How should India handle Pakistan? - Page 11

I have reopened the topic on some member's request. Please stick to the topic and refrain from making personal and religious attacks.

Originally posted by: mermaid_QT

I understand why some say that LTTE cannot be branded as a hindu terrorist organization. i am sure you accept how majority of these would be hindus (okay tamils if u wish to narrow it down)

Just because something is not a BRANDED religious organization, does not make it
1. of less nuisance
2. of better morality
Terrorists and destructive activists by any name are still axis of evil.

That some terrorist organizations, with majority membership of people of a certain religion BRAND themselves / TAG themselves with a name of that religion does not give us a right to call them more destructive / evil than organizations like LTTE / ULFA.

Terrorism has no religion. They can call themselves any. How would you respond if notorious terrorist camps label themselves as Hindu militants and blast temples, would you call them Hindu terrorist groups? Does name matter / is it the act that matters?

If membership of a certain militant terrorist organization involved in terrorism has majority hindus, that raises a question. Now since getting personal is not my flavor, I refuse to answer question that will ask me the split percentage of all religions in LTTE. I'd just love for that someone to bring me the numbers and prove Hindus (tamils) are not majority in it.

Not that all these last few pages anyway has anything to do with thread 😊 😉

No-one has claimed terrorism is good anywhere in this thread and defended LTTE or ULFA or their goals

A. Terrorism in the name of a country is handled differently and there are known ways to fix it and we have had success, like for example Hamas, if given certain parts of the Isreali nation can be satisfied, they can go even further and choose to ignore the existence of Israel, but even that can be resolved by talks or peaceful means.

If you take LTTE or ULFA they are more in the Hamas brand of terrorism, even if they blow away some temples or churches or masjids their primary cause is one

Now take Hezbollah, they cannot even perceive the existence of Isreal, for them with Isreal is, you or us, so Isreal is naturally on a "us" mode

Both Hamas and Hezb constitute 100% muslims

B. Terrorism that states, my religion states this and by this I have to kill you all, you cannot even form a dialogue with them, Al Qaeda is of that type and you had Pakistan fuelling that

now even Al Qaeda had non-muslims in their operation(who eventually converted to Islam)

what is the dialogue you will have with them? yes we are willing to convert to Islam? We will leave Kashmir? Next become Hyderabad, then UP, what will you do then? you will still have bomb blasts, there is no reasoning and we know this tendency exists from the day of Aurangzeb, the only way is hit back, there are no talks here

that is the question here for debate, how will India deal with this type of terrorism and that was exported from Pakistan, that is the relevance to the topic?

India can handle terrorism in Assam(of ULFA) and India has experience with that in Punjab or to some degree with the AP naxalites

Good you brought the examples of LTTE, It was the Indian army(If LTTE is Hindu, then India is HINDU) that stood by the side of Srilankan army(sinhalese) in fighting LTTE. But we look at it as India standing in the face of LTTE😃. But do you call India as a Hindu nation? that's secularistic hypocrisy

Kashmir and Pakistan is a different story

Terrorism here is classified by types in how to tackle them and we are talking about only one, it is not to brand Islam as terroristic religion, it is about how to deal with that. and it has nothing to do with Islam as a religion(and as SJB's article pointed out even good people in Muslim world are realizing it and finding ways to counter it)

Whereas some are thinking we are branding that as Islamic terrorism and taking shots at Islam and by retailating by giving examples of Hindu terrorism which is Hindu by ingrediant but the content has nothing to do with Hinduism.

That is the problem with secularism, it looks at religion as a taboo topic and when it is brought in, people go an extra mile to prove something that isnt there(show me any single point in the Hindu ideology of ULFA or LTTE that makes you brand them as Hindu, whereas I can readily cite Islamic ideology in LET,Hezbollah and Al Qaeda). That makes this as a religious discussion in the name of secularism😉

This is like someone being mad that a kid who is 4 ft and 200 lb being termed a obesse and pointing to a 6 ft kid who is 200lb that he is obesse too😉 and shoving the issue at hand under the table😆

You want to talk about relevance, fine let us talk about the assitance Pakistan provides to ULFA😉 and how should India deal with it😉 but you know how menacing ULFA has been to mainland India, as compared to LET, etc, so you lose the argument there too😆

Note: Anyone feels I have offended their religious feelings, feel free to PM me, I will delete it, isnt the intent, so cant tell myself😃

the sad part about these issues is that innocent people are losing their lifes b/c of it. And apparently being a muslim now is a crime according to ignorant people!

Originally posted by: mermaid_QT

I understand why some say that LTTE cannot be branded as a hindu terrorist organization. i am sure you accept how majority of these would be hindus (okay tamils if u wish to narrow it down)

we can find absurd spurious correlations anywhere with anything. more below.

