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

[S.Fatima]

Dear Radhika
Fine, if your definition is "Terrorism = Islam", so be
it. Are you happy now? And all those mass-killers who
are listed below, were freedon fighters? Good?

If you had read the article below carefully, it said
that "the British considered Bhagat Singh and other
freedom fighters as terrorists". Is this a factually
incorrect statement?




--- radhikarajen at vsnl.net wrote:

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===



      DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail storage is just a click away. Go to https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register