Malegaon blasts and the limits of fake secularism

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Jan 2009 00:55

bhaskarIN wrote:
Lets dig deeper. Why does Porkistan want to do all that? Wasn't porkistan built on the faux-premise that they couldn't live in a hindu-majority india, our current states being ample testimony as to where their brains are located? wasn't religion their prime reason for wanting to split away from india and then attack it later on due to their in-born khujjli?
Everyone knows that Pakistan was built because Jinnah wanted to be the Prime Minister of a country. No matter how crappy it is...

Bhaskar a fake sting and that too by tehelka does not cut it anywhere. Let me suggest you something, go with proof of yours to a court and get Modi convicted and if you can't then please cease and desist from spreading lies. The thing is even after a witch hunt lasting 6 years nothing has come out of the grand deluded pogrom/genocide theory of Gujarat. Now event the witnesses have turned out to be paid ones, talk of proof??

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 02 Jan 2009 01:08

munna wrote:
bhaskarIN wrote: Everyone knows that Pakistan was built because Jinnah wanted to be the Prime Minister of a country. No matter how crappy it is...
Bhaskar a fake sting and that too by tehelka does not cut it anywhere. Let me suggest you something, go with proof of yours to a court and get Modi convicted and if you can't then please cease and desist from spreading lies. The thing is even after a witch hunt lasting 6 years nothing has come out of the grand deluded pogrom/genocide theory of Gujarat. Now event the witnesses have turned out to be paid ones, talk of proof??

Fake String?
you won't believe anything... Modi has brainwashed you all...
Everyone knows that Modi was involved in these riots...
Coming to the witnesses, witnesses were burnt alive, IN PUBLIC on the commands of Modi.

Modi is no different than Hitler...

Oh, and enjoy this movie... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... tion&hl=en

Eshwar · Post by **Eshwar** » 02 Jan 2009 01:15

bhaskarIN wrote: you won't believe anything... Modi has brainwashed you all...
Everyone knows that Modi was involved in these riots...
Coming to the witnesses, witnesses were burnt alive, IN PUBLIC on the commands of Modi.

Modi is no different than Hitler...

Oh, and enjoy this movie... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... tion&hl=en

Man, you are something!!

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 02 Jan 2009 01:20

Eshwar wrote:
bhaskarIN wrote: you won't believe anything... Modi has brainwashed you all...
Everyone knows that Modi was involved in these riots...
Coming to the witnesses, witnesses were burnt alive, IN PUBLIC on the commands of Modi.

Modi is no different than Hitler...

Oh, and enjoy this movie... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... tion&hl=en
Man, you are something!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 868469.cms
http://www.expressindia.com/news/electi ... t_id=31901
http://simplyani.wordpress.com/2007/12/ ... vs-hitler/
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14663572
http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/03/05/0503bjpmodi.html
http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorial ... 20Khan.htm
http://www.thehindujobs.com/thehindu/20 ... 121000.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 271312.cms
http://www.omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/co ... tml&q=MODI

http://www.liveindia.com/news/25oct07.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/25godhra.htm
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... 6020071025

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Jan 2009 01:27

Hmm...Let us see.
This is not the thread to discuss Modi but one last post on this before adminullahs come on their jahaj and blast my musharraff. See Bhaskar do read the home ministry's figures regarding the Gujarat riots and you shall find that both Hindus and Muslims got killed in the riots and if your are correct then I should expect zero casualty from Hindu side instead of the of the hundreds that got killed. Modi was demonized because this was the only major riot that took place when BJP was ruling a state on its own both prior to and after this there has been no major riot in any BJP state unlike the 1984 sikh riots, Bhagalpur or even the 1947 partition riots. All presided over by the secular parties. Riots are unfortunate but there is nothing like a secular riot (1984 and Bhagalpur) and a communal/Hitalarian riot (Gujarat) Modi is as much of Hitler/Nazi/Communal/Stalinist as is the gandhi family that presided over 1984.(Get the picture).

