Terror - Our Reactions and Remedies

"A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, irrespective of the religion, class, creed, or ethnicity he, or she may belong, and every one of us should condemn the act."

I am inclined to agree but I am not that sure. I have a little doubt in my mind. What if one is fighing obvious injustice and the enemy is infexible. I guess your suggestion would be to resort to non-vioent methods. Would you not want to look at the cause and other circumstances?

What do you think of wars? To go to war such as waht has been done in Iraq is that acceptable to you? Or you say no to 'wars' too. I am willing to change my mind but at this point I am not that sure.

We are in a situation where we clap and rejoice when the so called "BAD" terrorists are killed in movies by the so called "COMMAN MAN". But we inadvetently fail to realize that the same COMMAN MAN never condemned the situation which led for another COMMON MAN to choose the destructive path as a terrorist. Terrorists are not born! They are made.

Morris,

Nowhere I suggested non-violent methods to crush terrorists. Looking for a cause and circumstances- is an indirect glorification for a terror act.

An act of terror deserves condemnation, not withstanding any compelling reason.

Black Horse,

Let's not get carried away by the movie heroes and what they say in movies. For them anything which fills their cash boxes is good.
"Terrorists are not born! They are made" is the attitude contributing to the growth of terrorists and if I buy your argument, whom are the terrorists killing?
A common man on the street, who has done no mistake other than electing an unworthy person as a leader, to lead them to eternal misery.

"Black Horse" -- let me fill in your blanks better than you can. The "common man" rioted in Gujarat after the Godhra train attack. That riot was made -- by those who committed the train massacre at Godhra.

The Islamic terrorists are made by their own hate-filled ideology, which Pakistan has been deliberately spreading as an instrument of its national policy. Tell me, does India have any comparable policy of supporting Hindu counterparts to madrassas, the way that Pakistan supports Islamist madrassas that breed legions of hateful youth?

Where are the Hindu rioters in Britain? No Hindus rioted in Bradford -- just Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who then quickly blamed the British police for "alienating" them. Why is it that when both Hindus and Muslims are minorities, even then the Muslims are the ones who riot and not Hindus?

Where are the Hindus who have launched any bombing attacks in any foreign country? How come it's only Muslims who have done so? How come no Hindus have crashed airplanes into skyscrapers? How come no Hindus or Buddhists have bombed the London Subway? The fact is that Islam is strongly infected with militant extremism that no other religious community compares to.

The Tamil Tigers are a good example of comparable extremism, however they aren't a religious community. They are a racist/racial organization mainly run by Christians. LTTE founder Vellupillai Prabhakaran is a Methodist Christian. LTTE spokesman Anton Balasingham is also obviously Christian. The LTTE is now finally being destroyed because their narrow racial ideology can't produce enough footsoldiers to stay alive, unlike the Islamists.

Marxism and Maoism are other examples of ideologies embracing militant violence. They are of course based on economic fantasies buttressed by totalitarianism and authoritarianism, and that's why so many communist-led govts have ultimately collapsed.

Today Pakistanis are now shooting at the US Army -- the same country that the Pakistanis beg aid from. That they see no contradiction between begging aid from someone and shooting at them, tells us all we need to know about Pakistan. They will beg the US for more F16s, claiming these are needed to win the War on Terror -- despite the fact that Taliban and AlQaeda have no air force. Then Pakistan will immediately want to use those same weapons against the US. It shows that they too are living in a fantasy, and are about to be brought rudely back to reality.

My point is a state which unleashes terror on its own citizens or other citizens itself is the first terrorist and the common people who are part of that political system has a fair responsibility of STRONGLY condemning the state. If they fail, you can't stop an oppressed group to fight against the atrocities.

Suresh Naig

I was not suggesting non-violent methods to win the terrorists. My question was exactly the opposite. Those who feel unjustly treated often resort to terrorism. How would you suggest they should fight the injustice? By non-violent methods? Or just don't fight and put up with injustice. So it is not that simple. Or you are not suggesting that those with power are always just and fair. If not then you have to suggest a way for them to seek remedy. You have not suggested anything.

Black Horse writes:
"My point is a state which unleashes terror on its own citizens or other citizens itself is the first terrorist and the common people who are part of that political system has a fair responsibility of STRONGLY condemning the state. If they fail, you can't stop an oppressed group to fight against the atrocities."

