[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses the malicious claim!

[libertarian]

--- On Mon 11/10, Fred Bauder < fredbaud at ctelco.net > wrote:

First things first - Are you the Boud who has been posting anti-Hindu
anti-India inflammatory stuff?

> It is a fact that it was widely reported and is believed by many 
> people that a Muslim mob firebombed the train. Not that a Muslim 
> mob firebombed the train.

A Muslim mob forebombed the train and all those arrested are
Muslims. 
Anyway, I have a followup question. A few paragraphs down, there is
an ASSERTION that the train carried Hindus and these Hindus allegedly
created trouble implying they asked for it. 
The fiction in the chain mail from internet gets mentioned as a
possible fact despite the fact that the witness named in it has
denied it (His phone number is given. You can call him up if you 
want.)

> This is rather similar to the discussion we had here as to whether
> communist movements and states could fairly be characterized as
> totalitarian. Our apologists for communism thought it was very 
> unfair.

Very Interesting. You prove my point about supporting Marxists
when it comes to non-Western countries. See my point on having
internal logic in my response to Ed Poor.

How about characterizing Republican Party as "White Nationalist"?
You can't have it both ways - one standard for the Whites and one
for the Browns. "Hindu Nationalist" is only as similar as 
characterizing Republicans as "White nationalist."
I have listed down the reasons for the friction in India.

> Here's what it comes down to: There is a pattern of behavior; we 
> use words which define and describe the activity; The words we use 
> to define nationalism fit the pattern of activity and adequately 
> describe the recent rise in Hindu Nationalism in India.

This phrase is not common in India. It is used only by the West.
Even these racists know it is not true and used the phrase "right
of center Govt" when they wanted Brown human shields so that the
Whites could get back from Iraq.

> Hindus are the dominant majority in India. They are in the
> same position as White Christians are in the United States and 
> rather than oppressing the rest of society (in a fascist way), if 
> they are wise, will accommodate and protect the rights and security 
> of others.

This is complete rubbish because India is a DEMOCRACY. Clearly you are
ignorant if you do not know this and have no business contributing to
an encyclopedia.
India is a democracy because it is Hindu majority. India was split
into two countries in 1947 - India and Pakistan. One became a tolerant
democracy with complete freedoms for everyone while the other 
extinguished the lives of its minorities and is now a tinpot
dictatorship.

You're denying the FACT that India is a democracy. India's President
is a Muslim as is the richest person. India's Defence Minister is
a Christian. 
Stop spewing hatred and spreading canards. You imply that only Whites
are tolerant by making such remarks. Of all nations on Earth, India
has been the most peaceful and unique in the sense that it has not
attacked anyone. It has also been unique in the sense that it has been
raped by all sorts of lunatics - Islamic fundamentalists, Christian
evangelists who brought in their armies. Colonialism and Marxists.

> For two basic reasons, first, it is right to respect others, 
> second, it is necessary for the progress and stability of the 
> State. The alternative is to attempt to rule over an oppressed 
> people.

You don't teach indians about respect and tolerance. You could learn
a lot from India. You never had any minority President so far, did
you? 
And all your brutality is well documented. Feelling guilty, are you?
Maybe that is why you have an urge to broadbrush others as evil.

> There is no question that the train incident triggered the riots, 
> as a match might trigger a fire, but the inflammatory situation is 
> generated by Nationalist agitation.

What is it they say? Better to remain silent and be...

> It doesn't work that way, Wikipedia strives for a Neutral Point of 
> View;

Mine is the Neutral Point of View.

> that means that articles on the issues we are discussing will need 
> to accommodate both the Hindu Nationalist perspective and the Muslim
> perspective and well as an objective perspective.

It doesn't mean you come up with fictitious events as facts which
is what you are doing.

> I use the term "Hindu nationism" because it is in use in the English
> language, Google returns 10,100 hits on those words including these:

Now that I've explained the offensive nature of the term invented
by the Western press, I hope you have learnt something from it.
It is not an Indian term. If you cannot use Indian perspectives while
writing about India, there is something wrong with you.

> This last site is for a book published in India: BJP and the 
> Evolution of Hindu Nationalism : From Periphery to Centre/Partha S. 
> Ghosh. 1999, 460 p., ISBN 81-7304-253-5. So your claim that the 
> usage of the term Hindu nationalism is somehow something others are 
> making up and is not used in India is demonstrably false.

Obscure book. In a country of billion people, you are sure to 
find someone or the other who has latched on to the term. 
Secondly, I didn't accuse others here of making it up. It is a lie
and I suggest you apologize to me. I said tha the Western media
invented it and it is a FACT. If you didn't know that, you ought not
to be contributing to an encyclopedia.

> As to your allusions to communism,

Allusions? Surely, this proves that you are clueless about India.
You do not even know the existence of Communists in India. What a
joke!

> of course the communist movement in India is eagerly trying to use 
> these issues and you might appropriately say so in the proper 
> context in a Wikipedia article. 

The Wikipedia article has *only* the false Communist claims.

> But your attack is on an objective or democratic point of view, not 
> on a communist point of view.

Mine is the objective and democratic point of view. You sir, on the
other hand have just started learning about India by doing Google
searching while keeping a conversation going with me and picking up
facts from me.

I am not surprised that a Westerner supports Communists when it comes
to Brown countries. Jealousy perhaps? Or maybe a feeling of guilt
for the mass murder your race carried out and a need to portray
others as evil? Who knows?

-libertarian


_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com