Let no tragedy go to waste, eh?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Muslim woman & girl gang-raped and beaten by Hindus for eating beef
- Thread starter The Emperor of Mankind
- Start date
Please, don't encourage him. You're better than this, surely?
Maybe if you were a Muslim you would feel us better ?
I notice that media was to stuck "terrorits" label exclusively to Muslims crimes.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
I don't know, the most honest people sometimes they just say right, it sounds kinda of insulting but true. Your killing women and children for eating a cow. They'll wear a shirt that says I eat cow and get your heart straight. They have a tendency to understand emotion and right and wrong. Know when something is up or down. But honestly; most kindest of heart. They taken some hits for disrespect but they have know problem looking. It's the heart that matter to them begin with so if its disrespect and no love it's pride. Even though I've seen people rail at them. I don't know how to explain it; something so down to earth about it, nothing beats a true story.DO you mean kidding with you each other ?
Insult with "honesty" I never heard about that .
Is there insult with "respect"?
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Some people aren't criminals though; some cant pull the plank out of their own eye.
That's what I got to say about that. I carefully tally up labels myself to understand a bigger broader picture.
Quote: "I notice that media was to stuck "terrorits" label exclusively to Muslims crimes." ...
That's not true at all. Hindus are also called terrorists all the time, for example in the instruction books/social studies/history books at the University of California system, in the news, but they just don't commit as much terrorism as what is ongoing within the Muslim world itself against other Muslims by extremists, as well as by jihadees terrorist extremists making terrorist attacks abroad. Have some Hindus engaged in terrorism? Yes - and I am a Hindu. But most if not all of such terrorist attacks occur domestically within India itself and not like jihadees going abroud and attacking New York City or Mecca and so on. The Hindu terrorists largely remain in Bharat (India) - they, for example, do not even go into neighboring Pakistan or Bangladesh to kill Muslims, though I want to make one clarification and exception regarding Lanka and I will get to that in a minute. But you have Muslim extremists coming in from Bangladesh or Pakistan coming into India and doing terrorism - BUT NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
So, naturally, Muslim extremists are called terrorists more often simply because they are doing terrorism all the time now, almost everyday, and not just in their own country but go abroad into others countries and then do terrorism. Hindu terrorists only do terrorism once in a while, and generally only in India.
Now for the slight exception - where we see many Hindus call another Hindu organisation call Hindu terrorists by Hindus, and that is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is another country, an island below India. There are Tamils living there, a minority to the majority Buddhist Sinhalese, some Tamils have wanted independence from Lanka as they have been persecuted but some also engage in terrorism against the government of Sri Lanka. It goes both ways - some of the Sinhalese started attacks on Tamils by putting an old tire around the neck of a Tamil Hindu, the tire would be drenched in gasoline, they tie the hands of the Hindu behind their back and the tire in a wrap using wire around the crotch and set the tire on fire, this became a common practice called the "garland of fire" and started decades ago, the Tamils became increasingly radicalized and militarized and there was a civil war, they basically lost the civil war and became terrorists.
A Tamil Tiger Hindu terrorist blew off the head of Prime Mininster Rajiv Gandhi (I like Rajiv, actually) at a rally using a suicide belt equipted with a wire where, when you bow (e.g. to touch the feet of Rajiv or whoever) a little ball with a hole in it rolls down the wire and when it hits the end the suicide bomb on the back area near the neck blow up and out and this Tamil Tiger terrorist blew the head right off of the PM which flew up and back hitting others. The Tamil Tigers were mad that India would not help them and that Rajiv Gandhi signed a cooperation agreement with the Lankan government.
This was called terrorism in India, Lanka, US, Canada, UK, all over the word. The Tigers were put on the list as a terrorist group.
So this is nonsense that other groups are not called terrorists who are not Muslim. For example there are Buddhist monk "leaders" in Sri Lanka who are extremists and are called Buddhist terrorists because they in fact organize and commit terrorist attacks on Hindus.
The difference, however, is there have been only a few Buddhist terrorist attacks, maybe four total, while Muslim terrorists have done tens of thousands, actually so many probably 100's of thousands. Hindus terrorists? Yes. But no way compared to Islamic terrorists. And the Tamils stick to their own region, the Hindu terrorists stick to India, though some Sikh terrorist who were in fact called terrorists in the news, these Sikh terrorists did terrorism in other countries but targetting India from abroad.