But Pakistan is the prime example of that terrorist state which is unleashing terror against anyone within reach -- such as the beleaguered Hindus who are most certainly within its reach. To claim that Hindus are not within reach of Pakistan's evil claws is a lie. Certainly, common Indians have a responsibility to STRONGLY condemn that evil terrorism driven by Islamist sectarianism spread by Pakistan.

Clearly, common people in India have a responsibility to ensure that Uniform Civil Code is applied in the country, to avoid creating different standards for different groups. Certainly the existence of such differing standards would destabilize society, and would leave those disadvantaged by such separate legal systems left with no option but to take a confrontational approach.

When Muslims are in the majority, they of course want Uniform Civil Code -- an Islamic one. But when they are in the minority, they accuse Uniform Civil Code as being a "plot for oppression" hatched against them by the Non-Muslims.

Most Non-Muslim countries have Uniform Civil Code -- with the egregious exception of India -- and yet these countries continue to attract tremendous numbers of Muslim immigrants. That hardly makes the claim of oppression a credible one. I'm wondering why so many Bangladeshis are flocking to India if it's oppressively anti-Muslim. It goes to show that just because someone is claiming oppression, doesn't mean they actually making their claims sincerely, nor does it mean they are accurate even if they sincerely hold such views.

Uniform Civil Code is important,

Assimilation is also the responsibility of the COMMON MAN whom you like to mention. As a matter of fact, word "COMMON" is itself a consequence of assimilation. You can't have a COMMON man if there is no assimilation (assimilation = fostering of commonality)

So don't try to use words in tricky ways, talking about a COMMON Man, while rejecting the process of COMMONIZATION. If you reject COMMONIZATION, then you reject the concept of the COMMON Man.
If you want to be accepted as a common man, then you have to accept a common set of rules. Muslims unfortunately resist this -- except when they are in the majority, and even then they impose a theological legal system which non-Muslim countries do not do.

Black Horse, since you say that oppressed people always fight, then what about the Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities of Pakistan? We know they exist. And we know there are no bombing sprees by Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, etc in Pakistan.

So according to your brittle logic, these groups must be enjoying the highest privileges in the Islamic Republic. Absence of violence from them must automatically imply tremendous contentment on their part, according to you.

I can point out to you that there are no riots in North Korea either, and no bombing sprees. There were no Mumbai-style bombings in Pyongyang last year. Many foreigners in Saudi Arabia face curbs of all kinds, but there don't seem to be any bombing-sprees by them, or any riots by them, etc.

I can see all kinds of examples in this world that tell me your perceptions are nowhere close to reality.

The problem that India lives in a hostile neighborhood with hostile neighbors who share the same faith with some of our self-declared "oppressed minorities". This means that our country is not a closed system, but is influenced by its wider environment -- in a way that negatively impacts security. You don't seem to get that.

Morris #6,
My point is to recognise terrorism as "cancer" of the society. It might have crept into the system due to evil practice such as smoking, which is bad in itself.

As long as the cancer is localised, it could be removed by surgical intervention, but when it becomes systemic, chemotherapy would be required. The treatment for cancer is worst than cancer itself.

We are in a situation to fight cancer, to save the body, which is going to be painful and this is no time to think about what caused the cancer.

We are not in a situation of "prevention is better than cure". We will have to cure the malady now and think about further proliferation later.

Painfully yours

Sanjay#

Well - we saw the "common man" in Gujarat rioting against the Godhra train attack with his vicious smile with a Saffron band on his head and a sword in his hand! If you call him a common man, then you know who I am blaming.

Coming to your point of fostering madarassas, we all know what VHP,RSS and Sangh Parivar stands for in India. They are no less than the former.

Muslims in UK are becoming more resistant to the state because the state is using their tax money to kill their own people in Iraq - an unwanted war for their own cause. The cause of spreading/forcing Democracy and Freedom.

Hindus/Buddhists don't have to bomb any place. Because by supporting their own state in killing the minorities they are doing more damage than planting a bomb.

