Debating "saffron terror"
- Thread starter Ganga
- Start date
T90TankGuy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 9,427
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
terror is terror . what does it matter if its green or saffron? in the end people die or are persecuted .
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
As the anchor pointed out, how long can the Indians remain in denial.
The fact this menace is being discussed on airwaves, points to it's existence and severity.
The sooner Indians realise that by pointing fingers at others, they cannot hide their own underbelly.
We hear a lot of talk on 26/11 but incidents like the Samjohta Express bombing are seldom discussed.
The fact this menace is being discussed on airwaves, points to it's existence and severity.
The sooner Indians realise that by pointing fingers at others, they cannot hide their own underbelly.
We hear a lot of talk on 26/11 but incidents like the Samjohta Express bombing are seldom discussed.
NALANDA
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Dicussed in Airwaves YES, but still less than the discussion on the monkey menace that we face in some part of Delhi.
I know your wish to see the Hindu Terrorism ( it sounds so funny) from Hindu Monkeys on the same footing as your homegrown Industry but alas it will never happen. We do not have Hindu Madrasas telling kids that the way to heaven is through ZEHAND et all.......It is not Hindus' DNA you see.
karan.1970
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 14,781
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Probably because samjhauta express accused are in jail and being tried where as 26/11 mastermind is growing like a rising star in Pakistani politics.. That will be the day when Hafiz Saeed will make it as the Prime minister of Pakistan
..
notsuperstitious
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 10,473
- Reaction score
- -15
Mumbai is discussed because perpetrators are protected by a state and openly move about preaching more jihad. Samjhauta perps were caught by indian state without any foreign armtwisting or help and are being tried in civilian courts. India has also paid compensation on humanitarian grounds to pakistanis killed or injured in samjhauta attacks.
Only a terrorist apologist will compare the two to justify his perversion.
Only a terrorist apologist will compare the two to justify his perversion.
No country or religion supports the killing of innocents. So I do not like people suggesting that India is the epi centre of Hindutva terrorism
Yes to cure ourselves of this evil we first have to admit terrorists have all nationalities
Yes to cure ourselves of this evil we first have to admit terrorists have all nationalities
karan.1970
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 14,781
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
In today's world, an Indian terrorist is an aberration where as a Pakistani terrorist is a norm.. Now that may be true of false, but unfortunately, thats the perception that exists.. hence you mostly hear the term Pakistan being used in the discussion about terrorism and not India...
You mean we have to put up with propaganda??
Yaar look at what the thread is about and look at how you are trying so hard to derail it. Its remarkable how many Indians are like infatuated about issues in our nation yet when the issue is raised in their own nation they get ants in their pants and point the finger at others. Lets face facts it exists it bad and lets hope India government gets on top of it - now be a good boy and stick to the topic dude....
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
Stop Monkeying around and focus on the subject.
Going by Indian logic, at one time, the Pakistan army, the ISI, the whole State was beyond the Mumbai hit, it must have been a smack in the mouth when the Samjhota Express perpetrator turns out to be no less than an Indian Army Colonel. Isn't it ironic that the only Mumbai survivor turns out to be the one who is prominent in every Video Grab. Contrary to your mindset, no sane person would have any sympathy with the likes of Kasab & co, but when you are keen to protect an otherwise well publicised terrorist like an asset, then in all earnest, what cooperation do you really expect. !!
Yeti
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,400
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Sadanand Dhume: What Terrorizes India? - WSJ.com
Excellent article
Hindu radicalism a bigger threat to India than the Lashkar-e-Taiba? Yes, if you are to believe Rahul Gandhi, the ruling Congress Party's 40-year-old general secretary, widely regarded as India's prime minister in waiting. According to a cable released last week by WikiLeaks, Mr. Gandhi had this to say last year in response to a question U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer posed about the Pakistan-based transnational terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taibaresponsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks: "The bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community."
Predictably enough, Mr. Gandhi's comment has ignited a firestorm of protest. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, a man not best known for his subtlety, accused Mr. Gandhi of giving "inspiration" to the United States's alleged pro-Pakistan tilt. To his credit, departing from his party's initial instinct to dismiss the leaked cable as part of a conspiracy, Mr. Gandhi did not disavow his comments. Instead, his party issued a clarification stating that in Mr. Gandhi's view "terrorism and communalism of all types are a threat to India."
