[Reader-list] the likes of Kafeel, Sabeel and Haneef...

[radhikarajen at vsnl.net]

Fathima.,

  thanks for the new found definition of terrorists, for the brave men, who fought for the freedom in british India. The very nature of justification like this is expected from the type of secularism that we are having today in India. Lack of good governance, bad governance, sticking to power at any cost, even after the high court rules the illegalality in election are all the root causes for Indira to subvert the constitution to keep herself in power, which led to creation of a bhindranvale, later her son, acting big brother in the region fed, encouraged  LTTE, and later both paid the price for it with their lives.
      But let us not divert the attention of the topic about terrorism with this psuedo secular definition of terrorists. Lack of governance and protest against such lack of governance does not make the singur and nandigram residents terrorists, the religious terrorism is basically found in abrahamic faiths, never in hindu way of life which accepts all faith as different ways to same god, percieved by some as in forms, some without form......
 
  Regards.

From: "S.Fatima" <sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in>
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the likes of Kafeel, Sabeel and Haneef...
To: radhikarajen at vsnl.net, Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
Cc: Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com>, chanchal malviya <chanchal_malviya at yahoo.com>, reader-list <reader-list at sarai.net>

> (Sarai-readers, my apologies for clogging up space)
> 
> Dear Radhika
> I am just reacting to your comment: "All Muslims are
> not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."
> 
> Please see the following report from Times of India,
> Jul 23, 2006:
> 
> "Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly"
> 
> SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR 
> 
> "All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists
> are Muslims." This comment, frequently heard after the
> Mumbai bomb blasts implies that terrorism is a Muslim
> specialty, if not a monopoly. The facts are very
> different. 
> 
> First, there is nothing new about terrorism. In 1881,
> anarchists killed the Russian Tsar Alexander II and 21
> bystanders. In 1901, anarchists killed US President
> McKinley as well as King Humbert I of Italy. World War
> I started in 1914 when anarchists killed Archduke
> Ferdinand of Austria. These terrorist attacks were not
> Muslim. 
> 
> Terrorism is generally defined as the killing of
> civilians for political reasons. Going by this
> definition, the British Raj referred to Bhagat Singh,
> Chandrashekhar Azad and many other Indian freedom
> fighters as terrorists. These were Hindu and Sikh
> rather than Muslim. 
> 
> Guerrilla fighters from Mao Zedong to Ho Chi Minh and
> Fidel Castro killed civilians during their
> revolutionary campaigns. They too were called
> terrorists until they triumphed. Nothing Muslim about
> them. 
> 
> In Palestine, after World War II, Jewish groups (the
> Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang) fought for the creation
> of a Jewish state, bombing hotels and installations
> and killing civilians. The British, who then governed
> Palestine, rightly called these Jewish groups
> terrorists. Many of these terrorists later became
> leaders of independent Israel — Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak
> Rabin, Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon. Ironically, these
> former terrorists then lambasted terrorism, applying
> this label only to Arabs fighting for the very same
> nationhood that the Jews had fought for earlier. 
> 
> In Germany in 1968-92, the Baader-Meinhoff Gang killed
> dozens, including the head of Treuhand, the German
> privatisation agency. In Italy, the Red Brigades
> kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro, former prime minister.
> 
> 
> The Japanese Red Army was an Asian version of this.
> Japan was also the home of Aum Shinrikyo, a Buddhist
> cult that tried to kill thousands in the Tokyo metro
> system using nerve gas in 1995. 
> 
> In Europe, the Irish Republican Army has been a
> Catholic terrorist organisation for almost a century.
> Spain and France face a terrorist challenge from ETA,
> the Basque terrorist organisation. 
> 
> Africa is ravaged by so much civil war and internal
> strife that few people even bother to check which
> groups can be labelled terrorist. They stretch across
> the continent. Possibly the most notorious is the 
> Lord’s Salvation Army in Uganda, a Christian outfit
> that uses children as warriors. 
> 
> In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers have long constituted
> one of the most vicious and formidable terrorist
> groups in the world. They were the first to train
> children as terrorists. They happen to be Hindus.
> Suicide bombing is widely associated with Muslim
> Palestinians and Iraqis, but the Tamil Tigers were the
> first to use this tactic on a large scale. One such
> suicide bomber assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. 
> 
> In India, the militants in Kashmir are Muslim. But
> they are only one of several militant groups. The
> Punjab militants, led by Bhindranwale, were Sikhs. The
> United Liberation Front of Assam is a Hindu terrorist
> group that targets Muslims rather than the other way
> round. Tripura has witnessed the rise and fall of
> several terrorist groups, and so have Bodo strongholds