Your point on Prabhakaran is fairly new that he is a Methodist Christian and LTTE is a christian terrorist organization. I strongly disagree. LTTE are fighting for a only cause - a separate Tamil Homeland - which they have tried in all peacefull methods(Remember Thileepan?) and failed. Any Tamil Hindu/Muslim/Christian is involved in that battle against the chavunistic Buddhist regime where all the political decisions are dominated by Buddhist monks who are supposed to be the peace loving people.

Sanjay#

For all your questions on muslim countries having the Islamic Civic Code I have only one answer. You know as a foreigner what to expect when you enter a country which declares itself an Islamic State. But we in India proudly say that we are SECULAR state but are we really allowing others to COEXIST?

Black Horse writes:
"Sanjay
Well - we saw the "common man" in Gujarat rioting against the Godhra train attack with his vicious smile with a Saffron band on his head and a sword in his hand! If you call him a common man, then you know who I am blaming."

Ohh, so everyone in Gujarat had the saffron band, did they? How come this perception wasn't there before the riots? It suddenly grew overnight, following the riots. Nah, I don't buy the idea that there was all this militant Hindu extremism that was lurking undetected all this time before Gujarat. You never saw the media hordes calling Modi a "Hitler" before Gujarat. To me, that implies that the image was manufactured, and did not previously exist.

"Coming to your point of fostering madarassas, we all know what VHP,RSS and Sangh Parivar stands for in India. They are no less than the former."

Ohh, really? And what is their source of financing? Where are their world-spanning attacks?
Where are the 9/11, Madrid or London suicide bombings by Hindus? Why is it only Muslims do these things? Where were the Bradford riots by the Hindus? Or will you claim that British Police have a special collusion going on with Hindus, and are able to tell them apart from brown-skinned Muslims? If anything, Muslims are on average lighter-skinned than Hindus are, and thus less visible.

"Muslims in UK are becoming more resistant to the state because the state is using their tax money to kill their own people in Iraq - an unwanted war for their own cause. The cause of spreading/forcing Democracy and Freedom."

Ohh, I see - so fighting with Iraq means fighting with all Muslims. But burning a train in Godhra shouldn't mean fighting with all Hindus. And why are these Muslims staying in Britain if they don't like it? A case of wanting to have the cake and eat it too? A nation is not a hotel, contrary to what many Muslims seem to convey through their attitudes and decisions.

"Hindus/Buddhists don't have to bomb any place. Because by supporting their own state in killing the minorities they are doing more damage than planting a bomb."

How are Hindus and Buddhists in Pakistan not planting bombs? Or Sikhs or Christians? Don't tell me -- it's because the Ummah provides an ideal utopian existence for those fortunate enough to be minorities within its loving fold. And that's the reason why there are no riots by minorities in Muslim countries?

"Your point on Prabhakaran is fairly new that he is a Methodist Christian and LTTE is a christian terrorist organization. I strongly disagree. LTTE are fighting for a only cause - a separate Tamil Homeland - which they have tried in all peacefull methods(Remember Thileepan?) and failed. Any Tamil Hindu/Muslim/Christian is involved in that battle against the chavunistic Buddhist regime where all the political decisions are dominated by Buddhist monks who are supposed to be the peace loving people."

I specifically stated that the LTTE are a racist/racially-based organization. Do you contest that founder Vellupillai Prabhakaran is a Methodist Christian? Or Anton Balasingham, or so many of its other top leaders?
I don't see any Muslims in the LTTE, but do see them among the Sri Lankan side. Your statement seems to be an empty assertion.

Black Horse:
"Sanjay
For all your questions on muslim countries having the Islamic Civic Code I have only one answer. You know as a foreigner what to expect when you enter a country which declares itself an Islamic State. But we in India proudly say that we are SECULAR state but are we really allowing others to COEXIST?"

I'm an atheist, but I'm not a sucker who's going to be held to a tighter standard than everyone else. What exactly is the benefit derived from calling oneself a "secular state" anyway? It seems to mean you have to walk a tightrope and get pilloried while others such as Pakistan don't suffer from being an obviously sectarian state.

Similarly, Leftists also say that India should not go in for nuclear weapons just because China and Pakistan have them. We could carry that logic on for everything -- no army just because others have them, no armed police just because thieves use arms, etc, etc.

