremist views have been asked to leave the organisation," he said. "A majority of the people whom the government has accused... had left voluntarily and a few were told that this extremism will not work here."

Among the incidents initially blamed on Muslim militants was a bomb attack in February 2007 on the Samjhauta Express, travelling between Delhi and Lahore. Of the 68 deaths, most were Pakistani citizens returning home. The attack took place a day before Pakistan's Foreign Minister was due to arrive in India for peace talks.

Swami Aseemanand was arrested in Haridwar last November, having apparently been in hiding for more than two years. In his 42-page confession to the magistrate, he reportedly claimed he had been spurred into action by a series of Muslim attacks on Hindus, in particular the assault on the Akshardham temple in Gujarat 2002 that left at least 29 people dead. "This caused great concern and anger in me," he said.

The attacks under scrutiny

Samjhauta Express

In February 2007, two firebombs exploded on the train commonly known as the 'Friendship Express' which travels across the Indo-Pakistani border. Most of the 68 victims and 50 injured were of Pakistani origin. Three further unexploded suitcase bombs were later found on the train.


Mecca Masjid

An attack on the Mecca Masjid mosque, which is in Hyderabad's old city, left 14 people dead in May 2007 with five apparently killed by police firing on a furious mob after the incident. Swami Aseemanand apparently said that the site was chosen because the local administrator wanted to be part of Pakistan during partition.

Ajmer

A famous Muslim shrine in the city of Ajmer in Rajasthan, about 350km south-west of Delhi, was targeted by bomb attacks in October later that year. Two people were killed and 17 injured near the scared shrine, which houses the tomb of a 13th-century Sufi saint. Swami Aseemanand said the blast was intended to deter Hindus from going there.


Malegaon

In September 2008, three bomb blasts killed 37 people in the Muslim-majority city of Malegaon, situated about 160 miles north-east of Maharashtra's state capital, Mumbai. Muslims had been attending prayers when the bombs exploded in a sacred burial ground, also injuring more than 125 people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hindu-holy-man-reveals-truth-of-terror-attacks-blamed-on-muslims-2182178.html#

This just confirms what Rahul Ghandi is saying.

It's time for India to come out of denial. Hindu Terrorism is the biggest terror threat in their nation.

DeadlyVenom
13th January 2011, 04:31
India is also a sponsor and supporter of terrorism (pakistan,sri lanka etc). Things arent looking all that rosy for them. Admitedly they appear to have a brighter future compared to Pakistan but I think we will see them suffering from home grown terrorists (muslims,hindus,sikhs whatever) in the next 10 or so years as the wealth gap increases. I would put money on the Naxalites getting hold of a bit more sophisticated weaponry...made in china ;)

KingKhanWC
13th January 2011, 04:55
India is also a sponsor and supporter of terrorism (pakistan,sri lanka etc). Things arent looking all that rosy for them. Admitedly they appear to have a brighter future compared to Pakistan but I think we will see them suffering from home grown terrorists (muslims,hindus,sikhs whatever) in the next 10 or so years as the wealth gap increases. I would put money on the Naxalites getting hold of a bit more sophisticated weaponry...made in china ;)

Totally agree, Hindu extermism is spread all over India attacking all types of minorites. The christians in Orissa have been suffering for a long time now but we rarely see this in the mainstream media.

India will have a massive terrorism problem in the future unless they nip this in the bud now.

ganeshran
13th January 2011, 09:28
India has never denied that Hindu extremism exists. It exists just like Islamic extremism and should be dealt on the same strict terms. I wouldnt defend any form of violence against innocent people regardless of shared religion or ethnicities

But, To call India a sponsor of terrorism in Sri Lanka is completely absurd. Our prime minister was killed by LTTE extremists. India has supported Tamil people because they shared ethnicity with a southern state of India. But not the LTTE itself. In fact Indian army has fought the LTTE and that was the reason they killed our prime minister.

Successive Pakistani governments in the past have cultivated extremist groups to fight in Kashmir. This has been accepted by Musharraf as well. Now outright state support for terrorism doesn't exist but still elements in the intelligence agencies continue to support and encourage extremism. The Indian embassy blast in Kabul had so conclusive links to the ISI that CIA chief traveled to Islamabad and confronted them with evidence.

Shehryar
13th January 2011, 18:59
Successive Pakistani governments in the past have cultivated extremist groups to fight in Kashmir. This has been accepted by Musharraf as well. Now outright state support for terrorism doesn't exist but still elements in the intelligence agencies continue to support and encourage extremism. The Indian embassy blast in Kabul had so conclusive links to the ISI that CIA chief traveled to Islamabad and confronted them with evidence.

Sorry,but i felt like reading DD news or All India Radio propaganda here.

Nah India had nothing whatever to do with Sri Lankan insurgency,Such an innocent country is our neighbor.Who are you kidding!Every body knows the reality now.

Indiafan
13th January 2011, 19:13
Sorry,but i felt like reading DD news or All India Radio propaganda here.

Nah India had nothing whatever to do with Sri Lankan insurgency,Such an innocent country is our neighbor.Who are you kidding!Every body knows the reality now.

Give me one neutral link please to back this "everyone knows" stuff? I can bring ten for some of Pak stuff

As for the OP, the perpertatours for most of those blasts, etc have been arrested and cases are going on. India has long realised that indulging in a *** for tat with Pakistan is not going to improve its image or economy one bit and is now completely focused on improving its brand image and trying to potray itself as a future global leader in front of the world. Any negative strategy will be counter-productive to India's vision and goal

ganeshran
13th January 2011, 21:47
Sorry,but i felt like reading DD news or All India Radio propaganda here.

Nah India had nothing whatever to do with Sri Lankan insurgency,Such an innocent country is our neighbor.Who are you kidding!Every body knows the reality now.

Phrases like Who are you kidding? and Everybody knows the reality are used in online conversations when you don't have sufficient facts to back up your side of the story.

The person who has been both the Military chief and the ruler of the nation for 7 years has admitted that militant groups had been trained by Pakistan to fight in Kashmir. I remember even Zaradari had given a statement saying that Pakistan had maintained links with Laskhar e Toiba .

s2k
13th January 2011, 22:18
India is also a sponsor and supporter of terrorism (pakistan,sri lanka etc). Things arent looking all that rosy for them. Admitedly they appear to have a brighter future compared to Pakistan but I think we will see them suffering from home grown terrorists (muslims,hindus,sikhs whatever) in the next 10 or so years as the wealth gap increases. I would put money on the Naxalites getting hold of a bit more sophisticated weaponry...made in china ;)

Proof of India supporting Terrorism in LAnka or Pakistan.Neutral Sources.

KingKhanWC
14th January 2011, 00:57
Proof of India supporting Terrorism in LAnka or Pakistan.Neutral Sources.


This might be difficult if they are supporting Hindu terrorist groups who then blame Muslims for their attacks.

I think all the previously attacks in India blamed on the 'Indian Mujahudeen' were carried out by Hindu terrorists.

Why don't they take responsibility especially since most Hindu's believe they are fighting for a just cause?

Also why blame Muslims?

Tapori
14th January 2011, 01:30
Rajiv Gandhi is a rather perceptive man, eh?

ganeshran
14th January 2011, 02:09
This might be difficult if they are supporting Hindu terrorist groups who then blame Muslims for their attacks.

I think all the previously attacks in India blamed on the 'Indian Mujahudeen' were carried out by Hindu terrorists.

Why don't they take responsibility especially since most Hindu's believe they are fighting for a just cause?

Also why blame Muslims?

Why would any neutral sources support want to support either hindu or muslims?

I will neither sympathize nor support a terrorist because he is from my religion or my ethnic background. All terrorist organizations must be dealt in the same strictest possible manner. Any nation that has chosen to treat terror selectively just because its short term strategic objectives were being met, has paid a heavy price for doing so.

When you simply make a statement in a public forum without having the facts to back it up, your credibility takes a hit.

KingKhanWC
14th January 2011, 02:19
Why would any neutral sources support want to support either hindu or muslims?
.

What is a neutral source? Either someone is saying facts or not. Either they know who is behind the attacks or they don't.

After any 'terrorist' attack it's either 'suspected' or 'taken responsibility' for the attacks.

The Indian Mujahudeen have taken responsibility for numerous attacks and this has reported as fact but now we know attacks have been carried by Hindu's and blamed on Muslims.

Again why would Hindu's who believe they are doing this in a just cause want to blame Muslims?

ganeshran
14th January 2011, 02:42
What is a neutral source? Either someone is saying facts or not. Either they know who is behind the attacks or they don't.

After any 'terrorist' attack it's either 'suspected' or 'taken responsibility' for the attacks.

The Indian Mujahudeen have taken responsibility for numerous attacks and this has reported as fact but now we know attacks have been carried by Hindu's and blamed on Muslims.

Again why would Hindu's who believe they are doing this in a just cause want to blame Muslims?

A neutral source is one which neither belongs to India or Pakistan or has any hidden agenda in promoting a particular ideology which could introduce a bias in its reporting.

There is no just cause in a terrorist attack. If anyone (Hindu or Muslim) believes that there is a just cause behind taking an innocent life then they should get their brains checked. IMO terrorist sympathizers are far more dangerous than terrorists because they exist in the mainstream of society and keep injecting vile hatred among everybody.

The fact that Hindu extremists were involved in these attacks werent found by some international investigative agency. This fact was found by the government agencies themselves and not covered up or suppressed. The fact that this news is in public domain itself testifies to the fact that the government is serious in tackling terror, regardless of whether its religious extremism or left wing maoism.

KingKhanWC
14th January 2011, 02:54
A neutral source is one which neither belongs to India or Pakistan or has any hidden agenda in promoting a particular ideology which could introduce a bias in its reporting.

Just because a source is neutral doesn't mean they are reporting facts. In my last post I told why this may not be the case. If Hindu's committ terror attacks and then pin the blame on Muslims all sources will take this and report it as such. We just don't know who was behind which attack anymore after this confession.


There is no just cause in a terrorist attack. If anyone (Hindu or Muslim) believes that there is a just cause behind taking an innocent life then they should get their brains checked. IMO terrorist sympathizers are far more dangerous than terrorists because they exist in the mainstream of society and keep injecting vile hatred among everybody.

Well it can be argued the majority of Hindu's support attacks against Muslims so that means India has hundreds of millions of terrorist sympathizers.


The fact that Hindu extremists were involved in these attacks werent found by some international investigative agency. This fact was found by the government agencies themselves and not covered up or suppressed. The fact that this news is in public domain itself testifies to the fact that the government is serious in tackling terror, regardless of whether its religious extremism or left wing maoism.

The holy man confessed.

Qelic
14th January 2011, 03:02
why ppl from pakistan go to india ?

Tapori
14th January 2011, 07:28
^ As hard as it might be for you to fathom:

Tourism
More importantly - Family, Relatives and Friends.

Toe Crusher
14th January 2011, 07:35
fascinating dialogue above...

wasim-fan
14th January 2011, 08:14
Just because a source is neutral doesn't mean they are reporting facts. In my last post I told why this may not be the case. If Hindu's committ terror attacks and then pin the blame on Muslims all sources will take this and report it as such. We just don't know who was behind which attack anymore after this confession.



Well it can be argued the majority of Hindu's support attacks against Muslims so that means India has hundreds of millions of terrorist sympathizers.



The holy man confessed.

lol. If this is the best arguments that are made against so called "Hindu" terror, then then we need a better case.

Qelic
14th January 2011, 09:08
^ As hard as it might be for you to fathom:

Tourism
More importantly - Family, Relatives and Friends.


families in india ?

FastBowler
14th January 2011, 09:20
Give me one neutral link please to back this "everyone knows" stuff? I can bring ten for some of Pak stuff




Why are you bringing Pakistan into this? It just shows your mindset.

Anyways, India was a big supporter of the LTTE, they gave them supplies, weapons.

wasim-fan
14th January 2011, 09:33
Why are you bringing Pakistan into this? It just shows your mindset.

Anyways, India was a big supporter of the LTTE, they gave them supplies, weapons.

Yeah, thats why they assassinated Rajiv Gandhi. They didn't want any help. They wanted to do it on their own.

ganeshran
14th January 2011, 10:21
Just because a source is neutral doesn't mean they are reporting facts. In my last post I told why this may not be the case. If Hindu's committ terror attacks and then pin the blame on Muslims all sources will take this and report it as such. We just don't know who was behind which attack anymore after this confession.

Ok thats another way to say that you dont have any credible source to support your hypothesis.



Well it can be argued the majority of Hindu's support attacks against Muslims so that means India has hundreds of millions of terrorist sympathizers.

