India uncovers Hindu terror group that carried out bombings blamed on Islamists

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

India uncovers Hindu terror group that carried out bombings blamed on Islamists


w ww.belfasttelegraph.co.uk


India uncovers Hindu terror group that carried out bombings blamed on Islamists

At least 10 people, including monk and army officer, held

By Andrew Buncombe in Delhi
Sunday, 23 November 2008

India is in something of a state of shock after learning from official sources that its first Hindu terror cell may have carried out a series of deadly bombings that were initially blamed on militant Muslims. The revelation is forcing the country to consider some difficult questions.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.asiaobserver.com[/url ]

[url=http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand291108.htm]www.countercurrents.org


[edit on 103030p://am3051 by masonwatcher]




posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
For the past couple of years there has been a series of mass bombings in India that has been swiftly pinned on Islamacists. While most Muslims in India view themselves simply as Indians and are relatively better off than low caste Hindus, they do not have exclusive political parties or movements.

Recently, mationalist Hindu groups have emerged like the BJP to the puzzlement and bemusement of the populations. No one could understand with whom they are struggling against.

Eventually bombing campaigns have been used on the Muslim communities, Christian centres and low caste, the Untouchables, neighbourhoods. Also rampages with club carrying BJP memberships through the streets have been organised.

Without a doubt communal strife is being artificially orchestrated through a small number of radicalised Hindus; but the question is by whom. The Hindu intelligentsia, the priest classes, the general populations, Gandhi nationalists and all faiths are appalled by these un-Indian activities.

All we hear of the bombing outrages in the West is from 'terror specialists' that say it is probably by Al Qeida cells in India or Indian Islamacists then the story disappears while the Indian government announces that Hindu terror cells have been rounded up.

Currently in the Mumbia outrage, we hear that 10 or 12 gunmen stormed luxury hotels, a popular restaurant, hospitals and a crowded train station for three days and killing nearly 200 people while keeping the police at bay. Who are these supermen?

It is interesting to note that some of the first to be killed were three top Indian police officers who happened to have successfully investigated previous outrages and busted Hindu terror cells. The most prominent of these officers and the first killed, Hemant Karkare, investigated the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings and found links to Israel.



w ww.belfasttelegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 103030p://am3009 by masonwatcher]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
It was the Hindus who have been killing Christians if they wouldn't convert and accept the "right" religion.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.monstersandcritics.com...

More self-righteous extremists. Just what we need, eh?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I am not a war or history buff but.....

Oh Gaaawd, are we sure it isn't Islamists playing to be Hindus playing to be Islamists knowing it's going to circle back upon the Hindus as the "guilty party" in an ever ongoing jihad against polytheism in a hugely polytheistic India?

I don't believe nuthin coming out of India, but that it is all likely wrong and thrice removed to bury it's actual source of instigation.
It will be interesting to see where this one goes. This new *cough* war.

Is it possible that this is just another twist on a 150 year old grievance? ie: grudge?

A country that itself can rationalize and find religious tolerance through the view that the god incarnations of polytheism can and are viewed in a monotheistic lens by it's worshippers through the rule of carnation: ie God A is an aspect of the ONE god.

I tend to think some Mughal decendants want their lands back, and thus with tacitics gleaned by American intelligence lessons (Remember our cia trained some of these guys in their false flag tactics--As unintentional and unforseen as that was.)-- may be throwing many many tantrums to punish India for it's freedoms, following British rule, following Mughal dominance.

The Hindus are free-why would they fight? Sadly, some false flagger is likely going to come on to that concept and fill in the blank to solidify the operation in the eyes of the media and thus the public it serves. Ah, damn!

Some history... (I'm sure I am leaving something relevant out... I just don't know what it is...)

Mughal Empire-Wiki, abeit: disputed


was an Islamic imperial power of the Indian subcontinent which began in the early 16th century, ruled most of the subcontinent by the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and ended in the mid-19th century


Though he expanded the empire to include nearly the entire subcontinent, he could never totally subdue the Mahrattas of the Deccan


History of the Mughal empire in india


The Mughal Empire in India lasted from 1526 to 1858


Sikhs in the Mughal period Pre-Raj

. Facing extended persecution from the Mughals, the Sikhs, under Guru Gobind Singh formed the Khalsa (Army of Pure). The khalsa rose up against the economic and political repressions in Punjab toward the end of Aurangzeb's rule. Guerrilla fighters took advantage of the political instability created by the Persian and Afghan onslaught against Delhi, enriching themselves and expanding territorial control. By the 1770s, Sikh hegemony extended from the Indus in the west to the Yamuna in the east, from Multan in the south to Jammu in the north. But the Sikhs, like the Marathas, were a loose, disunited, and quarrelsome conglomerate of twelve kin-groups. It took Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), an individual with modernizing vision and leadership, to achieve supremacy over the other kin-groups and establish his kingdom in which Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims lived together in comparative equality and increasing prosperity. Ranjit Singh employed European officers and introduced strict military discipline into his army before expanding into Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Ladakh.



British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindustani[1]) primarily refers to the British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947;

British Raj 1858-1947


Although the British East India Company had administered its factory areas in India—beginning with Surat early in the 17th century, and including by the century's end, Fort William near Calcutta, Fort St George in Madras and the Bombay (Mumbai) Castle—its victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1757 marked the real beginning of the Company rule in India. The victory was consolidated in 1764 at the Battle of Buxar (in Bihar), when the defeated Mughal emperor, Shah Alam II, granted the Company the Diwani ("right to collect land-revenue") in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The Company soon expanded its territories around its bases in Bombay and Madras: the Anglo-Mysore Wars (1766–1799) and the Anglo-Maratha Wars (1772–1818) gave it control over most of India south of the Narmada River.


Islam-through the Mughals, was in charge, basically from the 1500's to 1858 (with a north and south continent discrepancy). Britian took over, gave it back in 1947--but, not to the mughals; to the present people there: ALL OF THEM. Well there was a partition in the north-

No it's the sikhs, no it's the hindus, no it's the british, no it's the government, no it's the maoists, blah blah blah blah waaaaaaaah. Maybe it's the loser.

Who lost all foothold of India-and recently in an INDIAN timeframe?
The mughals.
Who are the mughals?
Islam.

I just hope whoever it is, they stop. I am willing to believe a small group of extremist Hindus shook up the sub continent, sure. I am willing to believe Islam is not all encompassing of Al Queda, sure. I know that Mumbai has traditionally been called Bombay.

I believe that almost all small wars or skirmishes in India are based on a historical grudge or grievance, pertaining to a loss somewhere. I don't believe Hindus kill christians that don't convert. I find that very very hard to believe.

But if the public believes it and has examples to draw upon (a false flag tactic, no?), then a war against the Hindus and what they stand for-whatever that is- continues. All of the Hindus I've ever met have been peaceful and non violent people. I find the concept of Hindu violence....
strange.

The Western world knows too little of India to know the difference.

Too bad those police men of the ATS were killed. They likely could sort it out. So which is it?
So sorry, so long.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by HugmyRek]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by HugmyRek]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by HugmyRek]



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by HugmyRek
 



Oh good gawd! I am about to talk in deluded circles and I think it's going to end up in the same asinine starting place in mockery of your writing style, so I'll quit while I am ahead.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join