Vikramaditya · Post by **Vikramaditya** » 02 Jan 2009 01:28

bhaskarIN wrote:
Fake String?
you won't believe anything... Modi has brainwashed you all...
Everyone knows that Modi was involved in these riots...
Coming to the witnesses, witnesses were burnt alive, IN PUBLIC on the commands of Modi.

Modi is no different than Hitler...

Oh, and enjoy this movie... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... tion&hl=en

who prevented any of those people in the tehelka episode from testifying to the Nanavati commision? BTW if modi got all witnesses killed arent the tehelka witnesses all fake ? and better yet why did BJP win a seat from a Muslim majority area?

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 02 Jan 2009 01:31

Vikramaditya wrote:
bhaskarIN wrote:
Fake String?
you won't believe anything... Modi has brainwashed you all...
Everyone knows that Modi was involved in these riots...
Coming to the witnesses, witnesses were burnt alive, IN PUBLIC on the commands of Modi.

Modi is no different than Hitler...

Oh, and enjoy this movie... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... tion&hl=en
who prevented any of those people in the tehelka episode from testifying to the Nanavati commision? BTW if modi got all witnesses killed arent the tehelka witnesses all fake ? and better yet why did BJP win a seat from a Muslim majority area?

The second these reporters show their faces, the bajrang dal terrorists are going to kill them...
And didn't you see the video? these aren't witnesses u nub, these are Bajrang Dal and VHP members...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Jan 2009 01:37

bhaskar, you may well be right and the posters opposing you here may be wrong.
I'll just request you to know the facts properly before passing judgement.

as for the video you have posted, one background comment fixes the POV of the director pretty well.
let me quote : @ 4:22

Feb 27 : 59 Hindus die in a clash with Muslims at Godhra on their return journey from karseva in Ayodhya.

do you know the composition of these karsevaks who died in a "clash" with muslims at godhra ?
btw, if it was a "clash" why didn't any muslim die in the same incident ?

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Jan 2009 01:43

A rebuttal to your proofs of hitler == modi :
1)Bhaskar go get a book from Gujarat school and paste the very page glorifying Hitler as per the TOI(let) 2004 news story, as far as propaganda goes this is really over the top.
2)Al Jazeera type media has a reputation even lower than the DDM what better to expect from the Ummah Inc on the mission of global domination.
3)Blogs?? Well they are there and can write whatever they want.

At the end of the day apart from innuendos, fake witnesses and complete white washing of Godhra the so called secular brigade has achieved nothing I repeat nothing but a smear campaign that has been answered well by the Gujaratis. If your case is water tight get your man and hang him period. Don't indulge is spreading lies Teestas and Roys are doing a fine job.

PS: These reporters like Behl, Tejpal, Varias and other assorted JNU/WKKs brigade indulges in smear campaign against Hindu organizations to prove their bravery knowing fully well that this is a low risk low cost strategy as no Hindu individual/organization would harm them. People are very public and open in calling Modi hitler in order to prove their secular credentials but they have never been nor will be harmed because Hindu orgs are no terrorists and Modi is no hitler.

Vikramaditya · Post by **Vikramaditya** » 02 Jan 2009 01:45

Pls keep the childish jibes to yourself. Not allowed here on BRF. {u got that rite. pls observe. Thx }

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 02 Jan 2009 01:50

Rahul M wrote:bhaskar, you may well be right and the posters opposing you here may be wrong.
I'll just request you to know the facts properly before passing judgement.

as for the video you have posted, one background comment fixes the POV of the director pretty well.
let me quote : @ 4:22
Feb 27 : 59 Hindus die in a clash with Muslims at Godhra on their return journey from karseva in Ayodhya.
do you know the composition of these karsevaks who died in a "clash" with muslims at godhra ?
btw, if it was a "clash" why didn't any muslim die in the same incident ?

