RE:Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
by on Feb 07, 2007 10:12 PM Permalink
This proves exactly what? That all terrorists in the world are not Muslims? But what about the fact that 99% of the terrorism in the world is done by Muslims?
RE:RE:Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
by Joseph Kurian on Feb 07, 2007 11:05 PM Permalink
So 100% of the terrorists are not Muslims, only 99%. I am so relieved to hear that from Swaminathan S Anklesaria Iyer. It made my day.
RE:Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
by venky prasad on Feb 07, 2007 10:38 PM Permalink
Definition of terrorism is anyway vague - Modi and this thugs don't go down as terrorists, nor do the upper caste hindus who kill dalits as on the whole they get government patronage
RE:RE:Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
by Joseph Kurian on Feb 07, 2007 11:03 PM Permalink
How about the lower-caste DMK types in Tamil Nadu who oppress and kill dalits? According to you, I suppose they are not terrorists because they are Dravidians?
RE:RE:Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
by Manoj on Feb 07, 2007 11:23 PM Permalink
Well, Swami's article is good. Most of the struggles were for land. Not religion.Even the jews would be satisfied with getting their land which they got. But islamists will not be satisfied with that. The agenda seems to be domination and conversion to their way of life and ideals. This is very very scary for the hindu psyche, because most conversions in history were done by the fear of the sword and ur ideals are the one thing u guard most zealously. If kashmir was given up , u think they wud stop? It would be a big disaster for the existence of bharat, civil war in which probably most indian muslims would be killed or forced out and a lot of hindu deaths too. So in their interest we have to keep kashmir with India (not kidding). coming back to the agenda, it doesn't seem to be a matter of land or civil rights for the muslims. that is what makes it so scary. bin laden and company are like having a thousand hannibal lecters set free (not convinced , take one look at the pearl killing video - but with caution pls , coz it will de-humanise you too at a certain level).
RE:RE:RE:RE:Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
by john thomas on Feb 08, 2007 08:51 PM Permalink
The reason Hindus were not converted by the sword is that they resisted by armed force. They fought back. They continually kept the Muslims (not Mughals) under pressure and never allowed them to rule securely.
Christians in Spain, Austria, France etc. also fought back with violent force and that is how they survived. Wherever Muslims were not under military pressure, they wiped out the native culture.
There are many instances of conversion by the sword by Muslims. Persians, Egyptians, Coptic Christians, Syrians, Lebanese, Kurds, and others did not resist like Hindus and Christians did, and were converted by brute force by Muslim warriors.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
by Maz on Feb 10, 2007 10:29 PM Permalink
Really, you beleive HIndus fought back. Who fought back from Hindus, Shivaji(hiding in mountains and constantly pledging allegiance to Aurangzeb Alamgir) or Guru Gobind Singh who wrote letters of flattery to Aurangzeb again and again.
Yeah kings of europe fought back as they tried to stop anything good. But these are same european countries where Islam is spreading like a cool breeze. England and France come to the top. Then what did the same kings of spain and england to after comitting genocide in Muslim spain and they went to latin america to repeat the same thing. The jews after being driven out from Muslim spain had to take refuge in Ottoman empire. Hey Mr. Christian disguised as an atheist, come out of your fantasy land and do a reality check.
