Posted on: 15-12-08 22:59:37
Thanks Gutta for sharing this link....this clearly shows undi officer have no brain 
Gupta jee !!! Although your eyes and mind hard to open but still some hope if you see these interview from your own people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-cFLVMphk - 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-P4NNUrfnc -2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AOdpoW9NY4 -3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s56ds7pGYt4 -4
And if still not convinced than check this out....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhO6rynb1C8
Anybody can understand this guy is not from Pakistan but rather disguise himself. However he is mostly using Hindi words which is not used in any part of Pakistan...
Big conspiracy against Pakistan
Gupta ji,
This is just like we say
Khisiani billi khamba noche....
OPINION
The Hindu Rate Of Wrath
When the Mahatma's cowards erupt in fury, it hurts. It isn't terror.
Is there such a thing as 'Hindu terrorism', as the arrest of Sadhvi
Pragya Singh Thakur for the recent Malegaon blasts may tend to prove?
Well, I guess I was asked to write this column because I am one of
that rare breed of foreign correspondents-a lover of Hindus! A born
Frenchman, Catholic-educated and non-Hindu, I do hope I'll be given
some credit for my opinions, which are not the product of my parents'
ideas, my education or my atavism, but garnered from 25 years of
reporting in South Asia (for Le Journal de Geneve and Le Figaro).
In the early 1980s, when I started freelancing in south India, doing
photo features on kalaripayattu, the Ayyappa festival, or the
Ayyanars, I slowly realised that the genius of this country lies in
its Hindu ethos, in the true spirituality behind Hinduism. The average
Hindu you meet in a million villages possesses this simple, innate
spirituality and accepts your diversity, whether you are Christian or
Muslim, Jain or Arab, French or Chinese. It is this Hinduness that
makes the Indian Christian different from, say, a French Christian, or
the Indian Muslim unlike a Saudi Muslim. I also learnt that Hindus not
only believed that the divine could manifest itself at different
times, under different names, using different scriptures (not to
mention the wonderful avatar concept, the perfect answer to 21st
century religious strife) but that they had also given refuge to
persecuted minorities from across the world-Syrian Christians, Parsis,
Jews, Armenians, and today, Tibetans. In 3,500 years of existence,
Hindus have never militarily invaded another country, never tried to
impose their religion on others by force or induced conversions.
You cannot find anybody less fundamentalist than a Hindu in the world
and it saddens me when I see the Indian and western press equating
terrorist groups like simi, which blow up innocent civilians, with
ordinary, angry Hindus who burn churches without killing anybody. We
know also that most of these communal incidents often involve persons
from the same groups-often Dalits and tribals-some of who have
converted to Christianity and others not.
However reprehensible the destruction of Babri Masjid, no Muslim was
killed in the process; compare this to the 'vengeance' bombings of
1993 in Bombay, which wiped out hundreds of innocents, mostly Hindus.
Yet the Babri Masjid destruction is often described by journalists as
the more horrible act of the two. We also remember how Sharad Pawar,
when he was chief minister of Maharashtra in 1993, lied about a bomb
that was supposed to have gone off in a Muslim locality of Bombay.
I have never been politically correct, but have always written what I
have discovered while reporting. Let me then be straightforward about
this so-called Hindu terror. Hindus, since the first Arab invasions,
have been at the receiving end of terrorism, whether it was by Timur,
who killed 1,00,000 Hindus in a single day in 1399, or by the
Portuguese Inquisition which crucified Brahmins in Goa. Today, Hindus
are still being targeted: there were one million Hindus in the Kashmir
valley in 1900; only a few hundred remain, the rest having fled in
terror. Blasts after blasts have killed hundreds of innocent Hindus
all over India in the last four years. Hindus, the overwhelming
majority community of this country, are being made fun of, are
despised, are deprived of the most basic facilities for one of their
most sacred pilgrimages in Amarnath while their government heavily
sponsors the Haj. They see their brothers and sisters converted to
Christianity through inducements and financial traps, see a harmless
84-year-old swami and a sadhvi brutally murdered. Their gods are
blasphemed.
So sometimes, enough is enough.At some point, after years or even
centuries of submitting like sheep to slaughter, Hindus-whom the
Mahatma once gently called cowards-erupt in uncontrolled fury. And it
hurts badly. It happened in Gujarat. It happened in Jammu, then in
Kandhamal, Mangalore, and Malegaon. It may happen again elsewhere.
What should be understood is that this is a spontaneous revolution on
the ground, by ordinary Hindus, without any planning from the
political leadership. Therefore, the BJP, instead of acting
embarrassed, should not disown those who choose other means to let
their anguished voices be heard.
There are about a billion Hindus, one in every six persons on this
planet. They form one of the most successful, law-abiding and
integrated communities in the world today. Can you call them
terrorists?
Source: http://francoisgautier.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/the-hindu-rate-of-wrath/
Quote:
Originally posted by rajtem
OPINION
The Hindu Rate Of Wrath
When the Mahatma's cowards erupt in fury, it hurts. It isn't terror.
Idiotic.
In other words my terrorism is 'pain' and 'hurt' and your terrorism is terrorism. The same people who appear indignant at one kind of terrorism suddenly start justifying other kind. No wonder terrorism exists.
Everybody who takes part in terrorism claims 'victim' status. Be it Christian, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Jews
If you justify one then others are justifiable too. So either you support it or you dont.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
The only difference is
Terrorism by unruly mob at fit of anger causing destruction,
and
Terrorism planned and organised for a mean outcome sponspored by a state.
Quote:
Originally posted by rajtem
The only difference is
Terrorism by unruly mob at fit of anger causing destruction,
and
Terrorism planned and organised for a mean outcome sponspored by a state.
Are you justifying one of the forms, of terrorism, as defined by you and like the writer of the article?
I can think of a few more similarly justifiable 'fit of anger' scenarios
-Burning embassies over cartoons by those who feel aggrieved.
-Spontaneous Violence against helpless north Indians by the apparently aggrieved marathi manoos(e.g: killing of that worker in the train)
etc etc....
Dunno about any of you but I don't think I have had any 'fit of anger' issues where I have participated in physically violent/destructive rampages against a particular group or standing structures.
Tell you what? If someone were to be with a group that were fed anti-something(insert your cause here...anti-bihari, anti-muslim, anti-hindu, anti-christian etc) propaganda over a period of time and incited to perform violence...there probably would be a chance that that person would perform some violence at some point of time...especially in the company of a like-minded mob. As such I don't think it fits with the 'unorganized' 'fit of anger' theories mentioned by the author of that piece.
One should be careful about the 'fit of anger' theories. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe its a good thing that its posted in the 'Have Fun' section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