Some people think that it was a planned conspiracy, but i think Muslims were responsible for the train burning ...
Anyways, I don't know the composition of these karsevakes ...
Muslims didn't die because when they torched the Sabarmati's coach and pelted stones. The "hindus" closed the doors... The muslims torched up one of the coaches and ran away...
Able-bodied men managed to escape, 40 of the 58 deaths were of women and children charred on board.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 02 Jan 2009 01:55

p-sec brigade after moving cases out of gujrat are still unable to implicate modi and in the meanwhile gujrati people gave strong jhapad to pesec,cong,left,msm media,ngos tessta Adhoti dutts etc twice by electing modi.now for their failure all gujarati ppl are communal fascist nazi.

that way major part of india who choses bjp should be fascist.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Jan 2009 02:02

BhaskarIN, Prem, others, pls stick to the topic of the thread.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 02 Jan 2009 08:46

Bhaskar-dude,

Do you see reports like these?

SC affidavit wrong, didn’t know what we signed: riot victim
Teesta Setalvad's former confidant files FIR against her
Godhra riot witnesses got Rs 1 lakh each

Check your facts against:
Myths of Gujarat Riots

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 02 Jan 2009 21:46

bhaskarIN wrote:
Eshwar wrote: Man, you are something!!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 868469.cms
http://www.expressindia.com/news/electi ... t_id=31901
http://simplyani.wordpress.com/2007/12/ ... vs-hitler/
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14663572
http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/03/05/0503bjpmodi.html
http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorial ... 20Khan.htm
http://www.thehindujobs.com/thehindu/20 ... 121000.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 271312.cms
http://www.omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/co ... tml&q=MODI

http://www.liveindia.com/news/25oct07.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/25godhra.htm
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... 6020071025

http://www.thehindujobs.com/thehindu/20 ... 121000.htm

A letter to editor from a reader is proof? You are really something ...

Is Rajiv Gandhi a Hitler? I am sure {READ THE *&^&*&* GUIDELINES PLEASE, attack a postor again and your user ID is history }won't allow you to make such judgments ...

When CON party ministers, MPs, police were chasing Sikhs left and right and burning them alive, it seems he said "When a Big tree falls, earth Quakes"...

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 02 Jan 2009 22:15

Now that it is very clear through QED that Modi has Austrian ancestry and Gujarath,Kenya incident is a Holocaust, as expounded by MMS, we can move on.
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... spx?id=318
Translation from Sandhya Jain.

Letter from Undertrial No. 12504
Swami Amritananda Dev Tirtha
31 Dec 2008
1] My saffron robes were removed, I was denuded and kept wetted in an air-conditioned room for three days and given electric shocks.
2] The Sri Yantra and religious books (including Japuji Sahib) used for my personal puja were trampled upon and thrown in a gutter.
3] Three men would stand upon my legs and hit me with belts on the soles of my feet, till I fell unconscious.
4] Meat was pushed into my mouth and I was told that it was cow-flesh (beef).
5] I was forced to read certain scripts, and then my voice dubbed, and audio-video tapes produced.
6] I was threatened that ***** CDs would be made about me [i.e., by computer simulation] to defame me in Hindu society.
These are just some examples. I lived 17 days in their custody, and you can yourself imagine what they would have done to me.
If ATS had any proof against me, why did they need to cook up fake evidence against me? ATS said, “here we will kill you, outside Muslims will kill you; you have to die in any case, so accept your crimes.” They made me mug up the answers of questions and then did a narco-analysis.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Jan 2009 23:26

tripathi wrote:p-sec brigade after moving cases out of gujrat are still unable to implicate modi and in the meanwhile gujrati people gave strong jhapad to pesec,cong,left,msm media,ngos tessta Adhoti dutts etc twice by electing modi.now for their failure all gujarati ppl are communal fascist nazi.

that way major part of india who choses bjp should be fascist.

This is because we don't have the right national structure in place. What we need is a country called "Left Fundoostan" or Lotastan for all the bleeding hearts of the world. Perhaps India can buy up land in cooperation with other interested countries and set this up somewhere as a service to humanity.