I am not sure how you are able to spout off facts without any intention of being able to back them up. Of course the right wing will have its supporters, but show me mainstream public support for these terror attacks which happened. This is like me saying that Pakistan is a terrorist nation because it has supported and sympathized with armed insurgencies in Afghanistan, but I WONT because though there is lot of evidence of intelligence agencies support, I cant come up with any irrefutable source on public support for Taliban which would confirm my statement, regardless of what my personal beliefs may be.


The holy man confessed.
Samjhauta, Malegaon and Mecca Masjid have known to be attacks by Hindu extremists for quite some time. The suspect's confession didnt bring much new to the table.

Indieview
14th January 2011, 12:39
Well atleast there was an investigation and the culprits had been caught and investigations are going on, I haven't seen anyone caught yet for eg Sri Lankan Team attack

Cobra
14th January 2011, 23:38
The difference is hindu extremism isnt targeted or promoted by the western media at every possible opportunity given whereas islamic extremism is.

Down2Earth
14th January 2011, 23:58
oh this can't be true, there's no way that they're hindus, must be muslims as they're the only terrorists

KingKhanWC
15th January 2011, 01:50
Ok thats another way to say that you dont have any credible source to support your hypothesis.

There are plenty of sources and Hindu terrorism in common knowledge. What do you think they are doing in Orissa, throwing flowers at Christians



I am not sure how you are able to spout off facts without any intention of being able to back them up. Of course the right wing will have its supporters, but show me mainstream public support for these terror attacks which happened. This is like me saying that Pakistan is a terrorist nation because it has supported and sympathized with armed insurgencies in Afghanistan, but I WONT because though there is lot of evidence of intelligence agencies support, I cant come up with any irrefutable source on public support for Taliban which would confirm my statement, regardless of what my personal beliefs may be.

I support the Taliban in Afghanistan and all resistance movments agaisnt occupiers, they are freedom fighters.

Many Hindu's support the defence of their nation against Muslims and Christians and support terrorist acts. India is a secular nation and there is no occupation. You can deny this if you want but Orissa is proof.


Samjhauta, Malegaon and Mecca Masjid have known to be attacks by Hindu extremists for quite some time. The suspect's confession didnt bring much new to the table.

Yes it did, it was only 'known' but now we now for sure after his confession. It didn't make the news for the fun of it.

Now care tell us why Hindu terrorists blame Muslims?

ganeshran
15th January 2011, 02:28
There are plenty of sources and Hindu terrorism in common knowledge. What do you think they are doing in Orissa, throwing flowers at Christians

The sources argument was started about India supporting terrorism in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, which you still havent been able to provide. It was not about incidents of extremism by Hindus which I have neither denied nor supported. I have maintained all along that extremism should be dealt in the same strict manner, regardless of what faith their proponents follow.



I support the Taliban in Afghanistan and all resistance movments agaisnt occupiers, they are freedom fighters.

The glorification of the Taliban terrorists as freedom fighters is deplorable. They ruled the country for so many years and dragged back Afghanistan into the middle ages. They were violent in their rule, ran an illegal drug trade worth billions and destroyed valuable architectural monuments. They are men who are addicted to violence and filled with hatred for anyone who doesnt follow their misguided principles. America is just an excuse to fight, a common enemy who somehow satiates their appetite for death and destruction



Many Hindu's support the defence of their nation against Muslims and Christians and support terrorist acts. India is a secular nation and there is no occupation. You can deny this if you want but Orissa is proof.


There is zero mainstream support for extremist acts in India. Yes, a section of society will always be there which supports violence against others, but the mainstream populace wants to lead their lives peacefully and not get scarred by violence and counter violence between religions



Yes it did, it was only 'known' but now we now for sure after his confession. It didn't make the news for the fun of it.

Now care tell us why Hindu terrorists blame Muslims?

Hindus do not blame Muslims for the attacks. Because a majority of previous extremist acts in India were carried out by Islamic radicals, it was automatically assumed in the first few weeks of the incident that these were carried by similar groups. But once the investigation was done and the proofs analyzed, the truth came out and is in public domain.

Wasim_Waqar
15th January 2011, 04:59
I strongly believe that the 'Indian Mujahideen' are trained by the India government to cause mayhem in the country and help to continue to cause suspicion v Pakistan.

Look at the b***** Usman Majid, who India actually pays to do their dirty work in Kashmir. Sickening.

KingKhanWC
15th January 2011, 05:02
The sources argument was started about India supporting terrorism in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, which you still havent been able to provide. It was not about incidents of extremism by Hindus which I have neither denied nor supported. I have maintained all along that extremism should be dealt in the same strict manner, regardless of what faith their proponents follow.

You're confused. I was only questioning the sources argument because if Hindus blame other then the reports won't always show who was behind it. However we do know India supported the Tamil Tigers and that's a no brainer.



The glorification of the Taliban terrorists as freedom fighters is deplorable. They ruled the country for so many years and dragged back Afghanistan into the middle ages. They were violent in their rule, ran an illegal drug trade worth billions and destroyed valuable architectural monuments. They are men who are addicted to violence and filled with hatred for anyone who doesnt follow their misguided principles. America is just an excuse to fight, a common enemy who somehow satiates their appetite for death and destruction

Who cares what they were like? Taliban are just one of many resistance groups and all occupied people have a right to self defence under Internationa law. Hindu terrorists are not under Muslim occupation and are killing fellow Indians and blaming it on Muslims.




There is zero mainstream support for extremist acts in India. Yes, a section of society will always be there which supports violence against others, but the mainstream populace wants to lead their lives peacefully and not get scarred by violence and counter violence between religions

lol. There are plenty of Hindu extremist groups who have mass support. The likes of the RSS and others. Even the BJP are seen as extremists by many who have condoned 'revenge' attacks on Muslims.




Hindus do not blame Muslims for the attacks. Because a majority of previous extremist acts in India were carried out by Islamic radicals, it was automatically assumed in the first few weeks of the incident that these were carried by similar groups. But once the investigation was done and the proofs analyzed, the truth came out and is in public domain.

Erm.. The attacks were blamed on Muslims. It was the Hindu's who blamed Muslims, this is the point of the whole thread. The masses maybe ignorant but it's not their job to lay the blame.

ganeshran
15th January 2011, 22:32
You're confused. I was only questioning the sources argument because if Hindus blame other then the reports won't always show who was behind it. However we do know India supported the Tamil Tigers and that's a no brainer.

Show me the proof to support your conclusions. Saying its a no brainer is a way to deflect scrutiny of your statement. India always supported the Tamil people because they had a shared ethnicity with people in our country. What was initially a support for Tamil people was being seen as a support for LTTE, which then started behaving highly erratically and behaving more like a terrorist group taking the lives of innocent civilians. The Indian army sent its peace keeping force to fight and disarm the LTTE




Who cares what they were like? Taliban are just one of many resistance groups and all occupied people have a right to self defence under Internationa law. Hindu terrorists are not under Muslim occupation and are killing fellow Indians and blaming it on Muslims.

To call Taliban freedom fighters is absurd, they have always been overtly violent and hatred filled terrorists. They had been killing their own people for so many years now. And Afghanis killing afghanis is somehow ok according to you but terrorists being killed by foreign forces is wrong. IMO, America invading Afghanistan was legitimate considering the horrific attack of 9/11. However the american invasion of Iraq was unfair because Saddam Hussein neither offered support to Al Qaeda nor did he pose any threat to the western world.




lol. There are plenty of Hindu extremist groups who have mass support. The likes of the RSS and others. Even the BJP are seen as extremists by many who have condoned 'revenge' attacks on Muslims.


There is not a single terrorist attack which has enjoyed even splinters of mainstream support in India. All of them were uniequivocally condemned regardless of whether it was Indian mujahideen or VHP behind them. Terrorists just use religious polarization to crave and rationalise their need for violence. They will readily use either Islam or Hinduism or Christianity whichever fulfils their ends



Erm.. The attacks were blamed on Muslims. It was the Hindu's who blamed Muslims, this is the point of the whole thread. The masses maybe ignorant but it's not their job to lay the blame.

It was the Indian investigative agencies which uncovered the fact that who was actually behind the attacks. If a need for cover up or blaming was felt, the government could have readily leaned on the agencies to prevent them from releasing this information.

Your duplicitous stand on terrorism baffles me, you are not condemning the crime, but rather wait to see who the criminal is before arriving at a judgement. Sympathy and support for terrorism cannot be rationalized away by glorifying violence as a fight to end occupation, especially when the perpetrators have been just as violent and brutal regardless of whether an occupying force was present.

KingKhanWC
16th January 2011, 05:12
Show me the proof to support your conclusions. Saying its a no brainer is a way to deflect scrutiny of your statement. India always supported the Tamil people because they had a shared ethnicity with people in our country. What was initially a support for Tamil people was being seen as a support for LTTE, which then started behaving highly erratically and behaving more like a terrorist group taking the lives of innocent civilians. The Indian army sent its peace keeping force to fight and disarm the LTTE

Did India not train them in the 1980's? India created a terrorist organisation.



To call Taliban freedom fighters is absurd, they have always been overtly violent and hatred filled terrorists. They had been killing their own people for so many years now. And Afghanis killing afghanis is somehow ok according to you but terrorists being killed by foreign forces is wrong. IMO, America invading Afghanistan was legitimate considering the horrific attack of 9/11. However the american invasion of Iraq was unfair because Saddam Hussein neither offered support to Al Qaeda nor did he pose any threat to the western world.

lol. Absurd for you but not if you follow Interntanal law which allows an occupied people to defend their lands. Taliban are only one group, what about the others, are they terrorists too?





There is not a single terrorist attack which has enjoyed even splinters of mainstream support in India. All of them were uniequivocally condemned regardless of whether it was Indian mujahideen or VHP behind them. Terrorists just use religious polarization to crave and rationalise their need for violence. They will readily use either Islam or Hinduism or Christianity whichever fulfils their ends

There are millions of Hindu extremists who support Hindu radical groups when they attack Muslims and other minorities. Why do you think they can get away with in Orissa? Wasn't it Hindu's who climbed a mosque and tore it down with the support of the majority of Hindu's?




It was the Indian investigative agencies which uncovered the fact that who was actually behind the attacks. If a need for cover up or blaming was felt, the government could have readily leaned on the agencies to prevent them from releasing this information.

Your duplicitous stand on terrorism baffles me, you are not condemning the crime, but rather wait to see who the criminal is before arriving at a judgement. Sympathy and support for terrorism cannot be rationalized away by glorifying violence as a fight to end occupation, especially when the perpetrators have been just as violent and brutal regardless of whether an occupying force was present.

Don't know what you harping on about here but the Indian government did not say the attacks were actually done by Hindu's. It was only after the confession of this holy man which has led to this truth coming out officialy.

You can beat round the bush all you like but Hindu terrorism is a reality.

You still haven't answered why they blamed Muslims?

Wasim_Waqar
16th January 2011, 05:19
can somebody tell me about Ikhwan-ul-Musilmeen?

ganeshran
17th January 2011, 12:36
First of all, to answer your main query, no one blamed Muslims as a community for the terrorist attacks or the ones preceding them. Only the radical islamic groups were assumed to behind the attacks initially. As the proof came in, the truth came to be known that Hindu radical groups were actually behind the attacks. You dont know the day after the attack, who was behind the attack. It takes time to investigate and arrive at conclusions.


Did India not train them in the 1980's? India created a terrorist organization.


India did not create any terrorist organization. Its pointless to simply make up statements unless you have solid facts to back your points.



lol. Absurd for you but not if you follow Interntanal law which allows an occupied people to defend their lands. Taliban are only one group, what about the others, are they terrorists too?


By your analogy LTTE are freedom fighters too, which they might have been initially, but they turned into a terrorist group which was hell bent on taking innocent Sri Lankan lives.




There are millions of Hindu extremists who support Hindu radical groups when they attack Muslims and other minorities. Why do you think they can get away with in Orissa? Wasn't it Hindu's who climbed a mosque and tore it down with the support of the majority of Hindu's?

There have been incidents of Hindu - Muslim and hindu - christian discord in our long history. But by and large the relationship has been peaceful. I am truly ashamed of the riots that took place in the past but no one supports these mindless acts nowadays. When the Babri Masjid (mosque demolition) trial judgement came, there was no violence in the country.

Btw. you dont seem to condemn the taliban for destroying centuries old Bamiyan Buddha statues, which was important for other people's faith. Or is that ok, because you are a taliban sympathizer?



Don't know what you harping on about here but the Indian government did not say the attacks were actually done by Hindu's. It was only after the confession of this holy man which has led to this truth coming out officialy.

You can beat round the bush all you like but Hindu terrorism is a reality.