Sorry, but first and foremost, I'm going to demand an equal moral standard, and not be suckered into being a beast of burden for self-proclaimed moralists who don't have any morals. What respect would they have, that I should worry about keeping their respect? Doesn't make sense to me.

My point is reinforced by all the comments here. Let us call a terrorist, A terrorist and not by any other name.

Only when we attribute caste, creed, religion or nationality, justification for the act of terrorism automatically creeps in.

A perpetrator of violence in any form is a terrorist, not withstanding his color or cause.

Suresh, what you have written is politically correct and totally wrong. It is very convenient to paint everything in black and white and say violence is always wrong and anyone who stoops to violence is a terrorist. I assume you have exempted state violence from this rule. They say that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. This is absolutely true, though after 9/11, violent freedom fighters are tolerated a lot less. Can you, hand on heart, say that if Tibetans start a violent movement for freedom, they should be called terrorists? I never really liked the LTTE, but started to ardently hate them after they betrayed India and caused the death of over 1000 Indian soldiers. I'm sure there are many Sri Lankan Tamils who wholeheartedly support the LTTE. I can understand this support, though I don't like it. Being Indian, every insurgent in Kashmir is a terrorist. But I perfectly understand if a Pakistani does not think likewise. I am sympathetic to the Kurds, even when they resort to violence. I don't hate the Chechens when they fight the Russians because they are not fundamentalist Muslims. The same applies to the Kosovars. They are not fundamentalist Muslims whilst the Serbians are quite Orthodox Christians. And finally, I don't think Bhagat Singh was a terrorist.

"A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, irrespective of the religion, class, creed, or ethnicity he, or she may belong, and every one of us should condemn the act."

Suresh - a bit worried about this Bush/Cheney/Rice n Rumsfeld logic here. And so will ask you the following questions:

1) Were those who took up arms against the British in the original 13 colonies of America "terrorists"? (The British government thought they were!)

2) Were the Algerians (100,000+ of whom were killed) chose to take up arms against a brutal French regime "terrorists"? (The French called them that!)

3) Were those men and women - and I am specifically speaking of those who were not serving in the East India Company's military arms - who chose to participate in 1857 "terrorists" (The British called them that!)

4. Were Menachim Begin, Ben Gurion, and those who fought for the establishment of Israel "terrorists"? (The British and French called them that!)

5. Were those French, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and others who took up arms against Nazi occupation of Europe "terrorists"? (The Germans certainly called them that!)

6. Were the Chinese who chose to fight against Japanese brutality "terrorists"? (The Japanese called them that!)

A terrorist is no more and NO LESS than a human being, with religious beliefs, social values, human emotions, family ties and everything else you and I have.

The ONLY difference is that he/she is also relatively powerless in political and military terms AND is angry and frustrated enough to act violently.

The solution is not to take a neo-con stance - as you have - but to use law enforcement and social development in tandem to redress what makes "terrorists."

Btw, did anyone else catch Condi Rice on Paxman last night explaining how "there are a lot of evil men out there, Muslim men, who want to kill innocent people..." Made me sick to watch!!!!

Suresh,

Unfortunately your piece is a non-starter. Perhaps next time?

"Btw, did anyone else catch Condi Rice on Paxman last night explaining how "there are a lot of evil men out there, Muslim men, who want to kill innocent people..." Made me sick to watch!!!!"

I did. She said "evil men (pause) and mostly men". Not "Muslim men". Go back and watch it:
http://www.hamarey.com/youtube/video/Paxman/BI6Z7W14PGs/Condi_Rice_gets_the_Paxman_Treatment_26_Sept_2008

Ciao, Guido

Guido - will take your word and have to say I am then very relieved that Condi didn't say that. She was awful enough without that last cherry on top.

"A perpetrator of violence in any form is a terrorist, not withstanding his color or cause."

Ahem, I had missed this particular gem from you, Suresh. Does that include all members of our armed forces?