This anodyne formulation does little to reassure those who believe that when it comes to radical Islam, Mr. Gandhi and his party are at best dangerously naïve and at worst calculatingly cynical. Taken together with earlier remarks by Mr. Gandhi and senior Congress Party leaders, the comment to Mr. Roemer is part of a disturbing pattern. In October, Mr. Gandhi likened another terrorist group, the banned Students Islamic Movement of India, to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps), a grassroots Hindu-nationalist organization that provides the opposition BJP with many of its foot soldiers, and much of its ideology and leadership.
Another senior Congress leader, Digvijay Singh, has repeatedly pandered to the most conspiracy-minded elements of India's 140-million strong Muslim population. Earlier this month, Mr. Singh hinted that Hemant Karkare, a top policeman shot by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants during the Mumbai attacks, may have been killed by militant Hindus upset by his investigation into bomb blasts ascribed to them. Mr. Singh has also questioned the official account of a 2008 terrorist shootout in New Delhi that claimed the life of a highly decorated policeman.
Two years ago, he backed the assertion of another Congress leader, Abdul Rehman Antulay, that terrorists "had no reason to kill Karkare." Another leaked U.S. embassy cable from the time described Mr. Antulay's statement as "outlandish": evidence that the Congress "will readily stoop to the old caste/religious-based politics if it feels it is in its interest."
To concur with this view is not to sympathize with Hindu nationalism. Indeed, at a superficial level radical Islam and Hindu nationalism have much in common. Both represent a kind of religious tribalism marked by a sense of victimhood and deep suspicion of outsiders. Both radical Islamists and Hindu nationalists are prone to wild conspiracy theoriesthat the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by the U.S. government, or that Mr. Gandhi, whose mother, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, is Italian by birth, represents a secret Vatican plot to take over India. Both share a deep fascination with Western technology, and an aversion to Western culture. Both place group identity above individual rights.
But the similarities end there. Simply put, the notion that the radical Hindu threat to India is comparable to that posed by radical Islam is ludicrous. First there's the question of scale. Alleged Hindu terroristsnot one of whom has been convictedare accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.
The principal Hindu groups accused of the bombingsAbhinav Bharat and the Hindu Janajagruti Samitiare ramshackle outfits with few members and scant popular support. The Lashkar-e-Taiba, by contrast, is part of a powerful international network and has close links with both al Qaeda and Pakistan's notorious military intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. Despite international pressure following the group's 2001 assault on India's parliament and the Mumbai attacks, Islamabad has been loath to move against Lashkar-e-Taiba. In part this is because the group enjoys popular backing in Pakistan's religion-drenched society.
Nor can radical Hinduismsuch as it isclaim anything approaching the ambition or ideological rigor of radical Islam. From Morocco to Mindanao, radical Islamists are motivated by the desire to replace man's law with God's law by ordering every aspect of society and the state by the medieval dictates of Shariah law. In ideologues such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) and the Pakistani Abul Ala Maududi (1903-79), they find religious justification for terrorism. In Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, they see the possibility of making their dream a reality. In the oil rich kingdoms of the Middle East, they find deep pockets to tap. None of these is true of Hindu groups. The nature of Hindu societydiffuse, lacking a binding tradition and largely comfortable with modernitymakes the emergence of a Hindu equivalent of the Lashkar-e-Taiba difficult to imagine.
In the end, Mr. Gandhi deserves to be criticized not merely because he's wrong, but because his apparent naiveté hurts India. His comment to Mr. Roemer directly undercut one of New Delhi's main foreign policy objectivesto get the international community to take the threat from Pakistan-based terrorist groups more seriously. More broadly, Mr. Gandhi and his party encourage precisely the kind of conspiratorial mindset and culture of grievance among a section of Indian Muslims that they ought to be working to end.
Finally, they raise the uncomfortable prospect of India being led by a man out of touch with the dominant ethos of the country he seeks to lead, one that may be flawed but remains essentially liberal, humane and resistant to any kind of radicalism.
In the long run, it's this ignorance, not a handful of Hindu zealots, that poses the greater threat to India.
Excellent article
Hindu radicalism a bigger threat to India than the Lashkar-e-Taiba? Yes, if you are to believe Rahul Gandhi, the ruling Congress Party's 40-year-old general secretary, widely regarded as India's prime minister in waiting. According to a cable released last week by WikiLeaks, Mr. Gandhi had this to say last year in response to a question U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer posed about the Pakistan-based transnational terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taibaresponsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks: "The bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community."
Predictably enough, Mr. Gandhi's comment has ignited a firestorm of protest. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, a man not best known for his subtlety, accused Mr. Gandhi of giving "inspiration" to the United States's alleged pro-Pakistan tilt. To his credit, departing from his party's initial instinct to dismiss the leaked cable as part of a conspiracy, Mr. Gandhi did not disavow his comments. Instead, his party issued a clarification stating that in Mr. Gandhi's view "terrorism and communalism of all types are a threat to India."