You still haven't answered why they blamed Muslims?

See the link below, the blast chargesheet was filed on Jan 20th 2009 which named a Hindu radical group as being behind the blasts. It was widely known the true perpetrators of the act far long before the confession of Aseemanand.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/ATS-files-chargesheet-in-Malegaon-blast-case/413034/

Read all my posts on this thread and point out one where I am defending or denying Hindu extremism. You just expect me to defend an extremist organization because they are from my religion, like you do with the Taliban. I will under no condition condone any extremist act or organization regardless of what their "cause" is. Any organization which resorts to violence to achieve its end objective should be put an end to, by force if necessary.

Sameer K
17th January 2011, 14:22
Rahul Gandhi is an idiot...

No doubt hindu groups are involved in terror activities, but to say they are a bigger threat to india than those who carried out the mumbai attacks or several other attacks is just asinine.

Just hilarious how people who keep saying all muslims should not be blamed because of the actions of a few muslims are now loving the term "hindu terrorists"!!

The congress party is to be blamed for the rise of these groups. Afzal guru, found guilty of the parliament attack and sentenced to death by the highest court in India is still alive and well. The congress is trying to appease minorities again. How do you think the relatives of the parliament attack victims will be feeling right now?

For those who think India is in anyway close to become like Pakistan, please keep dreaming. Don't know why it makes you guys feel better. It seems you are happy when more people fall down with you. Why not just concentrate on picking yourself up?

ganeshran
17th January 2011, 15:14
Rahul Gandhi is an idiot...

No doubt hindu groups are involved in terror activities, but to say they are a bigger threat to india than those who carried out the mumbai attacks or several other attacks is just asinine.

Just hilarious how people who keep saying all muslims should not be blamed because of the actions of a few muslims are now loving the term "hindu terrorists"!!

The congress party is to be blamed for the rise of these groups. Afzal guru, found guilty of the parliament attack and sentenced to death by the highest court in India is still alive and well. The congress is trying to appease minorities again. How do you think the relatives of the parliament attack victims will be feeling right now?

For those who think India is in anyway close to become like Pakistan, please keep dreaming. Don't know why it makes you guys feel better. It seems you are happy when more people fall down with you. Why not just concentrate on picking yourself up?

Actually polarization of the nation suits both Congress and BJP. BJP takes the right wing vote, while Congress gets the secular and Minority votes. Depending on alliances, one of them is able to form the government. Both of them will resort to scare mongering in their constituencies to strenghten their core base/

Its upto the people to reject polarization, because violence between religions serves no purpose at all. In the end it will become a shouting match which serves no end. People should aim for economic prosperity and only then will they be able to get over their preoccupation with religion.

Wasim_Waqar
17th January 2011, 17:33
Anybody care to answer my question or is this just another India v Pakistan argument?

KingKhanWC
18th January 2011, 00:29
First of all, to answer your main query, no one blamed Muslims as a community for the terrorist attacks or the ones preceding them. Only the radical islamic groups were assumed to behind the attacks initially. As the proof came in, the truth came to be known that Hindu radical groups were actually behind the attacks. You dont know the day after the attack, who was behind the attack. It takes time to investigate and arrive at conclusions.

I'm talking about the people who carried out the attacks and then blamed Muslims. Why did they blame Muslims? What was their agenda?




India did not create any terrorist organization. Its pointless to simply make up statements unless you have solid facts to back your points.

So this Indian news channel is making it up?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fMdU4Hm7tkU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fMdU4Hm7tkU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



By your analogy LTTE are freedom fighters too, which they might have been initially, but they turned into a terrorist group which was hell bent on taking innocent Sri Lankan lives.

No because they were not invaded. The Sri Lankan state has the right to be unified.




There have been incidents of Hindu - Muslim and hindu - christian discord in our long history. But by and large the relationship has been peaceful. I am truly ashamed of the riots that took place in the past but no one supports these mindless acts nowadays. When the Babri Masjid (mosque demolition) trial judgement came, there was no violence in the country.

Btw. you dont seem to condemn the taliban for destroying centuries old Bamiyan Buddha statues, which was important for other people's faith. Or is that ok, because you are a taliban sympathizer?

The Babri Masjid incident showed how many Hindu's support extreme actions such as ripping apart mosques. The difference with what the Taliban did was those statues being blown up don't stop Bhuddists from practicising their religion. I sympathize will all Afghanis as any humane person would.






See the link below, the blast chargesheet was filed on Jan 20th 2009 which named a Hindu radical group as being behind the blasts. It was widely known the true perpetrators of the act far long before the confession of Aseemanand.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/ATS-files-chargesheet-in-Malegaon-blast-case/413034/

That's good to see but it wasn't widely known as you put it. What about the other attacks?


Read all my posts on this thread and point out one where I am defending or denying Hindu extremism. You just expect me to defend an extremist organization because they are from my religion, like you do with the Taliban. I will under no condition condone any extremist act or organization regardless of what their "cause" is. Any organization which resorts to violence to achieve its end objective should be put an end to, by force if necessary.

Good that you don't defend terrorists but the Taliban are a resistance movement just like the many Indians who took up arms against British rule. The British called them terrorists too, so are they terrorists in your view?

Raz
18th January 2011, 15:25
Rahul Gandhi is an idiot...

No doubt hindu groups are involved in terror activities, but to say they are a bigger threat to india than those who carried out the mumbai attacks or several other attacks is just asinine.

Just hilarious how people who keep saying all muslims should not be blamed because of the actions of a few muslims are now loving the term "hindu terrorists"!!

The congress party is to be blamed for the rise of these groups. Afzal guru, found guilty of the parliament attack and sentenced to death by the highest court in India is still alive and well. The congress is trying to appease minorities again. How do you think the relatives of the parliament attack victims will be feeling right now?

For those who think India is in anyway close to become like Pakistan, please keep dreaming. Don't know why it makes you guys feel better. It seems you are happy when more people fall down with you. Why not just concentrate on picking yourself up?

We have never "fallen down". Yes, we have had problems and some problems are still present. One of these is terrorism and for that your country's RAW agency has played a major part in it rearing its ugly head from time to time.

India may not be quite falling down, but Pakistan can, at any moment put either foot on its head and crush it all the way to and under the ground it stands.

ganeshran
18th January 2011, 15:57
I'm talking about the people who carried out the attacks and then blamed Muslims. Why did they blame Muslims? What was their agenda?


Can you provide me a source where the groups behind the attacks blamed Muslims for them? Mind it, they should be not be islamic radical groups, but Muslims as a community. Muslims in India are a peaceful community, and I am not going to equate them with radical groups enjoying negligible support. There have been discord in the past but in the last decade, the Hindu - Muslim relation is completely peaceful




So this Indian news channel is making it up?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fMdU4Hm7tkU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fMdU4Hm7tkU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


That report is highly sensationalized. Same channel also has a report on Taliban sponsoring 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Do you believe that?
http://origin-www.ibnlive.com/videos/113453/taliban-trained-2611-attackers.html




No because they were not invaded. The Sri Lankan state has the right to be unified.


By your logic, Tamil people's areas are occupied by Sinhala forces who neither share a religion nor ethnicity with them. They can be called opressed as victims of Sri Lankan atrocities, So is killing innocent citizens then justified, when done in name of a "cause"?



The Babri Masjid incident showed how many Hindu's support extreme actions such as ripping apart mosques. The difference with what the Taliban did was those statues being blown up don't stop Bhuddists from practicising their religion. I sympathize will all Afghanis as any humane person would.
India has thousands of mosques and many in Ayodhya itself. Babri masjid was a symbolic attack on another faith (which I wholly condemn), not as a ploy to prevent someone else from praying. What the Taliban did was the same in Bamiyan, their destroying valuable buddha statues had the same effect of hurting the sentiments of another religion.



That's good to see but it wasn't widely known as you put it. What about the other attacks?
The truth about all these blasts were long known before the confession. ATS had released statements about them. Aseemanand was arrested in May 2007.



Good that you don't defend terrorists but the Taliban are a resistance movement just like the many Indians who took up arms against British rule. The British called them terrorists too, so are they terrorists in your view?

India didnt harbour terrorists and sponsor terrorism and carry out attacks like 9/11 which prompted Britain to come and invade us. It was the Taliban which attacked USA first, and hence the US is perfectly legitmate to retaliate.

Raz
18th January 2011, 16:02
The Taliban attacked the USA? WOW!! Just wow!! Pwn yourself why you don't you!!

ganeshran
18th January 2011, 16:44
The Taliban attacked the USA? WOW!! Just wow!! Pwn yourself why you don't you!!

Taliban harboured and supported Al Qaeda which attacked the USA. USA asked Taliban to hand over Bin Laden but they refused. As you sow, so shall you reap.

SheedaRaacut
18th January 2011, 17:17
Taliban harboured and supported Al Qaeda which attacked the USA. USA asked Taliban to hand over Bin Laden but they refused. As you sow, so shall you reap.

The Taliban asked for proof.
And if they were going to get the proof , the Taliban weren't just gonna hand him over, Bin laden was going to be tried in a shariah court and if found guilty then executed. The Taliban do not subject themselves to American law.

They (Taliban) talked about executing him long before 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nsZ6y9Qlgk&feature=related

(Saeed Hashami, the envoy for the Taliban to the states ) take a listen after 2:00 , who knows if you listen to the whole interview you might even see the Taliban in a new light . Not many people out there have actually heard an Afghan Talib speak.

Sameer K
18th January 2011, 17:22
We have never "fallen down". Yes, we have had problems and some problems are still present. One of these is terrorism and for that your country's RAW agency has played a major part in it rearing its ugly head from time to time.

India may not be quite falling down, but Pakistan can, at any moment put either foot on its head and crush it all the way to and under the ground it stands.

Like you did in 1971 by surrendering?

Some people are really delusional. We are hosting the CWG and you can't get bangladesh to visit you for a cricket series.....

RAW shot at the sri lankan cricket team?
RAW shot salman taseer
etc etc

Sameer K
18th January 2011, 17:26
We have never "fallen down". Yes, we have had problems and some problems are still present. One of these is terrorism and for that your country's RAW agency has played a major part in it rearing its ugly head from time to time.

India may not be quite falling down, but Pakistan can, at any moment put either foot on its head and crush it all the way to and under the ground it stands.

The fact that you are worried about " crushing India under your foot" and not quite worried about the state of Pakistan is the problem. If you can't see that Pakistan is in trouble then people like you are causing half the problems in Pakistan.

ganeshran
18th January 2011, 17:36
The Taliban asked for proof.
And if they were going to get the proof , the Taliban weren't just gonna hand him over, Bin laden was going to be tried in a shariah court and if found guilty then executed. The Taliban do not subject themselves to American law.

They (Taliban) talked about executing him long before 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nsZ6y9Qlgk&feature=related

(Saeed Hashami, the envoy for the Taliban to the states ) take a listen after 2:00 , who knows if you listen to the whole interview you might even see the Taliban in a new light . Not many people out there have actually heard an Afghan Talib speak.

come on, Taliban would have never handed over Bin Laden to the United states, no matter how much proof was given.

Such an elaborate plot, executed to proficiency could not have been done without extensive planning and state support.

ganeshran
18th January 2011, 17:39
I will never support the US invasion of Iraq because Iraq had done nothing against the USA nor posed any future threat, nor did he support Al-Qaeda. But the Afghanistan invasion was legitimate. 9/11 was an act of war.

Prince_Pathan
18th January 2011, 18:02
I will never support the US invasion of Iraq because Iraq had done nothing against the USA nor posed any future threat, nor did he support Al-Qaeda. But the Afghanistan invasion was legitimate. 9/11 was an act of war.

lol considering there were no afghans involved in the 9/11 attrocities that is a retarted statement

have a look at the nationalities of all involved good lad...

ganeshran
18th January 2011, 19:03
lol considering there were no afghans involved in the 9/11 attrocities that is a retarted statement

have a look at the nationalities of all involved good lad...

But the taliban did harbour Al-Qaeda and especially Bin Laden. If they had handed him over, war might have been averted.

moumotta
18th January 2011, 20:03
The Taliban asked for proof.
And if they were going to get the proof , the Taliban weren't just gonna hand him over, Bin laden was going to be tried in a shariah court and if found guilty then executed. The Taliban do not subject themselves to American law.

They (Taliban) talked about executing him long before 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nsZ6y9Qlgk&feature=related

(Saeed Hashami, the envoy for the Taliban to the states ) take a listen after 2:00 , who knows if you listen to the whole interview you might even see the Taliban in a new light . Not many people out there have actually heard an Afghan Talib speak.

lol considering there were no afghans involved in the 9/11 attrocities that is a retarted statement

have a look at the nationalities of all involved good lad...
LOL, Even now after nearly 10 years!!!
shows that while Laden may have excaped from his cave, many others are still trapped in there.