And does this mean that the following list of names are terrorists:

1) Major Somnath Sharma
2) Lance Naik Karam Singh
3) 2nd Lt. Ram Raghoba Rane
4) Naik Jadunath Singh
5) Havaldar Major Piru Singh
6) Captain Gurbachan Singh Salaria
7) Major Dhan Singh Thapa
8) Subedar Joginder Singh
9) Major Shaitan Singh
10) Havaldar Abdul Hamid
11) Lt Col Ardeshir Burzorji Tarapore
12) Lance Naik Albert Ekka
13) FO Nirmaljit Singh Sekhon
14) 2nd Lt. Arun Khetrapal
15) Major Hoshiar Singh
16) Naik Subedar Bana Singh
17) Major Ramaswamy Parmeshwaram
18) Lt Manoj Kumar Pandey
19) Grenadier Yogendra Singh Yadav
20) Rifleman Sanjay Kumar
21) Captain Vikram Batra

All of these names that according to your definition are "terrorists" are Param Vir Chakra winners, and they carried out violence to ensure that people like you can spout your opinions freely!

#16

For decades, nations could not cope with terrorism because one man's terrorist was politicized as another man's freedom fighter and power-brokers exploited such dichotomy to terrorize weaker nations into doing their bidding. It merely fueled more insurgencies, separatism and terrorism because they could be cloaked as fight for freedom and justice. In stead of condemning terrorism, people found reasons to appease and empower it. If the terrorists were allied with USA, they instantly became freedom fighters and were reinforced with latest weapons. Not until 9/11 brought terrorism to American shore that sea-change could evolve in how terrorism is now viewed by the world - and one of the fallout is an acknowledgment that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with freedom or democracy or human rights or secularism or minority rights or progress.

"The solution is not to take a neo-con stance - as you have - but to use law enforcement and social development in tandem to redress what makes "terrorists."

Such approach would work if root causes of terrorism rest in social or economic repression or in lack of democratic freedoms. But when they are rooted in religious dogma, for creating religious purity, for creating Islamic caliphate - such concessions only amount to appeasement and empowerment that would lead to more robust terrorism.

That terrorism can be fought with law and order safeguards designed for civilians is another fallacy. It has not worked anywhere. No nation can have 24/7 monitoring and security check-points in its every nook and cranny. Nor can it subject its civilians to 'guilty until proven innocent doctrine' that fight against terrorism requires to pre-empt it. So it needs a parallel legal structure that is tailored specifically to tackle terror suspects and its support network. They may not provide 100% air-tight security against terrorism as nothing can be air-tight, but even if it can prevent most acts of terrorism, it is good enough to break the morale of terrorism - having such legal framework amounts to declaration of nation's resolve to fight terrorism. Terrorism has to be treated as war on nation, not as mere civilian crimes.

To put it straight - in my opinion - one who wilfully indulges in OFFENSIVE violence against UNARMED civillians, who are not directly or indirectly involved in any attack or war with the offensive party, with the intention of causing death, destruction and terror, can be called a "terrorist".

Defensive violence of any magnitude, only against armed attackers, for self preservation, or preservation of the group, or nation, cannot be called terrorism.

By this definition, soldiers who kill innocent civillians of the enemy and term it "collateral damage" are terrorists too, along with the violent fanatics who blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces.

Thinking about it, if nobody indulged in an "Offense first" policy, there just would be no war or terrorism!

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

kery #21

I agree generally with your comments. I hope you not suggesting that all Islamic terrorism is for religious cause. We have to be careful not to generalize. We must make an honest effort to undrstnd.

I must admit I do not understand their cause in India. There does not seem to be any social or economic repression. Or, may be there is and I am ignorant about it. It just does not seem to make any sense to me.

I think terrorism stems from many reasons. I can think of socio-economic inequality, discrimination, unjustified aggression and loss of land, wealth, and resources, racial hatred, orthodox religious ideology, forcefully imposing political ideology on unwilling people, etc.
My list may not be complete.

But the root cause of all this violence and terrorism, I think, is lack of acceptance and eventual hatred of things and people who are "different"; excessive pride in one's beliefs, ideologies, thoughts and opinions "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG!!" "This is the right path, what I follow!" (which leads to one to try and impose his/her ideology on the other) and lack of compassion towards all living beings, and excessive greed for material objects.

It is difficult for certain people who are brainwashed and blind to accept the differences that exist in the world and peacefully coexist, knowing that there is no gain in indulging in violence.