I can go on and on, none of these other terrorists even compare in raw numbers with the Islamic terrorists. There was an ex-soldier who was anti-abortion who committed a terrorist attack in the US in Oklahoma by blowing up a government building using a truck bomb. He visited a Nazi group in the US while acting as an agent for the government to spy on supremist groups and at that time the anti-Jew group also had connections with Islamic extremists who were also anti-Jewish, he then soon after drove a truck which was a rigged fertilizer bomb and blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was an anti-abortionists and he was labled a terrorist by the government and in the news, he was a domestic terrorist though there is evidence of international ties. So here is another example of a non-Muslim terrorist who was called a terrorist.
So the problem you might be facing is not that others are not called terrorists, not true, it is just that Islamic terrorists commit most of the terrorism today in huge numbers compared to others. That may change in the future. I will also give advice and warn that I think if this terrorism continues, there will be organized non-Muslim terrorist groups such as Christian terrorists or perhaps political terrorist groups formed, maybe Jewish terrorists, who will blow up a huge bomb in Mecca in a suicide attack.
Live by the sword - or terror, die by the sword - or terror - sooner or later. There will be non-Muslim terrorist groups coming that will use organized terror against Islamic centers. This is what is coming, what goes around will come around. It is a dangerous world today. But we do live in interesting times.
That's not true at all. Hindus are also called terrorists all the time, for example in the instruction books/social studies/history books at the University of California system, in the news, but they just don't commit as much terrorism as what is ongoing within the Muslim world itself against other Muslims by extremists, as well as by jihadees terrorist extremists making terrorist attacks abroad. Have some Hindus engaged in terrorism? Yes - and I am a Hindu. But most if not all of such terrorist attacks occur domestically within India itself and not like jihadees going abroud and attacking New York City or Mecca and so on. The Hindu terrorists largely remain in Bharat (India) - they, for example, do not even go into neighboring Pakistan or Bangladesh to kill Muslims, though I want to make one clarification and exception regarding Lanka and I will get to that in a minute. But you have Muslim extremists coming in from Bangladesh or Pakistan coming into India and doing terrorism - BUT NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
So, naturally, Muslim extremists are called terrorists more often simply because they are doing terrorism all the time now, almost everyday, and not just in their own country but go abroad into others countries and then do terrorism. Hindu terrorists only do terrorism once in a while, and generally only in India.
Now for the slight exception - where we see many Hindus call another Hindu organisation call Hindu terrorists by Hindus, and that is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is another country, an island below India. There are Tamils living there, a minority to the majority Buddhist Sinhalese, some Tamils have wanted independence from Lanka as they have been persecuted but some also engage in terrorism against the government of Sri Lanka. It goes both ways - some of the Sinhalese started attacks on Tamils by putting an old tire around the neck of a Tamil Hindu, the tire would be drenched in gasoline, they tie the hands of the Hindu behind their back and the tire in a wrap using wire around the crotch and set the tire on fire, this became a common practice called the "garland of fire" and started decades ago, the Tamils became increasingly radicalized and militarized and there was a civil war, they basically lost the civil war and became terrorists.
A Tamil Tiger Hindu terrorist blew off the head of Prime Mininster Rajiv Gandhi (I like Rajiv, actually) at a rally using a suicide belt equipted with a wire where, when you bow (e.g. to touch the feet of Rajiv or whoever) a little ball with a hole in it rolls down the wire and when it hits the end the suicide bomb on the back area near the neck blow up and out and this Tamil Tiger terrorist blew the head right off of the PM which flew up and back hitting others. The Tamil Tigers were mad that India would not help them and that Rajiv Gandhi signed a cooperation agreement with the Lankan government.
This was called terrorism in India, Lanka, US, Canada, UK, all over the word. The Tigers were put on the list as a terrorist group.
So this is nonsense that other groups are not called terrorists who are not Muslim. For example there are Buddhist monk "leaders" in Sri Lanka who are extremists and are called Buddhist terrorists because they in fact organize and commit terrorist attacks on Hindus.
The difference, however, is there have been only a few Buddhist terrorist attacks, maybe four total, while Muslim terrorists have done tens of thousands, actually so many probably 100's of thousands. Hindus terrorists? Yes. But no way compared to Islamic terrorists. And the Tamils stick to their own region, the Hindu terrorists stick to India, though some Sikh terrorist who were in fact called terrorists in the news, these Sikh terrorists did terrorism in other countries but targetting India from abroad.