Wasim_Waqar
18th January 2011, 20:12
Still no answer to my question anybody, that I posed above? Selective glancing? :(

Wasim_Waqar
18th January 2011, 20:13
But the taliban did harbour Al-Qaeda and especially Bin Laden. If they had handed him over, war might have been averted.

If you really believe that, then we might as well give up lol

There will ALWAYS be a person/group that can be used as a reason for war! It was OBL, before that Saddam, next will be someone else!

s2k
18th January 2011, 20:31
The difference is hindu extremism isnt targeted or promoted by the western media at every possible opportunity given whereas islamic extremism is.

There have been 3-4 isolated incidents of Hindus involved in a terror attack.That too only limited to India.Islamic terrorists have been involved in attacks from NY to Mumbai and London and Bali etc.


PS:I hate to use the words Islamic or Hindu as terrorists are just terrorists and use religion as a mask.

s2k
18th January 2011, 20:38
We have never "fallen down". Yes, we have had problems and some problems are still present. One of these is terrorism and for that your country's RAW agency has played a major part in it rearing its ugly head from time to time.

India may not be quite falling down, but Pakistan can, at any moment put either foot on its head and crush it all the way to and under the ground it stands.

Like in 1965,1971????

This is the thinking that has caused Pakistan all the problems.The obsession with India.Politicians asking votes in the name of India,Kashmir,Palestian,Afghanistan etc etc etc.Army taking over in the name of Pakistan is in danger etc etc etc.

In India i havent seen anyone asking votes in name of PAkistan,Tamils,Nepal,Kashmir etc.They issue is always local and national issues.

Brother,Pakistan is going through a strife,try too bring your country out of it we are not concerned about it neither we are obsessed with it,we are more interested in doing something for our country and not in bring someone else down.

Wasim_Waqar
18th January 2011, 20:53
I think Pakistan-bashing is also a guaranteed vote-winner in India- or has been until very recently

ganeshran
18th January 2011, 21:04
I think Pakistan-bashing is also a guaranteed vote-winner in India- or has been until very recently

not really. Though our leaders make statements on Pakistan, as an election issue, Pakistan has never figured that much. A majority of people are concerned more with the basic issues, like food prices, electricity, water, jobs etc.

ganeshran
18th January 2011, 21:06
If you really believe that, then we might as well give up lol

There will ALWAYS be a person/group that can be used as a reason for war! It was OBL, before that Saddam, next will be someone else!

If America would have invaded anyone, it might have been Iraq. Afghanistan was simply a reply to 9/11. What they gained from the war is very less. The Iraq war was however done for strategic and profiteering reasons.

s2k
18th January 2011, 22:19
I think Pakistan-bashing is also a guaranteed vote-winner in India- or has been until very recently

Nopes,hardly a major issue....yes sometimes it is mentioned.

Prince_Pathan
18th January 2011, 23:12
But the taliban did harbour Al-Qaeda and especially Bin Laden. If they had handed him over, war might have been averted.

al qaeda are the infiltrators...most people know that

they are evil...

but not afghanis...america had no business in afghanistan

so to say the invasion of afghanistan is justified is stupid...because more often than not its the innocent people who are being murdered...

KingKhanWC
18th January 2011, 23:30
Can you provide me a source where the groups behind the attacks blamed Muslims for them? l

The BJP blamed it on Pakistan or people from Pakistan because they petitioned the Indian National Congress asking Pakistan to comply with cross border terrorism whilst they knew full well it was their Hindu brethren who carried out the attack. The title of the thread should also have given you a hint into the blame put on Muslims.





That report is highly sensationalized. Same channel also has a report on Taliban sponsoring 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Do you believe that?
http://origin-www.ibnlive.com/videos/113453/taliban-trained-2611-attackers.html

lol. Just cause a news channel gets it wrong on one thing doesn't mean they get it wrong all the time. Let's stick to the topic. A Tamil leader admits it himself in the inteview.


Senior LTTE leaders told have also CNN-IBN that they were recruited by Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) - India's external intelligence wing - and trained by the Indian Army.

"In 1984, I was in Uttar Pradesh. They were training many Tamil groups there. I went in for training with many others. They gave us military training," the head of Tamil Eelam Judicial Services, E Pararajasingham, says.

"My days in Madras are unforgettable. We had many friends at diplomatic, political and bureaucratic level. We had very good relationship at various levels and I wish we can get back to those days," chief of Tamil Eelam Police B Nadesan says.

"We used to friends' houses. India is a multi-cultural country and we used to go to our friends' houses who were in Andhra and Delhi. I would move with them," Nadesan adds.

A book written by LTTE ideologue, Anton Balasingham, available with with CNN-IBN, describes the entire chain of events.

In October 1983, Prabhakaran arrived in India and stayed at a secret location in Pondicherry.

The book says that RAW offered to train 200 LTTE cadres in Dehradun.

Tamizh Kavi, a well known voice on LTTE's radio station, is also candid about the rebel army's Indian connection.

"Indian Army gave us training when Indira Gandhi was the prime minister. She and MG Ramachandran extended full support to us and helped our organisation's growth," Kavi says.

The Indian Peace Keeping Force was initially welcomed by Tamils in Sri Lanka, but years of alleged atrocities later, it's only the memories of brutality that remain.

"When IPKF landed in our homeland we were young, less than 10 years. But even now we can feel the pain and fear of the Indian army's brutalities. It's a nightmare that won't go away. Even now we feel that we have an umbilical link with India," a Sri Lankan Tamil, Aruna, says.

"You know the IPKF was sometimes worse than the Sri Lankan army. People suffered a lot. First they did not know the language, secondly they do not understand these people. I talked to some Majors and some higher ranked officers in Vanni and Jaffna and they didn't understand why they are in a war here," chairman of North East Secretariat of Human Rights, Tamil Eelam, Father Karunaratnam says.

A lady who fled Jaffna to escape the IPKF also has some terrible memories.

"I have been a witness to a brutal rape of a girl called Rani. We were helpless and could not protect her and after the IPKF people left, we rushed her to nearby hospital. We are completely shaken up this atrocity," she says.

Pastor Emmanuel, a close associate of Prabhakaran, ran the Jaffna seminary during the IPKF intervention and recalls how his students were marched off to an IPKF camp.

"I could see that they had striped the boys naked and had pumped water on them and electrocuted them. This incidence shook and shattered the trust of the Tamil community towards India," former rector of Jaffna seminary Pastor SJ Emmanuel says.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/recruited-by-raw-trained-by-army-ltte/14462-3.html




By your logic, Tamil people's areas are occupied by Sinhala forces who neither share a religion nor ethnicity with them. They can be called opressed as victims of Sri Lankan atrocities, So is killing innocent citizens then justified, when done in name of a "cause"?

lol. Sri Lanka is a small island and it has the right to be united. Tamils have no right to take up arms against the Sri Lankan government. This is not my logic but your poor understanding. Tamils have not been invaded by a foriegn army. They wanted their own state in the north and this was not reasonable at all. They were the terrorists not freedom fighters. The simple difference between the two is one is occupied by a foriegn force and the other isn't.



India has thousands of mosques and many in Ayodhya itself. Babri masjid was a symbolic attack on another faith (which I wholly condemn), not as a ploy to prevent someone else from praying. What the Taliban did was the same in Bamiyan, their destroying valuable buddha statues had the same effect of hurting the sentiments of another religion.

Muslims don't worship a mosque they use it as a facility to pray in. If you destroy a mosque you are stopping a Muslim from practising his/her faith. To say there are other mosques is pathetic as any mosque is built for a purpose of requirment.

Wheter a statue is in a mountain of Afghanistan or not will not stop any Bhuddist from practising their religion. It may have hurt the Bhuddists but didn't stop them.


The truth about all these blasts were long known before the confession. ATS had released statements about them. Aseemanand was arrested in May 2007.

The full truth is not even known now. We don't know how up the chain the orders came from. The role of the BJP in this etc. The police may have been giving statements but the media certainly allowed the blame to continue on Muslims. This is why you see titles from many media as the title of the thread.


India didnt harbour terrorists and sponsor terrorism and carry out attacks like 9/11 which prompted Britain to come and invade us. It was the Taliban which attacked USA first, and hence the US is perfectly legitmate to retaliate.


You ducked the point so let me ask you again. When the British called Indians as terrorists when they were defending themsleves against British rule were they right to do so? It's frustrating you don't understand basic logic and international law.

AN OCCUPIED PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE.

The Taliban are Afghanis and have the right to defend themselves against terrorists state invaders. They did not attack US even according to the Americans, so you are very much mistaken.

India is not being occupied by foriegn Muslim invaders. Hindu terrorists want to start a huge war between Muslims and Hindu's.

There may be many less Muslims but it would be idiotic to start such a war for the Hindu's. Remember a minority of Muslims ruled over Hindu's for over a thousand year and this could happen again.

s2k
19th January 2011, 00:16
T




Muslims don't worship a mosque they use it as a facility to pray in. If you destroy a mosque you are stopping a Muslim from practising his/her faith. To say there are other mosques is pathetic as any mosque is built for a purpose of requirment.

Wheter a statue is in a mountain of Afghanistan or not will not stop any Bhuddist from practising their religion. It may have hurt the Bhuddists but didn't stop them.




AN OCCUPIED PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE.

The Taliban are Afghanis and have the right to defend themselves against terrorists state invaders. They did not attack US even according to the Americans, so you are very much mistaken.

India is not being occupied by foriegn Muslim invaders. Hindu terrorists want to start a huge war between Muslims and Hindu's.

There may be many less Muslims but it would be idiotic to start such a war for the Hindu's. Remember a minority of Muslims ruled over Hindu's for over a thousand year and this could happen again.

So a mosque being destryed stops muslims from practising their faith but destroying buddhists statues doesnt stop them.Thereis not only 1 mosque where the muslims pray they can use any other mosque as well(by your own logic)


Where did you read about the 1000year rule?Zaid Hamid?Go read history,you will know who ruled what area and when.


Jinnah said hindus and muslims cannot coexist and there fore muslims need a separate country.They got PAkistan,so logically speaking according to your quaid there shouldnt be a single muslim living in India.The truth is there are almost as many muslims in India as Pakistan and they are as much part of India as any hindu.

These isolated attacks by these hindu terrorists has been in retaliation to many attacks by muslim terrorists on India.Though all of them should be condemned.

Wasim_Waqar
19th January 2011, 00:57
KingKhanWC, s2k etc:-

Can you tell me about the role of India sponsoring Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen in Kashmir: i.e. paying them off to do torture for them and USA denying visa to their leader, who is a 'J&K parliament MLA?'

KingKhanWC
19th January 2011, 01:22
So a mosque being destryed stops muslims from practising their faith but destroying buddhists statues doesnt stop them.Thereis not only 1 mosque where the muslims pray they can use any other mosque as well(by your own logic)

Why should they have to go to another mosque because extremists Hindu's turn into nutters and start destorying it? A mosque is a facility which Muslims use to practise their religion. The statues are not. Foolish argument.


Where did you read about the 1000year rule?Zaid Hamid?Go read history,you will know who ruled what area and when.

Muslims first ruled Sindh in the 8th century and were still ruling parts of India in the 18th.



Jinnah said hindus and muslims cannot coexist and there fore muslims need a separate country.They got PAkistan,so logically speaking according to your quaid there shouldnt be a single muslim living in India.The truth is there are almost as many muslims in India as Pakistan and they are as much part of India as any hindu.

Jinnah was right. You don't see Hindu extremists ripping down mosques in Pakistan?



These isolated attacks by these hindu terrorists has been in retaliation to many attacks by muslim terrorists on India.Though all of them should be condemned.

It's an old excuse. You believe Mumbai attacks were carried out and planned by Muslims, the same logic could be applied there too. They were in retaliation to state terrorism of India in Kashmir.


Can you tell me about the role of India sponsoring Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen in Kashmir: i.e. paying them off to do torture for them and USA denying visa to their leader, who is a 'J&K parliament MLA?'

I probably know as much as you. India has used this group to carry out disgusting crimes from murder to rape. Wikileaks recently bought this to light too.


