True Muslims are not terrorists. Who don’t know Islam some black sheep’s of society may doing wrong. Terrorism not a property of any religion. All other faiths are not yogi or minis. Hitler killed million of Jews. Bush Killer of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are These Christian Terrorists? Modi (BJP, RSS Bajrangdal) killed hundreds of people in Gujarat. Are they Hindu Terrorists? LTTE. Basque, IRA, ULFA .etc... Lot of Organization Killed lot of Innocent human beings. We have to condemn all of them. The don’t have religion. No religion teaches violence and Terrorism. Terrorists do not have religion. By using bad / vulgar language against any other faith you cannot prove your faith is right. We have to fight against these terrorists and keep communal harmony to build the Golden India. Intelligence Agencies should work hard to eliminate the culprit from the society.
RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by lets go on Jun 15, 2008 04:16 PM Permalink
Why are attacks by Islamic groups called Islamist terrorism? Other terror groups like the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) or the IRA (Irish Republican Army) have Hindus or Christians but are not called Hindu or Christian terrorists?
It is undoubtedly true that there are other terrorists as well, for instance the Naxalites or Maoists. The reason why the adjective 'Islamists' is used is that no other terror group invokes religious sanction or quotes religious texts to justify their acts. In fact, the Tamil Tigers has Hindus as well as Christians (their spokesperson for many years was Anton Balasingham, a Christian). Neither has the IRA nor Tamil Tigers ever quoted any religious scriptures to justify their actions, the Islamists have and continue to do so. The link between religious places and schools to these acts, is also well established.
Finally, the Islamist terrorists themselves have time and again openly admitted the religious nature of their ultimate goal -- Islamisation. It would be dishonest if this reality is ignored.
RE:RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by lets go on Jun 15, 2008 04:17 PM Permalink
You are biased, what about the terrorism of the Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal etc?
These are indeed organisations that believe in violent means and must be dealt under the law. But at worst, these are extremists and militants, like militant trade unions for example. The shallow coverage by the media has created the confusion about definition of terrorism and who is a terrorist. There is tendency to lump together terms like militants, insurgents, extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists.
While all the variety of people fighting for some cause or other may at times indulge in terrorism, a terrorist is one whose primary aim is to cause maximum destruction. In that sense strictly speaking, when a Kashmiri extremist attacks a soldier, it is wrong to call it a terrorist attack, it is part of an insurgency. We must be clear about this difference.
A terrorist is an individual who carries out a terrorist act. A terrorist act is one in which totally unconnected persons are targeted and killed. Terrorism is random violence that makes no distinction between people and promotes fear. It is no accident that in the Jaipur attack as well as elsewhere, many Muslims lost their lives.
It is a fallacy to claim that everything is fair in love and war. Even in war there are written and unwritten rules. The terrorists do not follow them. For instance in war, civilians are not deliberately targeted (they still die as collateral damage) while terrorists, for instance in Beslan in Russia [Im
RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by lets go on Jun 15, 2008 04:18 PM Permalink
Using force against terrorists is like treating only the symptom. What about the root cause like the Babri demolition and the Gujarat genocide? The demolition of the Babri mosque at Ram Janmabhoomi was wrong and against the law of the land. But obduracy of the fundamentalists in denying Hindus their holy place is equally wrong. I am an agnostic but do believe that others who have faith have equal right to their belief. It is not that a compromise had not been worked out in similar cases. The case of the Krishna temple in Mathura is similar so is the case of the Somnath temple.
Making an issue of an obscure mosque in Faizabad was the original sin. In a plural society both the majority and minority have an obligation to respect each other's beliefs, this cannot be a one-sided affair. Many sensible people on both sides tried to find a solution to the issue, but politicians on both sides, interested in dividing society, thwarted all attempts.
RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by mdmehdi hasan on Jun 15, 2008 05:17 PM Permalink
i have a question what give advani and modi to the nation except despute and loss to nation.
RE:RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by lets go on Jun 15, 2008 04:18 PM Permalink
This issue has been further vitiated by the 'secularists', who in league with the fundamentalists first disputed the authenticity of Hindu's historical memory of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Ram. The ill logic has been extended further when many question the historicity of Ram and the Ramayan. There is glaring asymmetry here. All Hindu beliefs and history are sought to be rubbished on ground of lack of 'evidence'. It is this moronic approach that has turned even the liberal, the tolerant and the agnostics against the 'sickularists' and their fellow travelers.
The Gujarat riots of 2002 were indeed horrendous and a blot on the nation. But it cannot be forgotten that the Godhra incident was a grave provocation. In 1969, when the 'secularists' were in power, worse riots had taken place in Gujarat. The question is if Godhra had not happened, would the Gujarat riots have taken place? A corollary to that is that even today, in any state, if a Godhra-like incident takes place, equally severe repercussions would occur. This would happen despite the best efforts of the police or army. I have personal experience of dealing successfully with riots during my army career. But we all, who have this experience, agreed that if there is grave provocation and riots spread to rural areas, no army or police can control it.
In addition, some NGOs and individuals, with vested monetary (foreign funds) interests have kept alive the memory of those riots. They have falsely created the brand '
RE:RE:RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by lets go on Jun 15, 2008 04:19 PM Permalink
On the other hand, Hindu society is so hopelessly divided that much terrorism will take place in India not because we are the number one enemy of Islam, which we are not, but because we are a soft target.
India possibly is already a laboratory for the jihadists, who test their tactics and weapons here before they use them against the West.
The article has been written by -
Colonel (Dr) Anil Athale (retd) is former joint director, war studies, ministry of defence, and co-ordinator of the Pune-based Initiative for Peace and Disarmament
RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by Ronit Kapoor on Jun 15, 2008 06:02 PM Permalink
Religion is like a soul and society is like a body. Soul should stay in a body that nourishes it. So, Muslims should live India.
RE:RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by Mohammed Mujahid on Jun 15, 2008 04:40 PM Permalink
The source of Islamic guidance is Quran and Hadiths. True muslims who follow these two. You cannot prove a single verse in quran against humanity. You cannot put baseless aligations without prove
RE:Terrorists does not have any religion
by Mohammed Mujahid on Jun 15, 2008 04:35 PM Permalink
A brahmin while reciting mantra if he kill anybody it is fault of brahmin or the faith he follows