I may get a bit phiolosophical here, but we humans have invented all these useless religions, ideologies, beliefs, nations, races, economic systems etc. and are stupid enough to kill and die for them.
I mean how ridiculous can one get? Why do people stick to their opinions and beliefs as if they are the most precious things in their lives? Why cannnot people strip off all the artificial conditioning and get rid of the ego and false pride?

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

ana:

wrt #16

nice list

would add state terrorism and state sponsored terrorism to complete this list

****

aur kahan ghayab theen?

Morris

"I hope you not suggesting that all Islamic terrorism is for religious cause. We have to be careful not to generalize..."

Unless moslems prove it that it is otherwise, I have no reason to believe that it is an undue generalization.

It is for moslems to make the arguments that their religion has nothing to do with terrorism or terrorists and that any attack on terrorists is not an attack on Islam or Moslems. As long as they treat any attack on Terrorism as attack on moslems, they have only themselves to blame for such generalization.

Ayan #24

That is good.

kerty #26

That sounds like you are guilty unless proven otherwise. I am having difficulty going along with that. What about terrorism in Kashmir. Is it not political? What about middle East? Do you see these also related to the religion?

Morris

"That sounds like you are guilty unless proven otherwise."

That is because you can not have it both ways. If moslems treat any attack on terrorism as attack on islam or attack on moslems, thus making terrorists indistinguishable from Islam and moslems, than moslems can not enjoy the presumption of innocence.

"What about terrorism in Kashmir. Is it not political?"

Kashmir has become political precisely because it is a Moslem majority state that is unwilling to live with non-moslems and within secular nation. So its terrorist politics stems from jehad. Rest of politics flows from that.

Same is true in middle-east. There, the moslem quest has always been for purer form of Islamic rule, rejection of modern state-craft and modern culture. No interpretation that is not fundamentalist is acceptable to them. No reformist or moderate version of Islam is acceptable to them. Nothing highlights it more than planting of Jewish state in its middle. The day middle-east is able to live with Jewish state in peace will be the day middle-east and moslems around the world would stand reformed, modernized, and guided by moderate and progressive forces of Islam. Its a limus test of tolerant and inclusive Islam. So struggles in middle-east are really struggles of moderating and modernizing Islam. Its better to see them played out in its own backyard rather than all over the world as they played out during medieval periods. Islam has not progressed beyond medieval period, still trapped in it. So it is all the more important. For that, I have only high regards for Jewish people and for American policy.

Don't worry Morris, you Americans are about to get a nice taste of the same Pakistani-sponsored terrorism that you seem indifferent to when it strikes others. And even if you come running back from Afghanistan with your tails between your legs, the AlQaeda have shown that they will be willing to chase you right back home to hit you on your own home soil.

And that seems to be the way you want it, because you're constantly defending Pakistan and its terrorist agenda.

Kerty:

"Unless moslems prove it that it is otherwise, I have no reason to believe that it is an undue generalization.""

Here we go again? Different day, same shit! Or, shall we say, another day, same kerty?

Ayan #22,

You have not only put it straight, but neat too.

Though I don't agree with your statement "defensive violence of any magnitude", since my stand is terrorism does not deserve any qualification, however much compelling it might be.

Let me borrow your stock phrase "Love and Peace to all".

Ayan #22,

You have not only put it straight, but neat too.

Though I don't agree with your statement "defensive violence of any magnitude", since my stand is terrorism does not deserve any qualification, however much compelling it might be.

Let me borrow your stock phrase "Love and Peace to all".

As many of us are discussing the aetiology of terrorism in India, attributing and accusing every one, other than the terrorists for the act of terror, these animals have struck in Delhi again.

As long as we justify their act, we can't expect any respite from terror.

Instead of acting decisively, if the State is going to debate and justify the act of terror, Public would react. Again others would be discussing the reasons for a new terror caused by public outrage.

Only just yesterday, govt minister Shivraj Patel was whining about how intelligence bureaus need to recruit more Muslims. The country is being bombed, and this vote-hungry idiot is slyly looking for another quota scheme.

The fact is that India lives in a very bad neighborhood, and so if it doesn't take the issue of security seriously, it will face terrible consequences.

"Tamilians were encouraged to donate freely for the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils in the form of clothes, medicines and sundry items, which many did with a sense of pride. On the one hand India condemned one kind of terrorists and encouraged another kind."