The cables reveal a careful US policy of pressure in Kashmir, while maintaining a strictly neutral stance.
Two years after the cable on torture was sent, US diplomats in India argued strongly against granting a visa request from the government of India on behalf of a member of the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly who was invited to a conference organised by a think-tank in America.
Usman Abdul Majid, a cable marked secret said, "is a leader of the pro-GOI [government of India] Ikhwan-ul-Musilmeen paramilitary group, which ... is notorious for its use of torture, extra-judicial killing, rape, and extortion of Kashmiri civilians suspected of harbouring or facilitating terrorists."
The diplomats admitted that denying Majid's application might have some repercussions with Indian officials, "especially those from India's Intelligence Bureau who have been close to his case" but said it was essential to preserve a balanced approach to the Kashmir issue following the prior refusal of a visa to the leading separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani.
The cable notes that officials are "unable to verify with evidence the claims against Majid".
US diplomats repeatedly refer to human rights abuses by security and law enforcement agencies within India. In a cable from February 2006, officials reported that "terrorism investigations and court cases tend to rely upon confessions, many of which are obtained under duress if not beatings, threats, or, in some cases, torture".
A year later a brief for the visiting acting coordinator for counter-terrorism, Frank Urbancic, described India's police and security forces as "overworked and hampered by bad ... practices, including the widespread use of torture in interrogations.".

http://www.kashmirglobal.com/content/wikileaks-india-tortured-kashmir-prisoners

s2k
19th January 2011, 01:39
Why should they have to go to another mosque because extremists Hindu's turn into nutters and start destorying it? A mosque is a facility which Muslims use to practise their religion. The statues are not. Foolish argument.




Buddhists use staues to worship Buddha.Every Buddhists monastery has statues.If it is justified to blow up statues of gods of other religion on the name of Islam,then retaliation is to be expected.Who was the nutter who destroyed the Hindu temple that existed there and built the mosque?


Muslims first ruled Sindh in the 8th century and were still ruling parts of India in the 18th.



The most of the parts of present day Pakistan including Sindh had become muslim majority shortly after the 8th century.To be frank Muslims ruled a huge portion of Northern Eastern India.Most of which lated became parts of Pakistan as they had huge muslim population.So in actuality the rulers ruled over a 50-50 muslim-hindu population.Muslim rulers never had direct rule in areas like rajasthan,Gujarat,Orissa and major parts of south India except Deccan.Also the rule from delhi started in 12th century and lasted till Aurangzeb,approximately 500 years.So this rule of 1000 years on Hindus is a folk lore.



Jinnah was right. You don't see Hindu extremists ripping down mosques in Pakistan?


Then i guess every muslim from India should move to Pakistan,but they didnt then and they dont now.They are flourishing in India their population is rising as well.In Pakistan the population of Hindus which was 21% after partition is down to 2% now,



It's an old excuse. You believe Mumbai attacks were carried out and planned by Muslims, the same logic could be applied there too. They were in retaliation to state terrorism of India in Kashmir.



What has a Pakistani national got to do with what happens in Kashmir?Its India's internal matter.Can India send troops to see what it is happening in Baluchistan or what is happening to Hindus in Pakistan?

KingKhanWC
19th January 2011, 02:19
Buddhists use staues to worship Buddha.Every Buddhists monastery has statues.If it is justified to blow up statues of gods of other religion on the name of Islam,then retaliation is to be expected.Who was the nutter who destroyed the Hindu temple that existed there and built the mosque?

A Bhuddist does not require a statue of Bhudda to practice their faith. As for the temple it's debated if it even existed but we have video footage of the mosque being torn down.



The most of the parts of present day Pakistan including Sindh had become muslim majority shortly after the 8th century.To be frank Muslims ruled a huge portion of Northern Eastern India.Most of which lated became parts of Pakistan as they had huge muslim population.So in actuality the rulers ruled over a 50-50 muslim-hindu population.Muslim rulers never had direct rule in areas like rajasthan,Gujarat,Orissa and major parts of south India except Deccan.Also the rule from delhi started in 12th century and lasted till Aurangzeb,approximately 500 years.So this rule of 1000 years on Hindus is a folk lore.

You don't need to rule every single part of the country to be in charge of the nation as a whole.




Then i guess every muslim from India should move to Pakistan,but they didnt then and they dont now.They are flourishing in India their population is rising as well.In Pakistan the population of Hindus which was 21% after partition is down to 2% now,

Fine by me. India just needs to give away enough land to accomadate 150 million Muslims, they can start with Punjab. Most Hindu's left Pakistan.



What has a Pakistani national got to do with what happens in Kashmir?Its India's internal matter.Can India send troops to see what it is happening in Baluchistan or what is happening to Hindus in Pakistan?

If they feel strongly enough. Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan since it was majority Muslim at partition, so many people see them as the same.

Wasim_Waqar
19th January 2011, 02:29
Thought so.

Ok mr s2k: so Usman Majid is a terrorist whom India is harbouring. What you gonna do? Go on a spree of mass murder in Srinagar? *forgets* Oh yeah, I forgot, that's an everyday norm for India in the Kashmir valley!

Kashmir: a lot of people in the valley are now pro-independence, but many people still support Pakistan- in the event of a referedum (*cough* Sudan, *cough*) the pro-independence lot all have said they would throw their lot in with Pakistan.

Kashmir is literally the premature content that India produces from its front passage- a big embarassment

attock
19th January 2011, 03:29
Just on the Weekend an Indian muslim told me whenever something happens in India they always blame Pakistan 1st...... Reality is both countries are enemies and they both plan against each other..... Recently I seen a program involving a former ISI and an some Indian person (I cant remember who it was exactly) and the fromer ISI chief said that we have to be very careful as if we do something to hurt India (just like India funds and is behind some of the terrorism carried out in Pakistan) we know in response they will kill Muslims in India.

He also said that once the Afghanistan war is over, the mujahideen will more than likely be heading towards Kashmir....

Sameer K
19th January 2011, 11:30
Blaming Muslims and blaming Pakistan are not the same thing!!

Indian muslims are not pakistanis and are nothing alike!

Absolutely shocked at how some posters are downplaying the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan! If Muslims in Afghanistan can't respect other religions then why should their religion be respected by others??

For those Pakistanis going on and on about Kashmir, please look at Balochistan! Do you people even know how it became a part of Pakistan?

Sameer K
19th January 2011, 11:32
Just on the Weekend an Indian muslim told me whenever something happens in India they always blame Pakistan 1st...... Reality is both countries are enemies and they both plan against each other..... Recently I seen a program involving a former ISI and an some Indian person (I cant remember who it was exactly) and the fromer ISI chief said that we have to be very careful as if we do something to hurt India (just like India funds and is behind some of the terrorism carried out in Pakistan) we know in response they will kill Muslims in India.

He also said that once the Afghanistan war is over, the mujahideen will more than likely be heading towards Kashmir....

Any evidence of India's involvement? Neutral sources?

Its something everybody "knows" but can't provide any evidence to support their claim! "Common knowledge", "its obvious", are terms thrown about.

ganeshran
19th January 2011, 12:43
A Bhuddist does not require a statue of Bhudda to practice their faith. As for the temple it's debated if it even existed but we have video footage of the mosque being torn down.

So you condone Taliban in destroying the Bamiyan Buddha statues which existed since the 6th century, and was one of the most important religious places for Buddhists. Demolition of Babri Masjid was wrong and we accept that, but you obviosuly find it hard to see the Taliban do any wrong. Some angels, they must be.

Your sympathy for Taliban condones the enormous number of crimes they have committed against Afghanistan and the people.



You don't need to rule every single part of the country to be in charge of the nation as a whole.

Fine by me. India just needs to give away enough land to accomadate 150 million Muslims, they can start with Punjab. Most Hindu's left Pakistan.

Why would Indian Muslims want to join Pakistan?



If they feel strongly enough. Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan since it was majority Muslim at partition, so many people see them as the same.

If every Muslim majority state or province in the world needed to be ruled as an independent state or under Muslim rule, there would have to be lot more countries created.

ganeshran
19th January 2011, 12:45
Just on the Weekend an Indian muslim told me whenever something happens in India they always blame Pakistan 1st...... Reality is both countries are enemies and they both plan against each other..... Recently I seen a program involving a former ISI and an some Indian person (I cant remember who it was exactly) and the fromer ISI chief said that we have to be very careful as if we do something to hurt India (just like India funds and is behind some of the terrorism carried out in Pakistan) we know in response they will kill Muslims in India.

He also said that once the Afghanistan war is over, the mujahideen will more than likely be heading towards Kashmir....

This is not the soviet war in late 1980s when India didnt have the resources to stop the influx of these mujhaideen. This time the army will take steps to obliterate any threat to the nation.

IamIndian
19th January 2011, 13:20
India is also a sponsor and supporter of terrorism (pakistan,sri lanka etc). Things arent looking all that rosy for them. Admitedly they appear to have a brighter future compared to Pakistan but I think we will see them suffering from home grown terrorists (muslims,hindus,sikhs whatever) in the next 10 or so years as the wealth gap increases. I would put money on the Naxalites getting hold of a bit more sophisticated weaponry...made in china ;)

You are wrong... all kind of terrorist activities will be wiped out from India in the next 10 years.

Raz
19th January 2011, 16:59
Like you did in 1971 by surrendering?

Some people are really delusional. We are hosting the CWG and you can't get bangladesh to visit you for a cricket series.....

RAW shot at the sri lankan cricket team?
RAW shot salman taseer
etc etc

1971 was a mistake that politicians made and then it was those politicians, who eventually abandoned their soldiers when they realised just how much of a cock up they had made. Part of me doesn't blame them for surrendering, although, because of geography this was a war that was always going to be difficult for Pakistan and much easier for India to fight.

You hosted the CWG? And what a fine job you did as well in leaving such a great legacy! :)))Only thing you didn't managed to do kill any of the competitors. Just about everything else went down didn't it?

As I said, RAW has played a major part in creating the security situation and the subsequent paranoia. Salman Taseer is a religious matter and the Sri Lankan cricket team incident, well I wouldn't be surprised if India had a hand in this.

ganeshran
19th January 2011, 17:02
As I said, RAW has played a major part in creating the security situation and the subsequent paranoia. Salman Taseer is a religious matter and the Sri Lankan cricket team incident, well I wouldn't be surprised if India had a hand in this.

Proof? Neutral Sources.

Raz
19th January 2011, 17:06
The fact that you are worried about " crushing India under your foot" and not quite worried about the state of Pakistan is the problem. If you can't see that Pakistan is in trouble then people like you are causing half the problems in Pakistan.

Believe you me I am very concerned about the state of Pakistan and the trouble that it's in. It just so happens that India is responsible for creating quite a lot of it.

In terms of Pakistan crushing India under its foot. Well that doesn't worry me, as I know that it can done quite easily and very quickly.

Sameer K
19th January 2011, 17:27
Believe you me I am very concerned about the state of Pakistan and the trouble that it's in. It just so happens that India is responsible for creating quite a lot of it.

In terms of Pakistan crushing India under its foot. Well that doesn't worry me, as I know that it can done quite easily and very quickly.

Pakistan is not responsible for any of its troubles. India caused half your problems and US,CIA, Zionists etc caused the other half.

You know it can be done quickly and easily? Please share how you KNOW! It wasn't easy in 1971 was it?

attock
19th January 2011, 17:51
Absolutely shocked at how some posters are downplaying the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan! If Muslims in Afghanistan can't respect other religions then why should their religion be respected by others??



Are you telling me Hindus respect every religion, Barbari Masjid comes to mind. Killing and raping kashmiri women.... im not saying Pakistani's are angels but You Indians never accept anything Pakistan is behind some of the Mujahideen groups (my personal opinion)... But you be a man and accept the fact that Indians are behind some of the terrorist attacks carried out in Pakistan...

ganeshran
19th January 2011, 18:06
Are you telling me Hindus respect every religion, Barbari Masjid comes to mind. Killing and raping kashmiri women.... im not saying Pakistani's are angels but You Indians never accept anything Pakistan is behind some of the Mujahideen groups (my personal opinion)... But you be a man and accept the fact that Indians are behind some of the terrorist attacks carried out in Pakistan...

Babri masjid demolition has been wholly condemened by me and others in no uncertain terms in this thread and various other public forums. It was a wrong thing and it took years for those wounds to heal, but those things are put behind us and we are ready to move forward in a peaceful atmosphere.

That Pakistan was (or is) behind mujahideen groups has been accepted by both Zardari and Musharraf, so there is very little to refute in that fact. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,721110,00.html

Which terrorist attacks have been carried out in Pakistan by RAW, can you quote any sources? The only resistance movement in Pakistan that India has actively supported is the Mukthi Bahini, which was formed after genocide in east pakistan by the Pakistani army which killed between 300,000 - 3 million people according to varying estimates.

attock
19th January 2011, 20:48
Babri masjid demolition has been wholly condemened by me and others in no uncertain terms in this thread and various other public forums. It was a wrong thing and it took years for those wounds to heal, but those things are put behind us and we are ready to move forward in a peaceful atmosphere.