I am leaving out the need for a "Right Fundoostan" because there are plenty of choices for those around the world.

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 03 Jan 2009 00:11

OK, Can anyone tell me what a terrorist is? How can we classify someone as a terrorist? Define the word Terrorist.

Is it a person who terrorizes other people's minds? or A muslim caught with criminal activities? or a person who bombs things? or something else?

harik · Post by **harik** » 03 Jan 2009 00:15

Guru BhaskarIN.

Why dont you tell What a terrorist is ?

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 03 Jan 2009 00:18

harik wrote:Guru BhaskarIN.

Why dont you tell What a terrorist is ?

I am asking you... Why don't you answer who a terrorist is...
I openly admit, I don't know who a terrorist is ... You tell me...
considering you feel like you are victims of these terrorists..

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Jan 2009 00:23

Is it a person who terrorizes other people's minds? or A muslim caught with criminal activities? or a person who bombs things? or something else?

vashkar, instead of thinly veiled flaming why don't you tell us what you think defines a terrorist ?

I openly admit, I don't know who a terrorist is ...

google isn't banned at your place is it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
satisfy yourself but don't derail this thread.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Jan 2009 00:25

Let me try:

Any non-state entity which, or who, believes political or religious goals can be obtained by violence against civilians and then applies violence over time and in a sustained manner to achieve them.

Or

A Pakistani.

harik · Post by **harik** » 03 Jan 2009 00:27

bhaskarIN wrote:
harik wrote:Guru BhaskarIN.

Why dont you tell What a terrorist is ?
I am asking you... Why don't you answer who a terrorist is...
I openly admit, I don't know who a terrorist is ... You tell me...
considering you feel like you are victims of these terrorists..

So are you saying, all this while you were hurling abuses on the basis of some
accumulated urls ?

And how did you arrive at conclusion wrt to your last statement.

harik · Post by **harik** » 03 Jan 2009 00:30

JE Menon wrote:Let me try:

Any non-state entity which, or who, believes political or religious goals can be obtained by violence against civilians and then applies violence over time and in a sustained manner to achieve them.

Or

A Pakistani.

Was Bhindrawale a not-state entity ?

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 03 Jan 2009 00:39

Ok, after Rahul M told me to simply find it out of the internet, i went to Answers.com and got this

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now, keeping Modi out of this thread, I would want to say, Doesn't Raj Thackeray and the RSS fit the definition, in the same way as Kasab and LeT fit in the definitiion?

My favorite definition -

A PAKISTANI...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Jan 2009 00:45

When he became a non-state entity, he also became a terrorist.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Jan 2009 00:48

RSS ? how ?

raj thackeray, yes if you accept that definition. though he is a child considering some of our other worthies.
in that case you may want to add :
a)INC (SSRay's regime in WB, anti-sikh riots)
b)CPI(M) (systematic liquidation of political opponents since 1977 including but not limited to bombings,arson,collective punishments of villages etc etc )
.
.
.

JEM is the non-state entity a necessary qualifier ? LeT for example is hardly non-state.

harik · Post by **harik** » 03 Jan 2009 00:51

JE Menon wrote:When he became a non-state entity, he also became a terrorist.

Since its not the right thread to continue , I will just state that Your attempt at defining terrorism is not correct.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 03 Jan 2009 00:54

bhaskar that way even u,i and every living person is a terrorist. coz everybody happen to intimidate someone else their own eg ones own children wives neighbour etc when they fight. even mahatama gandhi was able to terrorise british empire

.indira gandhi did intimidated pakistan and sikhs.congress intimidated its opponents in emergency.

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 03 Jan 2009 00:55

Rahul M wrote:RSS ? how ?

raj thackeray, yes if you accept that definition. though he is a child considering some of our other worthies.
in that case you may want to add :
a)INC (SSRay's regime in WB, anti-sikh riots)
b)CPI(M) (systematic liquidation of political opponents since 1977 including but not limited to bombings,arson,collective punishments of villages etc etc )
.
.
.

