prashantacmet
New member
Tamil hindus are indulged in terrorism against bodh sinhli in Srilanka for last 4 decades..is that religion based or not?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why so much sympathy on Bangladesh??????????????
- Thread starter rajpaldular
- Start date
Tamil hindus are indulged in terrorism against bodh sinhli in Srilanka for last 4 decades..is that religion based or not?
prashantacmet
New member
I know the reasons muslims wanted a seperate nation so did all that. Sikhs always enjoyed special status by British for thier sychophancy in return. They always helped British to crush freedom movement. They wanted same post independence.
Anyways, whatever the reason is doind terrorism using religion with help of enemy nation can never be justified till day of doom.
What is the status of sir chottu ram in your eyes?
Wait. Dont be impatient. Itni jaldi modi ka naam , uska naam to aana hi hai kuch or bhi baat kar lete hai. In many post while talking about modi u made references to Hitler n his party, right ? Now when you agree that Rajiv & modi are same , i ask you same question again which u ducked earlier in other thread. Is Rajiv a hitler for Sikhs & Congress is like socialist german party ?
So from now onwards you do not need to make references to hitler while talking about Modi , you got an Indian terrorist supporter ( Rajiv ) to make reference.
I can use all three. Two are dead, so the one alive gets all the attention.
Compared to Rajiv, IG can probably be seen as a bigger enemy by Sikhs. The party however hardly fits into one mould.
Btw, I hope all this off-topic discussion is leading somewhere.
Last edited:
rajatsingh
Banned
Yes man, some ppl ve no idea of history bt dey start making comments like an expert...Its statements like those that let me know your level of understanding of history. A few pages back you spoke about black and white. Perhaps you could use some other shades of understanding about what you wrote here. Btw, all Jats enjoyed special status under British. Would you consider them sycophants too?
Definitions of terrorism are subjective and will keep on changing depending on who has the upper hand.
Look at Modi. how much he lies in his speeches...
No idea of history bt claims like historian...
Jab guru hi aisa hoga to chelle kaise honge...
Aaj kal propaganda ki hi politics reh gayi hie...
Koi substance nhi hota aaj kal k politicians ki baat..
They cry foul n so r the sycophants.....
Alas! but true, such a propaganda of hate n mistrust will never work..
Prashant, it seems you have not read my post carefully. While reading it again pay particular attention to the phrase in India. What you have referred to is Sri Lankan Tamils.
Tamil hindus are indulged in terrorism against bodh sinhli in Srilanka for last 4 decades..is that religion based or not?
What proof/evidence do you have to say that the riots and in particular those in 2002 were state abetted or sponsored??
You are unsuccessfully trying to enlarge the definition of terrorism.
It is highly unfortunate that you are terming the military presence in terror infested areas as terrorism while forgetting the countless sacrifices made by our soldiers. You are towing exactly the line of your Congress party, the same Congress party which hosted the Pakistanis with Chicken Biryani just after they had beheaded Indian soldiers.
As I said earlier you are a free citizen of a free country which gives you the right to accuse and abuse just anyone and everyone especially the so-called majority.
You are unsuccessfully trying to enlarge the definition of terrorism.
It is highly unfortunate that you are terming the military presence in terror infested areas as terrorism while forgetting the countless sacrifices made by our soldiers. You are towing exactly the line of your Congress party, the same Congress party which hosted the Pakistanis with Chicken Biryani just after they had beheaded Indian soldiers.
As I said earlier you are a free citizen of a free country which gives you the right to accuse and abuse just anyone and everyone especially the so-called majority.
Riots or state abetted pogroms like 2002 and 1984 are forms of terrorism. I would go one step further and say every heavy handed state military approach - in Punjab, Kashmir, NE and Naxal areas that targets civilians is terrorism.
Last edited:
You are ignoring my point continuously post after post - your assertions are not credible. You are not posting established facts. At best they can be termed as aspersions or hearsay.
How else do I share reports if not copy paste. If you don't have the time or the capacity to read them then don't waste my time.
Prashant, it seems you have not read my post carefully. While reading it again pay particular attention to the phrase in India. What you have referred to is Sri Lankan Tamils.
In India only? So I guess killing an ex-PM would count as terrorism?
You are saying that he is not alive (though unfortunately as it should not have happened), but his legacy continues. The number of riots that took place under the watch and patronage of the Congress and its Chappu (SP) are much more than any other party. So, again though by your definition of terrorism (though it is wrong), Congress party is the biggest terrorist in this country. The very same Congress party that you so vehemently yet discreetly support.
I can use all three. Two are dead, so the one alive gets all the attention.
Compared to Rajiv, IG can probably be seen as a bigger enemy by Sikhs. The party however hardly fits into one mould.
