Terror apology of course comes in different shades. The branding of anybody who questions the dominant politically correct view on terrorism as Hindu fanatics has skewed the debate in favor of the real fanatics. After all, who in his right senses want to be labeled a Hindutvavadi?
>RSS might have cut and pasted Ambedkar's photo on its booklets and webstes/ online communitiesdoes it disqualify Ambedkar? NO. What is it supposed to imply? That a message in a forum run by Khalistani sympathizers doesn't 'disqualify' human rights activists? Maybe. But what was the need, one wonders. > talking against humanright activists, these politcal/religious fanatics want to bring more anti-human terror laws to harass people.. The human rights activists who have no qualms in associating with admirers of Bhindranwale needs to be talked against, IMHO. By the way, where in the Acorn's analysis does it implied that more 'anti human terror-laws' need to be brought in to 'harass people'? Best regards, Murali On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