JEM is the non-state entity a necessary qualifier ? LeT for example is hardly non-state.

If the definition is to be believed then certainly... SSRay's regime in WB, anti-sikh riots, CPI(M) systematic liquidation of political opponents since 1977 including but not limited to bombings,arson,collective punishments of villages should be added aswell...

During the anti - sikh riots, my father lived in a sikh area, he told me that a huge mob came, they were going to kill him ( a person of thier own religion ), but didn't after a some member in the mob yelled "Sirf sardaron ko maaro..." .

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 03 Jan 2009 00:57

tripathi wrote:bhaskar that way even u,i and every living person is a terrorist. coz everybody happen to intimidate someone else their own eg ones own children wives neighbour etc when they fight. even mahatama gandhi was able to terrorise british empire .indira gandhi did intimidated pakistan and sikhs.congress intimidated its opponents in emergency.

You are right Tripathi...
The truth is that there is no real way to define anyone as a terrorist. The word terrorist can be tagged to a very broad group... Thats why i said i do not know the meaning of terrorism... Terrorism is often tagged to religion...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Jan 2009 01:05

bhaskarIN wrote: If the definition is to be believed then certainly... SSRay's regime in WB, anti-sikh riots, CPI(M) systematic liquidation of political opponents since 1977 including but not limited to bombings,arson,collective punishments of villages should be added aswell...

good !

in that case let's shelve this discussion till such time when barkha dutt and somini sengupta collectively call for the banning of CPI(M).

The truth is that there is no real way to define anyone as a terrorist. The word terrorist can be tagged to a very broad group... Thats why i said i do not know the meaning of terrorism...

that is wrong. the definition from answer.com failed the test because it defines the literal rather than the contextual meaning of terrorism.

p.s. will this do ?

terrorist- a person or a group of persons who believe in achieving their political/religious/ideological objectives either by directly killing civilians or by having a callous attitude towards civilians getting killed as a direct consequence of their actions.

PPS another example might make the problem with the definition clearer.
a similar problem was faced in the definition of WMD.
a WMD, say a nuke is also a bomb right ? so what distinguishes it from say, a hand grenade ?

the point of difference between terrorism and regular crime might lie in a similar direction.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Jan 2009 01:10

Guys, we cannot actually define the word... There are exceptions to virtually every possibility...

That's why I said Pakistani... nets about 99% of the total!!!

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 03 Jan 2009 01:11

bhaskarIN wrote: The truth is that there is no real way to define anyone as a terrorist. The word terrorist can be tagged to a very broad group... ... Terrorism is often tagged to religion...

The ideological sources of terrorism affecting India are quite well known. It is not a new thing; it has been happening for 1000 years. The current scenario is an extension of the old. Lest people forget what terror is, let us have a look:
http://ikashmir.net/atrocities/index.html

or maybe the 1971 genocide of Bengali Hindus in erstwhile East Pakistan, or the 1947 genocide of Hindus and Sikhs in West and East Pakistan. Gurcharan Singh Talib's book is a good keep for that.
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/mla/

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 03 Jan 2009 01:30

Rahul M wrote:
bhaskarIN wrote: If the definition is to be believed then certainly... SSRay's regime in WB, anti-sikh riots, CPI(M) systematic liquidation of political opponents since 1977 including but not limited to bombings,arson,collective punishments of villages should be added aswell...
good !

in that case let's shelve this discussion till such time when barkha dutt and somini sengupta collectively call for the banning of CPI(M).
The truth is that there is no real way to define anyone as a terrorist. The word terrorist can be tagged to a very broad group... Thats why i said i do not know the meaning of terrorism...
that is wrong. the definition from answer.com failed the test because it defines the literal rather than the contextual meaning of terrorism.

p.s. will this do ?
terrorist- a person or a group of persons who believe in achieving their political/religious/ideological objectives either by directly killing civilians or by having a callous attitude towards civilians getting killed as a direct consequence of their actions.

