"Eradication" of Islam means what it says. When is the WHOLE world going to finally put their foot down with this crap? Why can't innocents live in peace and harmony?
If you take the last 10 recent terrorist attacks, what percentage would be muslim?
I would take bet for 90% if not 100%. Why put up with this?
Someone who is so lacking in understanding of numbers should not be using them as proof. What percentage of Muslims worldwide are terrorists? A vanishingly small portion. Yet you want to kill 'em all - a fifth of the world's population. You are insane.
"Eradication" of Islam means what it says. When is the WHOLE world going to finally put their foot down with this crap? Why can't innocents live in peace and harmony?
If you take the last 10 recent terrorist attacks, what percentage would be muslim?
I would take bet for 90% if not 100%. Why put up with this?
You would lose your bet.
By your standards, based only on the last 10 terrorist incidents in the world, the following people would need to be "eradicated":
- Muslims
- Kurds
- Serbians (presumably)
- Chechens
- Russians
- Everyone living in the Tigrayan region of Ethipia
- Communists
That's about a fifth of the world's population that needs to be eradicated so that we can live in peace and harmony.
Programs: Chairman MC, HH Gold, AA GOLD, PC RA, TAJ Innercircle Silver
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenbel
I'm with you. You keep hoping that there will be some glimmer of recognition about what he is saying and how truly and completely reprehensible it is, but no.
Does anaggie realise that the 'smart and educated Muslims' he knows would be eradicated as well if his pogrom took effect in the way he describes? What does he think is the best way to eradicate about 1 billion people - gas, poison, nuclear bombs, shooting? Would he be willing to assist in this, or does he expect other people to do the killing on his behalf? And how does one dispose of 1 billion bodies anyway?
I suppose the worst aspect would be the children - given the population profiles of many of the countries which are predominantly Muslim, I guess about 25 - 30% of the people he is insisting should be eradicated would be children. Do you think he'd allow a lower age limit, so long as those born of Muslim families were brainwashed into another faith, or does he believe it's better to kill them all?
Food for thought. And we wonder how genocides start.
Let me rephrase....I do not advocate killing of innocents/children but I am of the FIRM belief "en eye for an eye".
If they can kill ours, we should be able to kill theirs. Why should my child die because of some worhtless muslim cowards who have decided that she is an infidel?
Unless you have had/seen these people behave and act, pls do not judge me. I have watched and seen these people...their religous calling is so strong that sometimes you have to doubt the smart and educated ones.
NEWSFLASH -- Do not know if this has been reported --- Oberoi is cleared and now they are letting people in to identify bodies. It is a BLOODBATH.
They went from room to room and just killed without thought. They did not get to 2 floors.
Women/children/american/jews/briton/babies -- they did not care.
The body count is going to jump once authorities start counting the dead.
My prayers go all the families who are affected by this and who have lost loved ones in the ordeal.
__________________ STRANGE is a necessary evil required to refresh and renew the NORMAL.
I also find anaggie's statements about eradicating a billion people reprehensible and indefensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swei0009
I can't believe I just read that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenbel
What does he think is the best way to eradicate about 1 billion people - gas, poison, nuclear bombs, shooting? Would he be willing to assist in this, or does he expect other people to do the killing on his behalf? And how does one dispose of 1 billion bodies anyway?
I suppose the worst aspect would be the children - given the population profiles of many of the countries which are predominantly Muslim, I guess about 25 - 30% of the people he is insisting should be eradicated would be children. Do you think he'd allow a lower age limit, so long as those born of Muslim families were brainwashed into another faith, or does he believe it's better to kill them all?
Food for thought. And we wonder how genocides start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMSN
Someone who is so lacking in understanding of numbers should not be using them as proof. What percentage of Muslims worldwide are terrorists? A vanishingly small portion. Yet you want to kill 'em all - a fifth of the world's population. You are insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorn
You would lose your bet.
By your standards, based only on the last 10 terrorist incidents in the world, the following people would need to be "eradicated":
- Muslims
- Kurds
- Serbians (presumably)
- Chechens
- Russians
- Everyone living in the Tigrayan region of Ethipia
- Communists
That's about a fifth of the world's population that needs to be eradicated so that we can live in peace and harmony.