Btw, I hope all this off-topic discussion is leading somewhere.
You are ignoring my point continuously post after post - your assertions are not credible. You are not posting established facts. At best they can be termed as aspersions or hearsay.
I disagree.
Indian PM though assassinated unfortunately was not killed because of religious hatred or fanaticism as was undertaken by the Sikhs and still being undertaken by the Muslims.
In India only? So I guess killing an ex-PM would count as terrorism?
That is not a solution. Your posts would therefore not be credible if you do not support them with established facts.
I disagree.
What proof/evidence do you have to say that the riots and in particular those in 2002 were state abetted or sponsored??
You are unsuccessfully trying to enlarge the definition of terrorism.
It is highly unfortunate that you are terming the military presence in terror infested areas as terrorism while forgetting the countless sacrifices made by our soldiers. You are towing exactly the line of your Congress party, the same Congress party which hosted the Pakistanis with Chicken Biryani just after they had beheaded Indian soldiers.
As I said earlier you are a free citizen of a free country which gives you the right to accuse and abuse just anyone and everyone especially the so-called majority.
I will stick to my definition of terrorism, you stick to yours.
I have my current and past family members who have served in the armed forces of the country. So I think I understand a soldier's sacrifice better than you can ever imagine. A soldier involved in human rights violation is merely obeying his senior and the maximum blame lies on the state/civilian govts that put him in that place.
That is not a solution. Your posts would therefore not be credible if you do not support them with established facts.
I again disagree.
Doesn't matter; terrorism is terrorism.Indian PM though assassinated unfortunately was not killed because of religious hatred or fanaticism as was undertaken by the Sikhs and still being undertaken by the Muslims.
There can never be two definitions of terrorism as per our convenience. Pick up any dictionary - Oxford, Macmillan, Webster etc. You will find the definition of terrorism more or less the same irrespective of the convenience or liking of the reader.
My association with the forces has been very close. So, contrary to what you are assuming, I take it upon myself to speak out whenever someone belittles the guardian angels of the Indian nation. More often than not these human rights violations are excellent works of fiction and the ones that are actually found to be true are strictly dealt with.
For God's sake please do not cast any aspersions directly or indirectly (through politicians) on our soldiers. And supporting the Congress which hosted Pakistanis when they act in a barbaric manner with Indian soldiers is in a way insult to the Indian soldiers.
My association with the forces has been very close. So, contrary to what you are assuming, I take it upon myself to speak out whenever someone belittles the guardian angels of the Indian nation. More often than not these human rights violations are excellent works of fiction and the ones that are actually found to be true are strictly dealt with.
For God's sake please do not cast any aspersions directly or indirectly (through politicians) on our soldiers. And supporting the Congress which hosted Pakistanis when they act in a barbaric manner with Indian soldiers is in a way insult to the Indian soldiers.
I will stick to my definition of terrorism, you stick to yours.
I have my current and past family members who have served in the armed forces of the country. So I think I understand a soldier's sacrifice better than you can ever imagine. A soldier involved in human rights violation is merely obeying his senior and the maximum blame lies on the state/civilian govts that put him in that place.
You are saying that he is not alive (though unfortunately as it should not have happened), but his legacy continues. The number of riots that took place under the watch and patronage of the Congress and its Chappu (SP) are much more than any other party. So, again though by your definition of terrorism (though it is wrong), Congress party is the biggest terrorist in this country. The very same Congress party that you so vehemently yet discreetly support.
I didn't get your point and neither did I understand how one can support vehemently yet discreetly. Perhaps you know me better that I do.
The fact remains - not undertaken by Indian Hindus.
Doesn't matter; terrorism is terrorism.
That's the beauty of it, which I admire the most. And I used both the words on purpose.
I didn't get your point and neither did I understand how one can support vehemently yet discreetly. Perhaps you know me better that I do.
There can never be two definitions of terrorism as per our convenience. Pick up any dictionary - Oxford, Macmillan, Webster etc. You will find the definition of terrorism more or less the same irrespective of the convenience or liking of the reader.
My association with the forces has been very close. So, contrary to what you are assuming, I take it upon myself to speak out whenever someone belittles the guardian angels of the Indian nation. More often than not these human rights violations are excellent works of fiction and the ones that are actually found to be true are strictly dealt with.
For God's sake please do not cast any aspersions directly or indirectly (through politicians) on our soldiers. And supporting the Congress which hosted Pakistanis when they act in a barbaric manner with Indian soldiers is in a way insult to the Indian soldiers.
Lets compare definitions then and come to a common understanding.
I speak out against any institution if I feel like it. Everyone has a good and bad side. Perhaps you should learn that too.