You seem to equate all Sri Lankan Tamils with the LTTE. How does donating clothes and medicines to genuine Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka amount to "encouraging another kind" of terrorism?

perhaps a relevant excerpt:

An answer must begin with a question: when did terrorism begin? Too long ago. India is unique. Every faith has delivered its quota of terrorists. The Nagas who challenged Indian unity were Christians. The sister-regions of the Northeast gave us Hindu terrorists. Sikhs rose in Punjab, and Muslims in Kashmir. The overwhelming majority of Naxalites are Hindus.

And now some young non-Kashmiri Indian Muslims are playing with dynamite. Some three years ago, when President George Bush visited India, Dr Singh proudly told his American mentor that Indian Muslims did not believe in terrorism. As evidence he pointed to the absence of any Indian Muslim name in the rolls of Al Qaeda.

If this was true, then what has happened in the last three years?

Ledzius,

In Tamil Nadu LTTE is not synonymous with Tamils. On the other hand an impression is created that they are the only Tamils. That's why LTTE could kill more Tamils in Sri Lanka than Sri Lankan armed force and still get away. They have displaced more Tamils as refugees to India than SLAF.

LTTE had absolute control over the aid materials despatched from TN and hence they were the beneficiary than Tamils.

I thought every one is aware of that fact and failed to elaborate on it.

Ledzius, I see nothing in his mention of Tamils as meaning all Tamils. But the unfortunate fact is that enough Tamils have contributed support to LTTE, to aggravate the conflict there.

The sordid saga of Eelam is now coming to an end, with the LTTE's imminent destruction. They haven't done the birthrate thing like the Islamists, and simply thought they could selectively suicide-bomb their way to victory, like the Japanese. Now they're facing their Hiroshima, and they'll never recover from it.

Only just yesterday, govt minister Shivraj Patel was whining about how intelligence bureaus need to recruit more Muslims.

Do you know the meaning of sleeper cells? Tapping the very grounds the terrorist think are their safe havens?

In your hatred towards the Muslims and lower castes you cut your nose to spite your own face.

If people like you had your way half our nation would burn for either being a Dalit or a 'minority'. After all the upper caste BJP lovers want is the Brahman rule to return.

The only Hiroshima we face is from the likes of you who play into the hands of terrorists. They want our nation to burn and fail and you like the child you are will stupidly play along.

Bihari

"Do you know the meaning of sleeper cells? Tapping the very grounds the terrorist think are their safe havens?"

It makes sense to use moslems to gather intelligence on sleeper cells. And it should have been done long time ago. But it didn't. Because it can potentially create more problems than solve

1) It creates a risk of communalizing intelligence agencies, and thereby making them politicised and ineffective

2) What if some of the moslems have sympathies for terrorists and terrorist causes and choose to pass on intelligence to sleeper cells - in essence, become counter-intelligence operatives for terrorist cells - this is how all agencies in Pakistan have been infiltrated by radical Jehadis who are actually aiding Taliban rather than fighting them.

So such risks are very real for India . Moslems continue to treat any attack against terrorists as attack on Moslems and refuse to cooperate with war on terror - so in their eyes, there is no distinction between moslems and terrorists, between war on terror and war on Islam. So in these times, we need to make our anti-terrorism measures more robust, and not sabotage them as UPA seems to be doing.

Kerty and Bihari,

Shivraj Patil wanted to recruit Moslems in intelligence, not with the intention of gathering intelligence, but to intelligently gather votes.

Terrorists activate a sleeper cell at will. But no amount of terror in India, seems to shake the Government from its slumber.

Sanjay, People like you have an innate hatred against the lower castes and the poor of India . There are plenty of Muslims in our army who have defended our country time and again and enough in RAW as well. They don't owe you Bajrang Dal and Modi lovers any explanation.

Calling all Muslims terrorists is what you and Kerty do all the time. Your arguments as usual lack logic.

You have shown your hate mongering on Desicritics plenty of times.

One only has to do is read your asinine comments. Tag along bigotry against the minorities what do we have? A man who visits this site as Sanjay.

Also what you suffer from is verbal violence that you spew on others without a shred of civilized thought but then again verbal violence is just another blow hard aspect of bigotry.

