I wrote:
'That said, I find some portions of LibertarianAnarchist's edit quite
acceptable, for example his opening statement, "In February 2002, 58 train
passengers, including Hindus returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, were
burnt alive by a mob of fundamentalist Muslims who surrounded the train
near Godhra, Gujarat and set it alight after dousing it in petrol." His
critics would replace this with, "In February and March 2002, about 58
people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat."
Neither version matches the report made by the investigation into the
matter:
http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/godhra.html
It seems to be the local Muslim population who attacked the train, but they
seem to have been extremely provoked. To characterise them as Islamic
fundamentalists seems false, as does the denatured language,
"In February and March 2002, about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus)
died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat." Somehow it must be included that
it was Hindu fundamentalists who were attacked with fire by a Muslim mob,
not just "there was a fire".'
On closer examination I find the statement, "There was a fire", quite
acceptable. It is not at all clear that the fire was anything but an
accident.
Fred