> in Assam. Christian Mizos mounted an insurrection for
> decades, and Christian Nagas are still heading
> militant groups. 
> 
> But most important of all are the Maoist terrorist
> groups that now exist in no less than 150 out of
> India’s 600 districts. They have attacked police
> stations, and killed and razed entire villages that
> oppose them. These are secular terrorists (like the
> Baader Meinhof Gang or Red Brigades). In terms of
> membership and area controlled, secular terrorists are
> far ahead of Muslim terrorists. 
> 
> In sum, terrorism is certainly not a Muslim monopoly.
> There are or have been terrorist groups among
> Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Buddhists.
> Secular terrorists (anarchists, Maoists) have been the
> biggest killers. 
> 
> Why then is there such a widespread impression that
> most or all terrorist groups are Muslim? I see two
> reasons. First, the Indian elite keenly follows the
> western media, and the West feels under attack from
> Islamic groups. Catholic Irish terrorists have killed
> far more people in Britain than Muslims, yet the
> subway bombings in London and Madrid are what
> Europeans remember today. The Baader Meinhof Gang, IRA
> and Red Brigades no longer pose much of a threat, but
> after 9/11 Americans and Europeans fear that they
> could be hit anywhere anytime. So they focus attention
> on Islamic militancy. They pay little notice to other
> forms of terrorism in Africa, Sri Lanka or India:
> these pose no threat to the West. 
> 
> Within India, Maoists pose a far greater threat than
> Muslim militants in 150 districts, one-third of
> India’s area. But major cities feel threatened only by
> Muslim groups. So the national elite and media focus
> overwhelmingly on Muslim terrorism. The elite are
> hardly aware that this is an elite phenomenon. 
> 
> http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JTS8yMDA2LzA3LzIzI0FyMDEyMDA=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
> 
> 
> --- radhikarajen at vsnl.net wrote:
> 
> > Fatima,
> > 
> >  again some hate for the group of individuals in
> > student community just because they are not under
> > banner of NSUI or DYSI ? Can you cite one instance
> > of funding terror by HSC or any student union of
> > Sangh parivar for the progoms as you say ? NRIs of
> > hindu origin if they contribute to Sangh parivar, it
> > becomes funds for terror ? What is the basis of this
> > assumption of false propaganda. ? As I have already
> > told you, some do not represent the whole of
> > community as you have rightly pointed out, just as
> > all muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists
> > are muslims, as seen by society by now. Society as a
> > whole has big role in stopping the fanatic elements
> > in society, otherwise the results are obivious, in
> > actions and reactions as seen in Gujarath. In free
> > India, every time the riots broke, it was the
> > "secular" parties which rewarded the rioters with
> > plush MP or MLA tickets and thus goon shouting
> > brigades were built, to force the silent majority in
> > any faith to comply with their 
> > wishes to put the rowdy in legislation forum. In
> > Gujarath, it must be remembered that administration
> > did not hesitate to fire bullets at rioters
> > irrespective whether they were of hindu or muslim
> > faith. But our "secular" media with sycophants in as
> > anchors have only exploited with SMS and debate
> > revenues to enrich themselves with bank rolls.
> >   Is there any justification for the visual media to
> > show again and again the gujarath riots every time
> > the elections are around the corner by the reward
> > and award winning "journalists" crooning for
> > "secular" parties when the truth of the matter is
> > these very same "secular" parties were the fomentors
> > of trouble between communities ?
> >    
> >   By the way, I have read one of the mail by Sarai
> > adfmn regarding many mails in response which says to
> > ignore the mails from ids who post 4-5 mails and
> > clog the mailbox, may be sarai does not want face
> > the truth to retain its "secular" image. ?
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "S.Fatima" <sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in>
> > Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:11 pm
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the likes of Kafeel,
> > Sabeel and Haneef...
> > To: radhikarajen at vsnl.net, Pawan Durani
> > <pawan.durani at gmail.com>
> > Cc: "S.Fatima" <sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in>, chanchal
> > malviya <chanchal_malviya at yahoo.com>, reader-list
> > <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > 
> > > Dear Pawan/Radhika
> > > Is there a difference between funding the
> > activities
> > > of hate and and actually doing the arsoning and
> > rape?
> > > HSC may not have participated in the violence, but
> > > they did fund the Gujarat pogorm from their
> > armchairs.
> > > The NRIs are probably more religious and communal
> > than
> > > even resident Indians (and I include both Hindus
> > and
> > > Muslims in it).
> > > 
> > > The beauty of our terminology is that when a
> > Muslim is
> > > involved in arson or kidnapping, he is a
> > terrorist.
> > > When anyone else does the same, he is a
> > reactionary.
> > > Why?
> > > 
> 
> 
> 
>      DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail storage is just a 
> click away. Go to https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register
> 
>