PPS another example might make the problem with the definition clearer.
a similar problem was faced in the definition of WMD.
a WMD, say a nuke is also a bomb right ? so what distinguishes it from say, a hand grenade ?

the point of difference between terrorism and regular crime might lie in a similar direction.

Ok, Rahul, i ll go with ur definition. and, I will not talk about who qualifies for this definition.

And menon, you are right, Pakistanis take up 99.99% of this...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Jan 2009 09:01

bhaskarIN wrote:Ok, after Rahul M told me to simply find it out of the internet, i went to Answers.com and got this

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Now, keeping Modi out of this thread, I would want to say, Doesn't Raj Thackeray and the RSS fit the definition, in the same way as Kasab and LeT fit in the definitiion?

My favorite definition -
A PAKISTANI...

BhaskarIN Ji,
Some religions also fit the above (your quoted) definition rather nicely, don't you think?

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 03 Jan 2009 09:35

chetak wrote:
bhaskarIN wrote:Ok, after Rahul M told me to simply find it out of the internet, i went to Answers.com and got this
Now, keeping Modi out of this thread, I would want to say, Doesn't Raj Thackeray and the RSS fit the definition, in the same way as Kasab and LeT fit in the definitiion?

My favorite definition -
BhaskarIN Ji,
Islam fits the above (your quoted) definition rather nicely, don't you think?

Islam? No, Islam doesn't support terrorism...
Though Islam these days is used several times to justify these unlawful acts to a particular crowd.

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 03 Jan 2009 09:35

JE Menon wrote:Guys, we cannot actually define the word... There are exceptions to virtually every possibility...

That's why I said Pakistani... nets about 99% of the total!!!

I agree that a single definition of terrorist to which everyone agrees may not be possible. However, IMO any definition of terrorist must include the following given by League of Nations Convention (1937): "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". In more simple words anti-national activities by any group or individual that create terror in the mind of citizens of that nation are terrorist activities. That is why the problem of ‘One country’s terrorist is someone else’s hero’.
Pakistan and Wahabi Islam fit into the definition extremely well because their criminal acts are not even against one country/sate but multiple countries

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Jan 2009 11:21

bhaskarIN wrote: Islam? No, Islam doesn't support terrorism...
Though Islam these days is used several times to justify these unlawful acts to a particular crowd.

thse days indeed ! are you sure there was no such thing say 500/1000 years back ?
what, pray is the year of origin of "these days" ?
btw, what is the source of your insight on islam ? have you read the koran ?

jimmyray, the LoN definition is nonsense(no wonder it is extinct !), as is "one man's terrorist......etc etc"

the later was true in colonial times when the brits termed anyone acting against them with force as terrorists. whatever be the modus operandi, as long as an org doesn't attack non-combatants it is difficult to see how it can be termed terrorists.

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 04 Jan 2009 03:12

Rahul M wrote:
bhaskarIN wrote: Islam? No, Islam doesn't support terrorism...
Though Islam these days is used several times to justify these unlawful acts to a particular crowd.
thse days indeed ! are you sure there was no such thing say 500/1000 years back ?
what, pray is the year of origin of "these days" ?
btw, what is the source of your insight on islam ? have you read the koran ?

jimmyray, the LoN definition is nonsense(no wonder it is extinct !), as is "one man's terrorist......etc etc"

the later was true in colonial times when the brits termed anyone acting against them with force as terrorists. whatever be the modus operandi, as long as an org doesn't attack non-combatants it is difficult to see how it can be termed terrorists.

You are right Rahul, Islam is being used as justification since the Islamic terrorism began... (which might go back a long long time ago. )

I personally have not read the Quran, but my friends have, and many scholars also have read the Quran extensively and they believe that Quran only says that you can fight in self-defence which is the only link these days which terrorists make as a justification ...