Having people like you around is important so that we educated Hindus realize that people like you are the horrors of century past that we have left behind and don't ever want in our midst as far as possible

bihari:

this needs correction:

...People like you have an innate hatred against the lower castes and the poor of India...

over the years on desicritics this self proclaimed "rational-atheist" (are there any irrational atheists?) has spewed off blanket hatred against just about every one...

temporal,

"rational-atheist" could only be self proclaimed.

bihari:

""Having people like you around is important so that we educated Hindus realize that people like you are the horrors of century past that we have left behind and don't ever want in our midst as far as possible""

hear hear! more power to you bihari, less to cyberbigots such as these, flexing their fingers on their keyboards.

[Conjectural]

Commonsense, us people from Bihar are always on top form;)

blathering edited

MS

"India is the only country on the earth wheer minorities have more rights then majority and majority is feeling terrorised and threatened by minority associates of foreign invaders."

If look closely and carefully, they are not really minorities. They are the hang-over of the past when they were the ruling class and the majority Hindus, the deprived second class citizens.

India is the only country that has always protected the minorities. But the definition of minorities in India is strangely distorted. Here the minorities are better off than Hindus and were the ruling class for centuries. It is the Hindu who faces an existential problem with petro-dollar, terrorism, infiltration and proselytisation undermining very existence of Hindus.

Suresh Naig in his comment about LTTE says that they have killed more Tamils than Sri Lanka. Do you have any statistics for this Suresh?. According to the statistics I have : For every 8 Tamil civilian killed by the Sri Lankan Army/Airforce/Navy the LTTE killed 2 Sinhalese civilians. This number does not include the armed personelL from either side and also does not include the 400+ Indian Fishermen killed by the Sri Lankan army. Repeating a lie 10 times does seem to make it a fact. But not in an educated forum like this one. Friends India, Sri Lanka and the Western Nations that Sri Lanka lobied calls LTTE as terrorists, the Tamil people of Sri Lanka regard then as freedom fighters. The 22 elected members of TNA have requested LTTE to not give up their arms and pursue the war until freedom is achieved.

Suresh Naig in his comment about LTTE says that they have killed more Tamils than Sri Lanka. Do you have any statistics for this Suresh?. According to the statistics I have : For every 8 Tamil civilian killed by the Sri Lankan Army/Airforce/Navy the LTTE killed 2 Sinhalese civilians. This number does not include the armed personelL from either side and also does not include the 400+ Indian Fishermen killed by the Sri Lankan army. Repeating a lie 10 times does seem to make it a fact. But not in an educated forum like this one. Friends India, Sri Lanka and the Western Nations that Sri Lanka lobied calls LTTE as terrorists, the Tamil people of Sri Lanka regard then as freedom fighters. The 22 elected members of TNA have requested LTTE to not give up their arms and pursue the war until freedom is achieved.

sunderapandyan: Can you reveal the source of your statistics? If it is from tamilnet.com, you can conveniently forget it.

In war torn north SriLanka, no real statistics is possible. Do you know how many Indian fishermen were captured by LTTE, so that their fishing trawlers could be used for transporting contraband into Mannar?

If LTTE is an organisation fighting for freedom of Tamils in SriLanka, why did they carry their fight in India and killed Rajiv Gandhi?

If any one believes that LTTE was not responsible for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, then they are not fit to be in an "intelligent forum".

Well, I respect your personal opinion about LTTE on Sri Lanka. My source is not TamilNet.com, though I respect the site for its authenticity and swift reporting from areas that are not covered by any other reporters.

Sri Lanka killed many Tamil civilians during several pogroms starting 1953. LTTE eliminated selected Tamil militant leaders who corroborated with either Sri Lanka or India's intelligence agency RAW. That is the fact. Its absurd to say LTTE killed more Tamils than Sri Lanka.

This was just FYI. My intention is not to open a dialog with you here. Good luck and have a nice Pongal.

Here's a good article summing up LTTE:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/s0027_01_09.asp

SanjayTheAtheist: Thanks for the interesting link. It was informative. The wisdom of more than 30 countries, which banned LTTE cannot be faulted.

Sunderapandyan: Wish you a happy Pongal.