Very little left to left to add.
It is attitudes like this on the part of militant Hindus that perpetuate the cycle of hatred. Well done, anaggie. Attitudes like yours are an embarrassment to all decent Indians.
I hope whatever people or organizations are responsible for this tragedy will be hunted down and brought to justice (or better still, destroyed while resisting capture).
Programs: Chairman MC, HH Gold, AA GOLD, PC RA, TAJ Innercircle Silver
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Very little left to left to add.
It is attitudes like this on the part of militant Hindus that perpetuate the cycle of hatred. Well done, anaggie. Attitudes like yours are an embarrassment to all decent Indians.
That is fine...but when you have to go to your friends house and sit with their mourning family...you get a diffrent feeling towards these people.
Again, whatever you people say about what I think will not change my thinking.
And let me rephrase...I miught have meant the wrong thing in my emotional state...I would like to eradicate "THE ZEALOUS ISLAM" followers.
Sorry.
On a lighter side -- can Bush go to India and start pressing some buttons that drop bombs?
__________________ STRANGE is a necessary evil required to refresh and renew the NORMAL.
Programs: AA EXP & SPG PLT. Long-suffering Mets fan.
Posts: 3,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
I know I'm going to take flak for this, but it's not always all about the Jews. Really. There are hundreds of non-Jewish Indians lying dead, yet you choose to imply that this attack had something to do with anti-Semitism. The Chabad House was not the primary target. Can we wait on the rhetoric until more facts are known?
Also, I have not read anywhere that the rabbi and his wife have been killed, and I hope swei0009 is wrong and that they are safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaatri
Just because it happened in India and the perpetrators might be Muslims, does not mean it's entirely domestic. Even Sikh terrorism was not entirely domestic. Right everything is about Jews. No one who was not Jewish was killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanR
I would have thought it was obvious - the plan was to kill the Jews, everyone else who died was merely a diversion to make it seem as if the plan wasn't to kill the Jews
India is a nation of approx. 1.13 Billion people (July 2007 CIA estimate). The Jewish population of India, including "Bene Israel" (a group of Indian descent with historical claims of Jewish ancestry) and European-descended Jews who have moved to India, is estimated at 5,000 people. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...sm/jewpop.html) Add in the number of Israeli tourists (India is a popular destination for young Israelis recently out of the Army or university), and call it 7500 tops.
Or, in other words, these terrorists just happened to find Nariman House, on a street in a private residential neighborhood, away from all the major societal institutions that they otherwise targetted, because rather than attacking the 80+% of India's population that is Hindu, or the 2+% that are Christian, or the 2% that is Sikh, or the 1.1% that is Buddhist, or the 0.5% that are Jain, when the 150 million Muslims needed a target, they happened on the Jews.
Not 1% of the population. Not 0.01% of the population. Not 0.001% of the population. 0.0007% of the population. The equivalent of 2,100 people in the US.
Get real.
Deliberately targetting a Jewish institution, or a Jewish population, as part of an attack like this means that the targetting was antisemitism.
I'm no friend of Chabad. (In fact, I think large portions of Chabad are at the point where they've broken from the classical definition of Judaism.) But they are the second most visible representation of Judaism (behind only the Israeli flag at embassies & consulates) in the vast majority of places around the world.
What possible reason could they have for this attack other than to get the publicity - and support within the Islamic world - that comes from attacking Jewish targets with Israeli connections?
Programs: Chairman MC, HH Gold, AA GOLD, PC RA, TAJ Innercircle Silver
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Very little left to left to add.
It is attitudes like this on the part of militant Hindus that perpetuate the cycle of hatred. Well done, anaggie. Attitudes like yours are an embarrassment to all decent Indians.
and it is people like you who justify others pushing of Hindus. Hindus are walked on, beaten, talked bad/rude about and all in the while we just sit and take it. We do not fight back...Once in a while one must fight back to preserve his dignity.
Everybody knowsthat India will not lift a finger after this...as we just talk but do not show any action.