That Pakistan was (or is) behind mujahideen groups has been accepted by both Zardari and Musharraf, so there is very little to refute in that fact. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,721110,00.html

Which terrorist attacks have been carried out in Pakistan by RAW, can you quote any sources? The only resistance movement in Pakistan that India has actively supported is the Mukthi Bahini, which was formed after genocide in east pakistan by the Pakistani army which killed between 300,000 - 3 million people according to varying estimates.

On Press TV couple of months back Zahid Hamid was discussing this issue. The Documentary is also uploaded on Youtube. I know many Indian people dont believe what Zahid Hamid says but when I visted Pakistan people from the NWFP have stated the same things regarding Indian people been found in the Swaat valley and also quite a few times on ARY and other channels Pakistani MNA's etc have stated the same point. You believe me or not thats entirely up to you. But the bottom line is innocent people should not be killed anywhere by anyone in the world

QazzarFan
19th January 2011, 21:10
I find it quite delirious when Pakistanis consider '71 just a mistake-- another vilification of this heinous historical exercise. I wish Bangladeshi media were as powerful as Jewish/American media or else this event would've been termed as Holocaust 2 but unfortunately 90% of the world were not even aware of this atrocity.

3 million wiped out, half million women sexually assaulted (competing with Nanjing Massacre & WWII German rapes in Russia)...professors, doctors, scientists were hanged from trees to make an example out of...minorities..especially Hindu & tribal region families were subjected to brutal, heinous crimes....my own mother's neighbor friend's family was brutally tortured, electrocuted then the women in the family were taken to the Pak army barracks for days....they were never found again.

When you systematically target and wipe out a whole generation of the country's literary elites to suppress the local population and their language movement...it's no longer a 'mistake'....it's a path towards complete and utter domination.

ganeshran
19th January 2011, 21:30
On Press TV couple of months back Zahid Hamid was discussing this issue. The Documentary is also uploaded on Youtube. I know many Indian people dont believe what Zahid Hamid says but when I visted Pakistan people from the NWFP have stated the same things regarding Indian people been found in the Swaat valley and also quite a few times on ARY and other channels Pakistani MNA's etc have stated the same point. You believe me or not thats entirely up to you. But the bottom line is innocent people should not be killed anywhere by anyone in the world

Yes, I dont believe of word of what Zaid Hamid says. His observations are usually true (the background, cause of the conflict etc), but his inference, judgement and predictions are plainly preposterous. He decides the principal parties to blame for everything wrong in Pakistan - USA, India, CIA, RAW, Mossad and somehow distorts his facts to support his twisted theories.

India has more to lose than to gain by actively supporting / fomenting terrorism in Pakistan. The current battles India is fighting against Pakistan are diplomatic and economic, trying to get countries to refrain from supporting Pakistan on diplomatic issues, proposing supporting resolutions and blocking unfriendly ones, getting other world leaders to criticize Pakistan etc. Why would the world want to support India, if there is irrefutable proof of it being found to be involved in terrorism in Pakistan?

attock
19th January 2011, 22:19
Yes, I dont believe of word of what Zaid Hamid says. His observations are usually true (the background, cause of the conflict etc), but his inference, judgement and predictions are plainly preposterous. He decides the principal parties to blame for everything wrong in Pakistan - USA, India, CIA, RAW, Mossad and somehow distorts his facts to support his twisted theories.

India has more to lose than to gain by actively supporting / fomenting terrorism in Pakistan. The current battles India is fighting against Pakistan are diplomatic and economic, trying to get countries to refrain from supporting Pakistan on diplomatic issues, proposing supporting resolutions and blocking unfriendly ones, getting other world leaders to criticize Pakistan etc. Why would the world want to support India, if there is irrefutable proof of it being found to be involved in terrorism in Pakistan?

As I said before it's up to you what you believe, but the reality is both countries are enemies and believe it or not but both countries try derailing each other. And in Pakistan it is common belief among the people that India is behind some of the terrorism, either through force or through supporting the terrorist by aiding them with weapons or any other form.... And I believe that, but that does not mean you have to believe it aswell.......

Sameer K
19th January 2011, 23:22
Zaid Hamid : Amar singh fiasco. 'nuff said..

As far as the rest of the accusations, nobody is denying what is happening in Kashmir is wrong or that the babri masjid demolition was wrong. To say I should just accept India's involvement in Balochistan or whatever because of your "belief" is preposterous. Show me evidence then I'll believe.

Please note the difference between Indians and Hindus and Muslims and Pakistanis. Not all Indians are hindus and not all muslims are Pakistani. I know you probably think of it that way but its just not true.

s2k
19th January 2011, 23:32
A Bhuddist does not require a statue of Bhudda to practice their faith. As for the temple it's debated if it even existed but we have video footage of the mosque being torn down.


Wrong.All buddhist monasteries have statues of Buddha which are worshipped.



You don't need to rule every single part of the country to be in charge of the nation as a whole.


Well then dont call it a 1000 year rule over hindus.



Fine by me. India just needs to give away enough land to accomadate 150 million Muslims, they can start with Punjab. Most Hindu's left Pakistan.



We gave you enough land in 1947 just the fact is many muslims didnt support the idea of going to Pakistan.And after what happened in Bangladesh well many of them will be glad they didnt.Not an inch of land will be given to anyone.The post Jinnah Pakistani leadership needs to ask itself why despite the fact that Pakistan was created as a nation for muslims of subcontinent,only 1/3rd of subcontinents muslims are in Pakistan.Why half of the country which had a muslim majority broke away?So before questioning other countries,see what your own country have done for its citizens.



If they feel strongly enough. Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan since it was majority Muslim at partition, so many people see them as the same.


Kashmir was an independent state rule by a King and accrding to the declaration of Independence signed by both India and Pakistan,all such independent Kings and their sovereign Monarchs had the right to remain independent or join India or Pakistan.The King of Kashmir joined India.Lets assume the question of muslim population,Pakistan,India and Bangladesh all have similar muslim population,give or take a few million,so all three have claim on Kashmir on basis of that.

s2k
19th January 2011, 23:38
Thought so.

Ok mr s2k: so Usman Majid is a terrorist whom India is harbouring. What you gonna do? Go on a spree of mass murder in Srinagar? *forgets* Oh yeah, I forgot, that's an everyday norm for India in the Kashmir valley!

Kashmir: a lot of people in the valley are now pro-independence, but many people still support Pakistan- in the event of a referedum (*cough* Sudan, *cough*) the pro-independence lot all have said they would throw their lot in with Pakistan.

Kashmir is literally the premature content that India produces from its front passage- a big embarassment

HAs PAkistan conducted a referendum in its part of KAshmir?

What about the million KAshmiri Pandits displaced from Kashmir?

What right had Pakistan to invade Kashmir,then a sovereign country under a King?

Gonzo
19th January 2011, 23:46
When is Pakistan going to arrest Hafiz Muhammad Saeed? Or are they fine with letting a terrorist who has masterminded the deaths of thousands of Indians walk free in their country?

KingKhanWC
20th January 2011, 03:16
So you condone Taliban in destroying the Bamiyan Buddha statues which existed since the 6th century, and was one of the most important religious places for Buddhists. Demolition of Babri Masjid was wrong and we accept that, but you obviosuly find it hard to see the Taliban do any wrong. Some angels, they must be.

I niether condone it or condemn it.


Your sympathy for Taliban condones the enormous number of crimes they have committed against Afghanistan and the people.

I sympathise with their right to self defence nothing else.



Why would Indian Muslims want to join Pakistan?

Some may some may not. I was just answering you point. Many more would not want to live under Indian rule if mosques such as the Noor Masjid in Delhi continue to be taken down.



If every Muslim majority state or province in the world needed to be ruled as an independent state or under Muslim rule, there would have to be lot more countries created.

So? Borders are always changing throughout history and will continue to do so.

s2k


Wrong.All buddhist monasteries have statues of Buddha which are worshipped.

lol. You misunderstood. I said Buddists don't require a statue to practice their religion. I know some Buddists in the UK and they don't have a statue at home. There is no requirement on them to visit a temple to practice their faith. There is a requirment for Muslims to attend a Masjid on Friday.


Well then dont call it a 1000 year rule over hindus.

They haD central command of the nation as a whole.


We gave you enough land in 1947 just the fact is many muslims didnt support the idea of going to Pakistan.And after what happened in Bangladesh well many of them will be glad they didnt.Not an inch of land will be given to anyone.The post Jinnah Pakistani leadership needs to ask itself why despite the fact that Pakistan was created as a nation for muslims of subcontinent,only 1/3rd of subcontinents muslims are in Pakistan.Why half of the country which had a muslim majority broke away?So before questioning other countries,see what your own country have done for its citizens.

Borders change all the time. If the 150 millions Muslims demand change it will happen.


Kashmir was an independent state rule by a King and accrding to the declaration of Independence signed by both India and Pakistan,all such independent Kings and their sovereign Monarchs had the right to remain independent or join India or Pakistan.The King of Kashmir joined India.Lets assume the question of muslim population,Pakistan,India and Bangladesh all have similar muslim population,give or take a few million,so all three have claim on Kashmir on basis of that.

lol. You can't have it both ways. If it is supposed to be an indpendent state then India should give it indpendence instead of terrorising the population.

Wasim_Waqar
20th January 2011, 04:15
HAs PAkistan conducted a referendum in its part of KAshmir?

What about the million KAshmiri Pandits displaced from Kashmir?

What right had Pakistan to invade Kashmir,then a sovereign country under a King?

Million. Lol. More like a few thousand, maximum 4,000!

Invasion?? The Maharajah as a Hindu threw in his lot with India against the wishes of his own people who wanted to join the new Muslim land of Pakistan!

Pakistan cannot conduct a referendum until the WHOLE of J&K does you wazzock? Are you thick?

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 04:22
When is Pakistan going to arrest Hafiz Muhammad Saeed? Or are they fine with letting a terrorist who has masterminded the deaths of thousands of Indians walk free in their country?

Provide a link from an unbiased source where he has proven to have masterminded anything

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 04:25
IMO taliban should not have destroyed the buddhist idols but its not that big as a deal people are making it out to be

howzzat
20th January 2011, 05:22
IMO taliban should not have destroyed the buddhist idols but its not that big as a deal people are making it out to be

Oh yes, until there are riots like muslims/hindus have done its not a big deal.

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 05:25
Oh yes, until there are riots like muslims/hindus have done its not a big deal.
There are no buddhist in Afghanistan.

tpass
20th January 2011, 07:46
Provide a link from an unbiased source where he has proven to have masterminded anything

sure, continue the trend of denial. You know who is paying the price for sheltering such people.

If this is the average thought, then I am not surprise at current state of Pakistan

Sameer K
20th January 2011, 09:03
There are no buddhist in Afghanistan.

Amazing!

How come there are no buddhists in Afghanistan?
Do you think it has something to do with the taliban??

They blew up religious idols with explosives like a demolition! And its not that big a deal!

They are all part of your ummah right? When they go blow up other people religious places why should they expect other religions to respect their holy places??

Pakistan was one of very few countries to officially recognize the Taliban rule of Afghanistan. Supporting people who blow up religious idols, ancient religious idols, and in the same breath be shocked and appalled by the babri masjid tragedy.

The babri masjid demolition was terrible, but people like you have no right to complain about it. Indian muslims were rightly outraged, but pakistani muslims need to think about how they have treated other religions first. (hint Bangladesh '71).

QazzarFan
20th January 2011, 10:14
yes you're right Deadly Venom....what's the big deal? so a few statues of Buddha were destroyed.... I mean it's not like they're rioting in Thailand, Cambodia and terrorizing the local muslim population and even if there are couple of buddhists still living in Afghanistan they better shut their mouth and not dare come out in the open rioting and protesting and threatening to kill the head of Taliban who authorized that act...so ya those suckers got what they deserve...

ganeshran
20th January 2011, 11:07
IMO taliban should not have destroyed the buddhist idols but its not that big as a deal people are making it out to be

Drawing images of the prophet by a Danish newspaper is a horrendous act, but actually destroying 6th century statues of Buddha, the most sacred to Buddhists, is not such a big deal?

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 14:42
Yes it was wrong of course but most people are showing outrage just because it was the taliban who did it.

Sameer K - If Pakistani Muslims have no right to show outrage over babri masjid then why are you so outraged over the buddhist statue demolitions? You dont share an ethniticity with Afghan Buddhist if there are any and Im guessing you dont share a religion with them. I dont speak for a taliban so I cant answer the rest of your post about why they should respect others etc.