Just because something is not a BRANDED religious organization, does not make it
1. of less nuisance
2. of better morality
Terrorists and destructive activists by any name are still axis of evil.

fine hunky-dory stuff 😛, but are you saying that LTTE is a hindu terrorist outfit? yes/ no? and it is as dangerous as some of the religious outfits out there?😕

That some terrorist organizations, with majority membership of people of a certain religion BRAND themselves / TAG themselves with a name of that religion does not give us a right to call them more destructive / evil than organizations like LTTE / ULFA.

noone's going around asking for that right, so how about not ascribing such desires to us?😛😆 we are simply saying that terrorism, the religious kinds fanned by our neighbor, is considered a far more dangerous thing in terms of global impact in general and on it's impact on India, in particular.

Terrorism has no religion. They can call themselves any. How would you respond if notorious terrorist camps label themselves as Hindu militants and blast temples, would you call them Hindu terrorist groups? Does name matter / is it the act that matters?

sorry, but terrorism does have a religion when it's proponents fight on those terms for that ideology. let's not confuse with labelling issues here. if and when we find out who is behind such acts, we do label them as religious fanatics if their motives are religious. and rightly so. we dont start pontificating and glory speech-making.😉

If membership of a certain militant terrorist organization involved in terrorism has majority hindus, that raises a question. Now since getting personal is not my flavor, I refuse to answer question that will ask me the split percentage of all religions in LTTE. I'd just love for that someone to bring me the numbers and prove Hindus (tamils) are not majority in it.

Not that all these last few pages anyway has anything to do with thread 😊 😉

how about if we get the context and the terminology right first? as sareg had asked, do we call india a hindu nation? yes/ no? is it? and if not, why not? by your and kay-kay's argument, most indians are hindus! fact is that the goal and the agenda are far more important than crass membership alone. gotta look at the mission statement foremost.😉

coming to more familiar territory, would you call the southerners in pre-civil war US history as christian terrorists? well, would you? they did go around bombing and raping and looting, didnt they?😉 werent they christians? but we dont use such stickers, because those are not helpful characterizations. sorry to say, your and kay-kay's reasoning falls under the same genre.😉😉

what alarms some of us is that when you get to certain terror groups, their membership is not just religion-specific but they are also aimed against other religions. quite unlike the case with LTTE, which ironically is being called a hindu outfit even though they were incidentally against other hindus as well. could you pray explain how you get to that particular bit of logic?😛

finally, maybe kay kay or you could clarify for us- did LTTE really introduce suicide bombings? 😛

Excellent points CB and Vineet. 👏 👏 👏

Wow Sareg and Rahul!! Great debate 👏

Originally posted by: souro

<FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" color=#990099 size=4>Sorry to interrupt here. But even after reading and re-reading your posts for the umpteenth time I'm still not able to get why you're calling LTTE and ULFA examples of Hindu terror outfits. Just because majority of these two organisations are Hindus doesn't mean they're Hindu terror outfits, for the simple reason that they fight for separate Assam and Tamil territory based on their language, their ethnicity and irrespective of religion. They don't say we need a separate state because we're Hindus. At best you can call them Assamese or Tamil terror outfits.

I concur...

I too tried and re tried to comprehend 'LTTE is a Hindu terror outfit'..just because he was standing by his point so much...Sorry Kay Kay, LTTE is NOT only Hindus..For all you know, there may be some Muslims in it too, because it is NOT about a religion, but a REGION..BIIG Difference...

Originally posted by: raksha.l

I concur...

I too tried and re tried to comprehend 'LTTE is a Hindu terror outfit'..just because he was standing by his point so much...Sorry Kay Kay, LTTE is NOT only Hindus..For all you know, there may be some Muslims in it too, because it is NOT about a religion, but a REGION..BIIG Difference...

right on. and what kind of hindu terror outfit was it to be engaged AGAINST other hindus?😆 whose members by all accounts were not just hindus and which did not have any hindutva aims to advance against other religions?

i think folks should read the mission statement of companies and outfits first before jumping to erroneous conclusions.😊

Originally posted by: Kay Kay

Madame,

Proove that Muslims and Christians are part of it. Saying is one thing and prooving another.

Assuming terrorist organisation must be religious outfit and have religiuos agenda , Are you by any chance saying that if an organisation does not have Muslims or Christians, it must be Hindu.? By this definition anyone who is not Muslim or Christian in India must be a Hindu...😕

vineet and rahul, the posts were good, but I missed out the connection of your points with whatever I wrote.

All I said is again, attaching religion tag is unnecessary. I never denied that there are Islamic militant grioups, while none by the name of Hindu militants, yet there are terrorist organizations run by Hindu majority. Again, I did not / don't wish to comment on whether INDIAN GOVT supports any of those. India is a secular country (R, i wonder where ur question arose, i never called it a hindu country did i😳 ) I also did not say that Hindu organizations are against any particular religion. I wonder why similar points were presented in response 😊.

My knowledge about politics is miniscuous and about terrorism and negative activities- even lesser. I don't find religious linking and harping to be of positive value either as it leads to more angry people. JMO.

I do not wish to take this any further. Let us agree to differ and disagree on this. Thanks. Have a lovely!

Originally posted by: *guesswho*

the sad part about these issues is that innocent people are losing their lifes b/c of it. And apparently being a muslim now is a crime according to ignorant people!

Manish, I concur with you. Luckily, posters have refrained from doing such discussion in this particular thread.