I am not a militant Hindu, but I am tired of seeing my country and my people being talked down to, stepped on and just plain pushed around.
Does anyone do that to the USA? NO. Why...because Americans hit back and we hit back hard.
__________________ STRANGE is a necessary evil required to refresh and renew the NORMAL.
What possible reason could they have for this attack other than to get the publicity - and support within the Islamic world - that comes from attacking Jewish targets with Israeli connections?
You may be right, but we really don't have enough information yet. IMO (and it's just an opinion) this is the work of Kashmiri separatists.
and it is people like you who justify others pushing of Hindus. Hindus are walked on, beaten, talked bad/rude about and all in the while we just sit and take it. We do not fight back...Once in a while one must fight back to preserve his dignity.
Everybody knowsthat India will not lift a finger after this...as we just talk but do not show any action.
I am not a militant Hindu, but I am tired of seeing my country and my people being talked down to, stepped on and just plain pushed around.
Sorry, this is complete BS. You are just trying to justify your xenophobia. Militant Hindus, encouraged and legitimized by the likes of the BJP and the Shiv Sena, have been responsible for countless unprovoked atrocities against Muslims and Christians. These are the people that are perverting the principles of Hinduism.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenbel
And the British authorities have expressed surprise at that report, since no-one has informed them about it.
I think any such statements, including anaggie's certainty about the source of the attacks, needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt and identified clearly as the speculation that they obviously are.
I also find anaggie's statements about eradicating a billion people reprehensible and indefensible. I believe that was last tried with judaism, and failed, but not before millions of people were dead. That anyone who knows anything about the Holocaust could make statements like that defies belief
I suppose it was bad form for the terrorists to not inform Her Majesty's Government that they were about to embark upon a act of terrorism.
You do know that anaggie does not speak for Indians, Hindus or for the Indian Government. If he were a Muslim, we know where his thoughts would be.
Regardless for what anaggie says if British Muslims of Pakistani origins are involved, I should not be surprised, not should you be. After all this is not the first time British muslim nationals of Pakistani ancestry have been implicated in a terrorist incident.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
Or, in other words, these terrorists just happened to find Nariman House, on a street in a private residential neighborhood, away from all the major societal institutions that they otherwise targetted
Told you the "real" target was Jews - everyone else killed or injured is just a smokescreen to cover up the "real" intent
India is a nation of approx. 1.13 Billion people (July 2007 CIA estimate). The Jewish population of India, including "Bene Israel" (a group of Indian descent with historical claims of Jewish ancestry) and European-descended Jews who have moved to India, is estimated at 5,000 people. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...sm/jewpop.html) Add in the number of Israeli tourists (India is a popular destination for young Israelis recently out of the Army or university), and call it 7500 tops.
Or, in other words, these terrorists just happened to find Nariman House, on a street in a private residential neighborhood, away from all the major societal institutions that they otherwise targetted, because rather than attacking the 80+% of India's population that is Hindu, or the 2+% that are Christian, or the 2% that is Sikh, or the 1.1% that is Buddhist, or the 0.5% that are Jain, when the 150 million Muslims needed a target, they happened on the Jews.
Not 1% of the population. Not 0.01% of the population. Not 0.001% of the population. 0.0007% of the population. The equivalent of 2,100 people in the US.
Get real.
Deliberately targetting a Jewish institution, or a Jewish population, as part of an attack like this means that the targetting was antisemitism.
I'm no friend of Chabad. (In fact, I think large portions of Chabad are at the point where they've broken from the classical definition of Judaism.) But they are the second most visible representation of Judaism (behind only the Israeli flag at embassies & consulates) in the vast majority of places around the world.
What possible reason could they have for this attack other than to get the publicity - and support within the Islamic world - that comes from attacking Jewish targets with Israeli connections?
You need to get real and look beyond yourself my dear friend. I did not say jews were not targeted. If you could see beyond your own self, you would understand what the implication was. Iyt is stupid for anyone to think that it was domestic terrorism or that only jews were targeted.
Indians jews are so few in numbers that they could not have much impact on domestic issues.
Do you still maintain it was domestic terrorism?
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