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 14:44
yes you're right Deadly Venom....what's the big deal? so a few statues of Buddha were destroyed.... I mean it's not like they're rioting in Thailand, Cambodia and terrorizing the local muslim population and even if there are couple of buddhists still living in Afghanistan they better shut their mouth and not dare come out in the open rioting and protesting and threatening to kill the head of Taliban who authorized that act...so ya those suckers got what they deserve...

Stop crying. Is the creation of buddha statues sacred to buddhism? Did its destruction cause any harm to a local population? They were tourist attractions that is all.

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 14:52
Drawing images of the prophet by a Danish newspaper is a horrendous act, but actually destroying 6th century statues of Buddha, the most sacred to Buddhists, is not such a big deal?

If you see the buddha in the road cut off his head. This is a saying quoted to me by a buddhist when we discussed the demolition of the idols.

Cartoons is different they showed the west even more in a crusader manner and delibrately trampled on feeling of Muslims causing more tensions.

Yes it is wrong and ideally the statues should have stayed. However there are no buddhist around in Afghanistan to worship them and so therefore it did not harm a local population like the babri masjid case. Dont get me wrong...it is a cruel act by the taliban. But the levels of outrage against it make me very suspicious....

ShehryarK
20th January 2011, 15:06
Drawing images of the prophet by a Danish newspaper is a horrendous act
Yes it is - because they were not flattering or complimentary images. These were vile, abusive and insulting images that no one sensible would endorse.

Sameer K
20th January 2011, 15:19
Yes it was wrong of course but most people are showing outrage just because it was the taliban who did it.

Sameer K - If Pakistani Muslims have no right to show outrage over babri masjid then why are you so outraged over the buddhist statue demolitions? You dont share an ethniticity with Afghan Buddhist if there are any and Im guessing you dont share a religion with them. I dont speak for a taliban so I cant answer the rest of your post about why they should respect others etc.

I was outraged when the babri masjid was demolished too. That is the difference between you and me.

You do realise that the babri masjid wasn't a functioning mosque right?? Prayers weren't being held there. Not for decades.

You are being terribly hypocritical. That is my point. The demolition of a mosque that wasn't being used caused you terrible pain. The explosion of Buddhist idols aren't a big deal because they are tourist attractions!!

If you feel nothing for the buddhists idols then you should feel nothing for the babri masjid. If you can't feel for others then why should they feel for you??

You lost the right to feel outraged, when you and your country supported a regime that blew up another religion's idols.

Sameer K
20th January 2011, 15:28
Yes it is - because they were not flattering or complimentary images. These were vile, abusive and insulting images that no one sensible would endorse.

No doubt. But you can't blow up buddhist idols and then ask the world to respect your religion.

Take 1971 for an example. After the army killed nearly 3 million people and raped god knows how many women, targeting hindus, should the same people be "outraged" when muslims are treated badly??

No doubt, hindus or muslims should be treated well. But those who support the ill treatment of one have no right to feel outraged when the other is mistreated.

The same goes for shiv sena, rss and their kind in india. Hypocrites.

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 15:30
Who said I agreed with the demolition of the statues :)) they are both wrong but when you look at the context of both cases along with their repurcussions in each country you will see which was more damaging.

You were only outraged because the Muslims felt outraged. Had it not been an issue for the Muslims of India you wouldnt have felt anything since the mosque itself meant nothing to you. Am I correct in saying this?

The destruction of the statue in Afghanistan didnt have such repurcussions and when viewed in context didnt cause as much damage as the babri masjid case. The taliban were a bunch of zealots whereas India prides itself as the worlds largest secular democracy. The act of religious extremism in one is a lot more damaging than the other.

Please dont accuse me personally of supporting Taliban. As you have said at the end of your post. Thanks

ganeshran
20th January 2011, 15:33
If you see the buddha in the road cut off his head. This is a saying quoted to me by a buddhist when we discussed the demolition of the idols.

Cartoons is different they showed the west even more in a crusader manner and delibrately trampled on feeling of Muslims causing more tensions.

Yes it is wrong and ideally the statues should have stayed. However there are no buddhist around in Afghanistan to worship them and so therefore it did not harm a local population like the babri masjid case. Dont get me wrong...it is a cruel act by the taliban. But the levels of outrage against it make me very suspicious....

The statues demolition also deliberately trampled on the feelings of Buddhists. They cartoons also didnt harm anyone or interfered with anyone's ability to pray. I am not condoning the cartoons, but the playing down of other people's sensitivities towards their religion is apallling.

Just because Buddhist people are peaceful and dont take matters into their hands through violent protests doesnt give anyone the right to hurt their sentiments about their religion. You get as much respect for your religion from others as you respect others' religions.

ganeshran
20th January 2011, 15:35
Yes it is - because they were not flattering or complimentary images. These were vile, abusive and insulting images that no one sensible would endorse.

That wasnt a standalone point, it was combined with the part about destruction of sacred Buddhist statues. Some of the images were abusive, I totally agree, but deliberately harming other people's faith by destroying their religious symbols is just as vile.

ganeshran
20th January 2011, 15:37
No doubt. But you can't blow up buddhist idols and then ask the world to respect your religion.

Take 1971 for an example. After the army killed nearly 3 million people and raped god knows how many women, targeting hindus, should the same people be "outraged" when muslims are treated badly??

No doubt, hindus or muslims should be treated well. But those who support the ill treatment of one have no right to feel outraged when the other is mistreated.

The same goes for shiv sena, rss and their kind in india. Hypocrites.

Totally agree. Anyone who doesnt respect other's faith or religions doesnt deserve an ounce of respect for his/her own faith. Same goes for all zealots whether they are hindu or Muslim or christian

Sameer K
20th January 2011, 15:44
Who said I agreed with the demolition of the statues :)) they are both wrong but when you look at the context of both cases along with their repurcussions in each country you will see which was more damaging.

You were only outraged because the Muslims felt outraged. Had it not been an issue for the Muslims of India you wouldnt have felt anything since the mosque itself meant nothing to you. Am I correct in saying this?

The destruction of the statue in Afghanistan didnt have such repurcussions and when viewed in context didnt cause as much damage as the babri masjid case. The taliban were a bunch of zealots whereas India prides itself as the worlds largest secular democracy. The act of religious extremism in one is a lot more damaging than the other.

Please dont accuse me personally of supporting Taliban. As you have said at the end of your post. Thanks

Fair enough, sorry for accusing you.

Just because the buddhists didn't riot and protest violently they weren't hurt??

First you said the destruction was preventing people from praying. Which is just wrong. So if it wasn't in use, what makes it more important than the bamiyan statues??

Taliban zealots as you call them, had the support of the Pakistani govt. One of the few countries to recognise taliban rule.

The babri masjid demolition was shameful. But if you can't get yourself to feel for the buddhists whose statues were blown up, then what right do you have to ask others to care for your religious places??

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 16:19
Fair enough, sorry for accusing you.

Just because the buddhists didn't riot and protest violently they weren't hurt??

First you said the destruction was preventing people from praying. Which is just wrong. So if it wasn't in use, what makes it more important than the bamiyan statues??

Taliban zealots as you call them, had the support of the Pakistani govt. One of the few countries to recognise taliban rule.

The babri masjid demolition was shameful. But if you can't get yourself to feel for the buddhists whose statues were blown up, then what right do you have to ask others to care for your religious places??

I am feeling for the buddhists who had this statue destroyed. The main reason why I said it wasnt that big a deal was because of the disproportionate amount of outrage shown here in the west. This act was used as propoganda by western media to further demonise and vilify the taliban and justify an invasion. Suddenly buddhism became front page news to those that probably didnt have a clue what this religion was :))

Pakistan actually tried to discourage the Taliban from this act but their mind was made up and they went ahead.

I also do feel for the reasons I have outlined before that the babri masjid incident was a lot more damaging an act than the destruction of the statues. We are pretty much agreed that both acts are wrong.

DeadlyVenom
20th January 2011, 16:25
The statues demolition also deliberately trampled on the feelings of Buddhists. They cartoons also didnt harm anyone or interfered with anyone's ability to pray. I am not condoning the cartoons, but the playing down of other people's sensitivities towards their religion is apallling.

Just because Buddhist people are peaceful and dont take matters into their hands through violent protests doesnt give anyone the right to hurt their sentiments about their religion. You get as much respect for your religion from others as you respect others' religions.

This is my observation that the image of Buddha to a Buddhist is a lot less sacred than the image of Mohammed (saw) to a Muslim. The image of buddha is put on tshirts and small statues sold in shops so this incidenct is quite different from the cartoon incident.

Respecting each others religions is very important but we are talking about the taliban here. This is the kind of stunts they pull. Destruction of religious buildings and generallyy being intolerant in India cannot be equated to these nutters as India is worlds largest democracy and these sort of actions cannot occur. Destruction of the Babri Masjid directly insulted the local population - this did not happen in Afghanistan as there are no buddhist. Similar to What I said to Sameer the main point is that we both feel that both these incidents are wrong.

Garuda
20th January 2011, 16:54
This is my observation that the image of Buddha to a Buddhist is a lot less sacred than the image of Mohammed (saw) to a Muslim. The image of buddha is put on tshirts and small statues sold in shops so this incidenct is quite different from the cartoon incident.


Respecting each others religions is very important but we are talking about the taliban here. This is the kind of stunts they pull. Destruction of religious buildings and generallyy being intolerant in India cannot be equated to these nutters as India is worlds largest democracy and these sort of actions cannot occur. Destruction of the Babri Masjid directly insulted the local population - this did not happen in Afghanistan as there are no buddhist. Similar to What I said to Sameer the main point is that we both feel that both these incidents are wrong.


Thats a very poor argument dude.

My respect towards my parents doesn't proportionate to my daily actions. That doesn't give someone else to come and kick them and say "anyway, you don't stay with them anyway and hence you won't get hurt if I harm them".

Similarly, the believe and actions are different for different religion. But that doesn't decrease their believe nor the insult to their god is less when done by others.

jusarrived
20th January 2011, 17:03
This is my observation that the image of Buddha to a Buddhist is a lot less sacred than the image of Mohammed (saw) to a Muslim. The image of buddha is put on tshirts and small statues sold in shops so this incidenct is quite different from the cartoon incident.

Respecting each others religions is very important but we are talking about the taliban here. This is the kind of stunts they pull. Destruction of religious buildings and generallyy being intolerant in India cannot be equated to these nutters as India is worlds largest democracy and these sort of actions cannot occur. Destruction of the Babri Masjid directly insulted the local population - this did not happen in Afghanistan as there are no buddhist. Similar to What I said to Sameer the main point is that we both feel that both these incidents are wrong.

this is exactly the problem with you guys . who gives you the right to decide whats more sacred to Buddhists ?the rest of the world is more tolerant dosen mean our religion is not important to us .

moumotta
20th January 2011, 17:32
Just because some followers of one religion tend to act chui-mui Touch Me Not does not make its religious symbols any more sacred than the ones who take a more balanced approach to their religion.

Its such a distorted one dimensional and self serving attitude that is being displayed here.

KingKhanWC
20th January 2011, 20:26
The Taliban did not destroy the statues to have a go at Buddists, they did so because they were huge idols.

Now if you're going to take the time and effort to carve such huge statues, you better make sure you protect them too.

Garuda
20th January 2011, 20:30
The Taliban did not destroy the statues to have a go at Buddists, they did so because they were huge idols.

Now if you're going to take the time and effort to carve such huge statues, you better make sure you protect them too.
:))) Taliban broke the statue cuz they were huge???

Can't have better logic to break it.


At the same logic, if muslims couldn't protect the Babri mosque, then they do not have any right to protest when it is broken. Right?

KingKhanWC
20th January 2011, 20:54
:))) Taliban broke the statue cuz they were huge???

Can't have better logic to break it.

You missed out the word idol. Taliban is an Islamic group and since there are very little or no Buddists in Afghanistan they felt there was no need to have large idols in their nation.


At the same logic, if muslims couldn't protect the Babri mosque, then they do not have any right to protest when it is broken. Right?

There are many ways to protect things. You assumed I meant in a physical way but there are other ways such as protesting or even coming to a resolution but since there are no Buddists this was not done. Muslims did try to defend the Babri Masjid as best they could, there wasn't bloodsheed on both sides for nothing.

ganeshran
20th January 2011, 21:02
The Taliban did not destroy the statues to have a go at Buddists, they did so because they were huge idols.

Now if you're going to take the time and effort to carve such huge statues, you better make sure you protect them too.

Those statues were more than 1400 years old. Even if you keep the religious significance aside, the Bamiyan Buddha statues were of immense architectural importance.

