I accuse Arundhati Roy of being a terrorist because she acts like the mouthpiece for terrorists. You got that wrong there.
Don't bother to lie. This is what you said, exactly, copied from your post:
You try to hide behind the rule of law and freedom of expression when it comes to covertly supporting the anti-national elements.
Quite obviously, having seen that the game is up, you are now trying to shift your ground. It was not about Arundhati Roy, it was about your foul libels about me that I challenged.
Once again, put up or shut up.
Did you not understand what I wrote there ? Why is it that you are so concerned about the freedom of speech of Arundhati Roy ? Your posts show concern for her rights.What about the rights of thousands of people that have been killed by the terrorists, the same terrorists that she supports ?
Are you so dense that you assume that supporting an individual's human rights is at the expense of denying the human rights of the victims of terrorist murder?
I am concerned about her freedom of speech, because of those like you who threaten it.
And I have never, ever failed to speak up for those who were the victims of terror. Read my posts.
And yet again.. freedom of speech. You just sound like Rahul Gandhi in that recent hour long interview....
Aren't you being a little obvious?
If you can't answer or are cornered, just compare the other person to Rahul Gandhi and everyone thinks you are the one right. That is infantile; try something better.
Of course we need that.But we need to see things in the light of all the related events.We cannot decide to play blind and put of banners of law, trying to protect terrorists and then selectively try to forget the same rights when it comes to extending them to the people who have been affected by the terrorists.
Let's hear from you.
Who did the things you assert were done? The portions in bold?
The conscience is clear.Terrorists are public enemies.Anyone who sympathizes with them is a terrorist as well.We should not try to protect them hiding behind freedom of expression.Arundhati Roy should be charged with sedition or killed in an encounter next time she goes to spend nights with the maoists.
The conscience is clear? Who's talking about conscience? We are discussing your ability to think straight. Unfortunately, from the evidence on display, your ability to think is not clear.
Next, are you really saying that Arundhati Roy is not free to sympathise with terrorists, and should be killed in an encounter because of what she says?
What does that say about your supporting terrorism and murder in your own turn? What is the difference between what you have suggested here, and what terrorists have done in J&K, or what Maoists do in Chhatisgarh?
Why should we not condemn you in the same terms as we have condemned, and will continue to condemn terrorists and Maoists?
There is an element of truth in what she says, but unfortunately there is no other alternative system that we know of, which can bring people out of poverty. Exploitation of poor and natural resources is almost a given at the phase of development we are in, but by raising the issue at least we will be mindful of it.
She's a two-legged ***, but even a two-legged *** has human rights. That is the point. Not the substance in her ramblings, or the lack of substance, but that she should be left alone to ramble.
The points you have raised about development are valid, but Roy is so self-contradictory that nothing she says makes sense any longer.
NO it is not , there is a fine line between calling someone corrupt adn inept and saying things like " He will cause a holocaust" which clearly has communal tones to it ...
Interesting, from a clinical perspective.
It is the Sangh Parivar and the majority of its flock that admires Hitler. Why are they so touchy about an allusion to Hitler?