I can go on and on, none of these other terrorists even compare in raw numbers with the Islamic terrorists. There was an ex-soldier who was anti-abortion who committed a terrorist attack in the US in Oklahoma by blowing up a government building using a truck bomb. He visited a Nazi group in the US while acting as an agent for the government to spy on supremist groups and at that time the anti-Jew group also had connections with Islamic extremists who were also anti-Jewish, he then soon after drove a truck which was a rigged fertilizer bomb and blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was an anti-abortionists and he was labled a terrorist by the government and in the news, he was a domestic terrorist though there is evidence of international ties. So here is another example of a non-Muslim terrorist who was called a terrorist.
So the problem you might be facing is not that others are not called terrorists, not true, it is just that Islamic terrorists commit most of the terrorism today in huge numbers compared to others. That may change in the future. I will also give advice and warn that I think if this terrorism continues, there will be organized non-Muslim terrorist groups such as Christian terrorists or perhaps political terrorist groups formed, maybe Jewish terrorists, who will blow up a huge bomb in Mecca in a suicide attack.
Live by the sword - or terror, die by the sword - or terror - sooner or later. There will be non-Muslim terrorist groups coming that will use organized terror against Islamic centers. This is what is coming, what goes around will come around. It is a dangerous world today. But we do live in interesting times.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I agree with you here.
There is such a thing as domestic terrorism. Of course there can be a fine line involved, but as a concept, it's clear:
Homegrown terrorism or domestic terrorism is commonly associated with violent acts committed by citizens or permanent residents of a state against their own people or property within that state without foreign influence in an effort to instill fear on a population or government as a tactic designed to advance political, religious, or ideological objectives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism
On second thought, you are correct. I stand corrected.
Whilst this is heinous beyond belief and certainly a hate crime the simple (and cold) facts of the matter is there's not enough victims for the media to call it a terrorist act. Of course maybe the Indian News teams called such people terrorists which I wouldn't have a problem with personally.
But there only a certain amount of ways to be called a terrorist in the media.
Blow up a Church, a bus full of civilians or even shoot some high profile politician, you will be called a terrorist. Not sure how the American media responded to that guy who shot up a black Church but ours called it terrorism.
When that poor lady was murdered over Brexit, at least where I live, the perpetrators were called terrorists. They were not Muslim, as far as I am aware.
McBell
Unbound
I would like to think if I was Muslim that I would not have to jump at every little thing to make me a martyr.
But then, that's just me.
Don't play the "poor, poor pitiful us" card.
Who planted a bomb in the underground garage of the World Trade Center in 1993?
Who destroyed the World Trade Center?
Who bombed the night club in Bali?
Who attacked the USS Cole?
Who bombed the US embassy in Nairobi?
Need I go on?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
This idiot group of so called Hindus were not true Hindus, they are only Hindu by birth and culture, the same as when we hear these idiots who call themselves Muslims, but in truth they are not Muslim at all.
Oh don't do the "no true Scotsman" deal. To denounce someone as "not a true Hindu" is not a very Hindu thing at all.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
But still it needs to be said, I'm sure most Hindus wouldn't do what they did, as most true Christian wouldn't do either, nit hard to work that out is it ?.
Of course most Hindus don't go around raping people. They are human beings with (I hope) some semblance of humanity within them. That's not following religion, that's following basic freaking decency. But do not use the "No true Scotsman" to denounce these despicable beings. That's merely moral cowardice. Denounce their actions, denounce their justifications, shun them if want to. I'd rather they rot in prison or get the death sentence. But do not say they are "not true" Hindus. They are Hindus, they did unspeakably evil actions, they dishonored themselves and their families, but they are Hindus. Wear it, own it, do not run from it like a coward.
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes on one level you are right, and again they are not true Hindus, that is, what the word Hindu truly points to, if you are a Christian and you kill or murder someone, then you are not a Christian, the mere label doesn't mean a thing, surely you can understand that ?.
You are still a Christian if you kill someone. You're just a Christian who has sinned gravely. Same with Hindus. We do not go around calling every Hindu person who has committed an evil act non Hindu. Because that ignores a vital crux in the understanding of our ethics. That is everyone has the capability of being good or evil. But evil acts do not equate to not being a true Hindu, just means the evil won out and you should face punishment for the adharmic action/s. Either in this life or in the afterlife or even both. Then you get another chance to be good, providing one believes in reincarnation anyway.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes I can agree with that, I was on another level, maybe the spiritual, the ultimate, but yes they are both correct. .