Maybe if the Taliban were not caveman era religious bigots, they might have had the good sense of accepting Japan's proposal of dismantling the statues and moving them to Japan to rebuild them.

ganeshran
20th January 2011, 21:07
You missed out the word idol. Taliban is an Islamic group and since there are very little or no Buddists in Afghanistan they felt there was no need to have large idols in their nation.



There are many ways to protect things. You assumed I meant in a physical way but there are other ways such as protesting or even coming to a resolution but since there are no Buddists this was not done. Muslims did try to defend the Babri Masjid as best they could, there wasn't bloodsheed on both sides for nothing.

So going by your logic, is it ok for any country which has a non existent Muslim population to print cartoons of the prophet?

Again, I am not condoning the publication or drawing of those cartoons, and consider it a inflammatory act. But those downplaying the Taliban's religious bigotry and hatred should realize that every religion has the right to not have its core beliefs violated publicly. This right is not only applicable for religions which have the loudest street power or muscle.

Sameer K
20th January 2011, 21:18
The Taliban did not destroy the statues to have a go at Buddists, they did so because they were huge idols.

Now if you're going to take the time and effort to carve such huge statues, you better make sure you protect them too.

Amazing!!

So the buddhists should carry Ak 47s like the taliban if they want their idols respected.

Garuda
20th January 2011, 21:22
Guys,

Demolishing Babri mosque was as bad as an incident as demolishing Buddha statue in Afghanistan.

Some PPers are trying in vain to convince, its okay to demolish buddha as the buddhist number was low enough to defend or fight and hence no chance of conflict.

Is really sad that we get such thoughts here.

ganeshran
20th January 2011, 21:27
Guys,

Demolishing Babri mosque was as bad as an incident as demolishing Buddha statue in Afghanistan.

Some PPers are trying in vain to convince, its okay to demolish buddha as the buddhist number was low enough to defend or fight and hence no chance of conflict.

Is really sad that we get such thoughts here.

Totally agree, that act of RSS and its cohorts have embarrassed us to no ends and must be condemned in no uncertain terms. It was a symbolic attack on the secular fabric of India, and I am totally ashamed of what the radicals did in the name of my religion.

But I am appalled that Taliban is being defended giving flimsy excuses that it is okay to demolish a 1400+ year old statue just because their hate filled outlook didnt agree with it.

s2k
20th January 2011, 22:59
Million. Lol. More like a few thousand, maximum 4,000!

Invasion?? The Maharajah as a Hindu threw in his lot with India against the wishes of his own people who wanted to join the new Muslim land of Pakistan!

Pakistan cannot conduct a referendum until the WHOLE of J&K does you wazzock? Are you thick?

The Maharaja was the sovereign ruler of Kashmir.Just like kings rule Saudi Arabia Qatar etc.he had the right to take a decision.Remember his dynasty ruled Kashmir since 1792.Kashmiris wanted to join Pakistan?Read about Operation GrandSlam,you will know who Kashmiris supported.Pakistan sent troops illegally into Kashmir,then an independent and sovereign country.The Maharaja acceded to India after this only as India had said they will only send troops into Kashmir if Kashmir agrees to accede to India.

COnservative estimates say that there are about 400 to 500k Kashmiri pandits who lived in refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi.I have few Kashmiri Pandit friends and i know what they have gone through.

DeadlyVenom
21st January 2011, 00:13
Guys,

Demolishing Babri mosque was as bad as an incident as demolishing Buddha statue in Afghanistan.

Some PPers are trying in vain to convince, its okay to demolish buddha as the buddhist number was low enough to defend or fight and hence no chance of conflict.

Is really sad that we get such thoughts here.


Totally agree, that act of RSS and its cohorts have embarrassed us to no ends and must be condemned in no uncertain terms. It was a symbolic attack on the secular fabric of India, and I am totally ashamed of what the radicals did in the name of my religion.

But I am appalled that Taliban is being defended giving flimsy excuses that it is okay to demolish a 1400+ year old statue just because their hate filled outlook didnt agree with it.

I dont think anybody is trying to defend what the Taliban did. What I am personally saying is that the babri mosque incidence was more serious due to the repurcussions it had and that it directly hurt locals. Taliban incident did neither. Basically saying that both are wrong, both should be condemmed exactly as you are saying it but we disagree over which action was worse.

DeadlyVenom
21st January 2011, 00:16
Thats a very poor argument dude.

My respect towards my parents doesn't proportionate to my daily actions. That doesn't give someone else to come and kick them and say "anyway, you don't stay with them anyway and hence you won't get hurt if I harm them".

Similarly, the believe and actions are different for different religion. But that doesn't decrease their believe nor the insult to their god is less when done by others.
Just my observation of Buddhism. May be totally different to how Buddhist feels but my view is from an outsider to Buddhism looking in. Didnt mean to insult any buddhist

ganeshran
21st January 2011, 01:38
I dont think anybody is trying to defend what the Taliban did. What I am personally saying is that the babri mosque incidence was more serious due to the repurcussions it had and that it directly hurt locals. Taliban incident did neither. Basically saying that both are wrong, both should be condemmed exactly as you are saying it but we disagree over which action was worse.

Why does one have to be worse over the other. Both were equally bad. The Babri seems more damaging to you because it was an Islamic place of worship. The Bamiyan incident may seem more damaging to a Buddhist place because something sacred to him was destroyed.

To say that what Taliban did was ok because it didnt hurt locals is just like saying printing the cartoons of the prophet is ok because Denmark doesnt have a large Muslim population.

DeadlyVenom
21st January 2011, 01:47
Why does one have to be worse over the other. Both were equally bad. The Babri seems more damaging to you because it was an Islamic place of worship. The Bamiyan incident may seem more damaging to a Buddhist place because something sacred to him was destroyed.

To say that what Taliban did was ok because it didnt hurt locals is just like saying printing the cartoons of the prophet is ok because Denmark doesnt have a large Muslim population.

Again - I didnt say it was ok.

ganeshran
21st January 2011, 01:54
Again - I didnt say it was ok.

Yes, but you continue to downplay the incident saying its not such a big deal, or that locals werent affected etc.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including support/sympathy for Taliban. But its the hypocrisy which bothers me, the attitude that an attack on our religion is something we should vehemently protest, but an attack on another person's religion is not such a serious thing because they dont live there/they are not strong enough to defend it/its not of much religious importance to them.

DeadlyVenom
21st January 2011, 01:57
Yes, but you continue to downplay the incident saying its not such a big deal, or that locals werent affected etc.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including support/sympathy for Taliban. But its the hypocrisy which bothers me, the attitude that an attack on our religion is something we should vehemently protest, but an attack on another person's religion is not such a serious thing because they dont live there/they are not strong enough to defend it/its not of much religious importance to them.

These points can be used when measuring up two similar attacks to see which had greater impact.

ganeshran
21st January 2011, 02:08
These points can be used when measuring up two similar attacks to see which had greater impact.

Ok so according to you, to measure the seriousness of an attack on any religion, we must go by the following points

1) Local populace
2) Ability of the religion to defend itself and its symbols
3) Importance of religious symbols to them (to the people of that religion not perceived importance to the people of another relegion)

That means anyone who doesnt live in a country and doesnt have the means to defend or protest himself deserves to silently bear any insult heaped on his religion while members of another religion go on a rampage on the slightest rumour of a slight to their religious symbols?

DeadlyVenom
21st January 2011, 02:15
Ok so according to you, to measure the seriousness of an attack on any religion, we must go by the following points

1) Local populace
2) Ability of the religion to defend itself and its symbols
3) Importance of religious symbols to them (to the people of that religion not perceived importance to the people of another relegion)



Points 1 and 3 yes could be used to measure the seriousness of an attack. Whats so wrong with that? Local population is very important. I will beat you to it and mention cartoons. I am not a citizen of Denmark but can still feel dismayed by the cartoons yes.

Now let me pose a scenario. 2 countries have newspaper articles making fun of judaism. One country has no jews the other has a jewish minority. Which is more wrong?

KingKhanWC
21st January 2011, 02:25
Those statues were more than 1400 years old. Even if you keep the religious significance aside, the Bamiyan Buddha statues were of immense architectural importance.

Maybe if the Taliban were not caveman era religious bigots, they might have had the good sense of accepting Japan's proposal of dismantling the statues and moving them to Japan to rebuild them.

I never said I condoned what they did. They should have given them to Japan and made some money out of them.


So going by your logic, is it ok for any country which has a non existent Muslim population to print cartoons of the prophet?

Yes but not with a bomb. It wasn't the actual cartoons but they way they were drawn which was a deliberate attempt to incite hatred.



Again bad argument sir. even if there is one buddists or none, its the symbol or idol of their god. If muslims can't give respect to their god then they should not expect the same from others.

Again I'm not condoning it just trying to explain why they felt the need to demolish them. Muslims have gone past expecting respect of their religion.


So you are saying there should have been enough buddists to protest the statue ?

Same thing with babri mosque. There were not enough as compare to hindu numbers. So the structure deserved to be demolished as per you logic.

So as soon as the number of minority is so low that they can not raise their voice, the majority should demolish the minority culture as there is no chance of bloodsheed. What a logic?

lol. There were millions around India protesting against the Babri Masjid. There wasn't even a handful protesting against the statues in Afghanistan. The reality is if there is no protest there is nothing for the Taliban to think about when it comes to demolishing them.


Amazing!!

So the buddhists should carry Ak 47s like the taliban if they want their idols respected.

lol. Did I say that? My point was they built these big statues a long time ago but have not stayed with them. If Muslims leave a mosque and no longer use it for decades then it's only logical to say the mosque will be demolished.

Kriketer
21st January 2011, 05:58
Both countries have their share of terrorists. The image that India/India govt ehibits every time its attacked by some terrorist "that Pakistani Muslim" is nothing but outright bullcr*p. The more they blame the more its gonna get worse in the long-run.

Garuda
21st January 2011, 08:05
Points 1 and 3 yes could be used to measure the seriousness of an attack. Whats so wrong with that? Local population is very important. I will beat you to it and mention cartoons. I am not a citizen of Denmark but can still feel dismayed by the cartoons yes.

Now let me pose a scenario. 2 countries have newspaper articles making fun of judaism. One country has no jews the other has a jewish minority. Which is more wrong?
See, I get what you are trying to say but thats called impact of the act.

According to you the impact of the act in one case was lesser than the other.

What we are saying is both are henious acts and should not be given any amount of approval just because in one there were not enough ppl to show that they were hurt.


Also, I would say breaking the budda statue was more harmful for Islam as a religion than Buddism. The Islam got a bad name because of those idiots where as the buddism again showed how peaceful they are.

Garuda
21st January 2011, 08:07
Points 1 and 3 yes could be used to measure the seriousness of an attack. Whats so wrong with that? Local population is very important. I will beat you to it and mention cartoons. I am not a citizen of Denmark but can still feel dismayed by the cartoons yes.

Now let me pose a scenario. 2 countries have newspaper articles making fun of judaism. One country has no jews the other has a jewish minority. Which is more wrong?

Both are equally wrong.

In one case the effect can be serious compared to the second but both are EQUALLY wrong.


There are two men. One with a family and other one is alone in this world. If I murder one who is alone and you murder the other one, which is wrong???

Sameer K
21st January 2011, 09:15
I never said I condoned what they did. They should have given them to Japan and made some money out of them.



Yes but not with a bomb. It wasn't the actual cartoons but they way they were drawn which was a deliberate attempt to incite hatred.




Again I'm not condoning it just trying to explain why they felt the need to demolish them. Muslims have gone past expecting respect of their religion.



lol. There were millions around India protesting against the Babri Masjid. There wasn't even a handful protesting against the statues in Afghanistan. The reality is if there is no protest there is nothing for the Taliban to think about when it comes to demolishing them.



lol. Did I say that? My point was they built these big statues a long time ago but have not stayed with them. If Muslims leave a mosque and no longer use it for decades then it's only logical to say the mosque will be demolished.

The Babri Masjid wasn't in use for decades....

Why didn't the buddhists stay in Afghanistan? Does it have something to do with the armed Taliban??

If all the muslims were chased out of India by some radical idiots, then would it be ok to demolish the mosques here??

Pathetic to say the least. Measuring how terrible an act is by the number of people protesting it.

Buddhists are peaceful by nature. Only for tibet have they ever taken up arms. Just because they didn't torch buses or riot doesn't mean they weren't hurt. You are saying we can do anything as long as people don't protest. If you demolish temples in Pakistan, i really doubt the tiny hindu population is going to come out on the streets and protest or riot. If they do, it would be wrong on their part. The courts in Pakistan should be their refuge not violence.