This anodyne formulation does little to reassure those who believe that when it comes to radical Islam, Mr. Gandhi and his party are at best dangerously naïve and at worst calculatingly cynical. Taken together with earlier remarks by Mr. Gandhi and senior Congress Party leaders, the comment to Mr. Roemer is part of a disturbing pattern. In October, Mr. Gandhi likened another terrorist group, the banned Students Islamic Movement of India, to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps), a grassroots Hindu-nationalist organization that provides the opposition BJP with many of its foot soldiers, and much of its ideology and leadership.
Another senior Congress leader, Digvijay Singh, has repeatedly pandered to the most conspiracy-minded elements of India's 140-million strong Muslim population. Earlier this month, Mr. Singh hinted that Hemant Karkare, a top policeman shot by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants during the Mumbai attacks, may have been killed by militant Hindus upset by his investigation into bomb blasts ascribed to them. Mr. Singh has also questioned the official account of a 2008 terrorist shootout in New Delhi that claimed the life of a highly decorated policeman.
Two years ago, he backed the assertion of another Congress leader, Abdul Rehman Antulay, that terrorists "had no reason to kill Karkare." Another leaked U.S. embassy cable from the time described Mr. Antulay's statement as "outlandish": evidence that the Congress "will readily stoop to the old caste/religious-based politics if it feels it is in its interest."
To concur with this view is not to sympathize with Hindu nationalism. Indeed, at a superficial level radical Islam and Hindu nationalism have much in common. Both represent a kind of religious tribalism marked by a sense of victimhood and deep suspicion of outsiders. Both radical Islamists and Hindu nationalists are prone to wild conspiracy theoriesthat the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by the U.S. government, or that Mr. Gandhi, whose mother, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, is Italian by birth, represents a secret Vatican plot to take over India. Both share a deep fascination with Western technology, and an aversion to Western culture. Both place group identity above individual rights.
But the similarities end there. Simply put, the notion that the radical Hindu threat to India is comparable to that posed by radical Islam is ludicrous. First there's the question of scale. Alleged Hindu terroristsnot one of whom has been convictedare accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.
The principal Hindu groups accused of the bombingsAbhinav Bharat and the Hindu Janajagruti Samitiare ramshackle outfits with few members and scant popular support. The Lashkar-e-Taiba, by contrast, is part of a powerful international network and has close links with both al Qaeda and Pakistan's notorious military intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. Despite international pressure following the group's 2001 assault on India's parliament and the Mumbai attacks, Islamabad has been loath to move against Lashkar-e-Taiba. In part this is because the group enjoys popular backing in Pakistan's religion-drenched society.
Nor can radical Hinduismsuch as it isclaim anything approaching the ambition or ideological rigor of radical Islam. From Morocco to Mindanao, radical Islamists are motivated by the desire to replace man's law with God's law by ordering every aspect of society and the state by the medieval dictates of Shariah law. In ideologues such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) and the Pakistani Abul Ala Maududi (1903-79), they find religious justification for terrorism. In Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, they see the possibility of making their dream a reality. In the oil rich kingdoms of the Middle East, they find deep pockets to tap. None of these is true of Hindu groups. The nature of Hindu societydiffuse, lacking a binding tradition and largely comfortable with modernitymakes the emergence of a Hindu equivalent of the Lashkar-e-Taiba difficult to imagine.
In the end, Mr. Gandhi deserves to be criticized not merely because he's wrong, but because his apparent naiveté hurts India. His comment to Mr. Roemer directly undercut one of New Delhi's main foreign policy objectivesto get the international community to take the threat from Pakistan-based terrorist groups more seriously. More broadly, Mr. Gandhi and his party encourage precisely the kind of conspiratorial mindset and culture of grievance among a section of Indian Muslims that they ought to be working to end.
Finally, they raise the uncomfortable prospect of India being led by a man out of touch with the dominant ethos of the country he seeks to lead, one that may be flawed but remains essentially liberal, humane and resistant to any kind of radicalism.
In the long run, it's this ignorance, not a handful of Hindu zealots, that poses the greater threat to India.
harpoon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,419
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
The whole saffron terror is invented by a section of Indian society (pseudo secularists to be exact) as a counter weight to Islamic terror..so that everytime islamic terror strikes some blame can also be diverted to Hindus.
Similar threads
