just one question if the so called secularists can answer it...why does every..note: EVERY terrorist attack have a muslim connection across the globe? why is it that the ppl of other religions dont? can somebody ans this.....
RE:reality
by dhoomboom on Aug 30, 2007 07:45 PM Permalink
I totally agree with you... Its sad but true... In fact now when you talk to a muslim person... even though he/she is an innocent person you feel suspicious... What could be the solution to all these? We are so advanced.. There is so much technology boom happening.... but i would rather live without all the technology if i could live in a tension free world..
RE:reality
by venu gopal on Aug 30, 2007 07:59 PM Permalink
Islam is a good religion its name spoiled by bad followers. And most of the muslims are bad followers.Not all,NOT ALL.
RE:reality
by Palo on Aug 30, 2007 08:02 PM Permalink
If you are aware, most of the so called terrorists were created by police in Punjab during 1980s & 90s. Police fixed up and tortured innocent people and thus forced them to become terrorists.
RE:reality
by Attract Ivist on Aug 30, 2007 08:06 PM Permalink
1. Well, Islam hates christianity and vice versa, it dates back to holy war days. West (predominantly christians) made major technological advances and became major economomical and technological forces in the world. So Islam suffered fighting the stronger enemies like Israel backed by western countries. Islam couldn't take it. So those oil rich saudis, who don't have to worry about anything but do find how to take a revenge on west, started funding the terrorist activities. 2. Islam is the only religion which didn't change with time and remain as orthodox as it was ten centuries back. Christianity got diluted, but Islam didn't. So the animosity towards west/christians continued. 3. In india the problem is slightly different. Most of the Muslims population in india didn;t want to english education or join govt jobs in british days while the hindus did. So over a period of time the socio-ecomonic gap between these two communities increased. Many Muslims started blaming the hindus for their situations. And people like Jinna took advantage of that to convince them that unless they have a country of their own, their condition is not going to improve.
RE:reality
by Radhika on Aug 30, 2007 07:42 PM Permalink
What about Modi, Thackeray, RSS, Bajrang Dal and VHP? Do they all have an Islamic connection? Open your eyes, u moron.
RE:reality
by nitn on Aug 30, 2007 07:40 PM Permalink
well, what about LTTE, Khalistan liberation force, ULFA, NSCN(NAGAS), NAXALITES (YESTERDAY killed 12 policeman in Chattigarh)and hundred others in assam and NE..or outside india IRA, ex KKK... and so many others. what do you say to these?
RE:RE:reality
by Charanjeet Singh on Aug 30, 2007 07:44 PM Permalink
Nitin.. for these RSS types these acts are not terrorism otherwise that will change their basic argument. Its a classic case of them picking up selective data to back up their propaganda.
RE:reality
by naresh kaushik on Aug 30, 2007 08:00 PM Permalink
KHALISTHAN, HAVE BEEN SHOVED. ULFA LTTE AND NAXALITES ARE FIGHTING ON ECONOMIC BASED IDEOLOGY/REVOLUTIONS, THEY SHALL STOP ONCE THEY ARE TREATED.BUT ISLAMIC TERRORISM WILL CONTINUE UNLESS THEY FIND EVERY INDIAN BECOMING MUSLIMS AND PERISH FIGHTING AS IN IRAQ
RE:RE:reality
by Palo on Aug 30, 2007 08:09 PM Permalink
Are you guys aware of the history of sikh people being sidelined by Nehru-Gandhi clan even before independence? The concept of Khalistan was born out of economic suppression and discrimination against sikhs by this clan. This was added by unemployment of young people in Punjab. To add to this Indira Gandhi promoted Sant Bhindrawale who later turned against congress. Most of the so called terrorists were created by police in Punjab during 1980s & 90s. Police fixed up and tortured innocent people and thus forced them to become terrorists.
Ofcourse all this may not matter to you as you comment on things even without knowing the complete background of anything.
RE:reality
by sanjiv sharma on Aug 30, 2007 07:54 PM Permalink
none of them is fighting in the name of religion and to clear your mind most of these are directly or indirectly supported your favourite ISLAMIC nations Bangladesh and Pakistan
RE:reality
by gurmeet singh on Aug 30, 2007 07:50 PM Permalink
there is no organisation never exists "khalistan l front " it was a joke on sikh community sikhs are never went against india gandhi family is responsible for all the crises
RE:reality
by rajan rao on Aug 30, 2007 10:57 PM Permalink
The whole world is biased against one religion which is Islam. there are so many terrorists in other religions as well such as LTTE, NSCN, Irish Republican Army, Naxalites, Christian warriors in Germany, UK, USA who killed many people in the name of religion. Even in India, during riots, many hindus killed muslims. Despite the above organisations, they are never called as terrorist, but, called as fighters, militants, protectors etc. is this not a bias against one religion. No religion teaches anybody to kill, it is the wrong interpretation which some mullas advise the muslims. But, we must ignore and support the other muslims' views. By wildly accusing and alienating the muslims, we are only encouraging them to think of taking the terrorism line. Please dont push them to that corner.
RE:RE:reality
by Attract Ivist on Aug 30, 2007 08:05 PM Permalink
1. Well, Islam hates christianity and vice versa, it dates back to holy war days. West (predominantly christians) made major technological advances and became major economomical and technological forces in the world. So Islam suffered fighting the stronger enemies like Israel backed by western countries. Islam couldn't take it. So those oil rich saudis, who don't have to worry about anything but do find how to take a revenge on west, started funding the terrorist activities. 2. Islam is the only religion which didn't change with time and remain as orthodox as it was ten centuries back. Christianity got diluted, but Islam didn't. So the animosity towards west/christians continued. 3. In india the problem is slightly different. Most of the Muslims population in india didn;t want to english education or join govt jobs in british days while the hindus did. So over a period of time the socio-ecomonic gap between these two communities increased. Many Muslims started blaming the hindus for their situations. And people like Jinna took advantage of that to convince them that unless they have a country of their own, their condition is not going to improve.
