• Advertisement
Kiehberg.in -  Outdoor gear and sports equipment

More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Discussions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
User avatar
mundaire
Posts: 4956
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: New Delhi, India
Contact:

More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby mundaire » Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:20 pm

The draconian new Arms Rules 2016 are beginning to make their impact felt! :evil:

https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/dar ... der-point/

Darjeeling youth held with air gun, bullets from Nepal-India border point
Published: April 23, 2017 5:30 pm On: Nepal

KATHMANDU: An Indian youth has been arrested in possession of an air gun and its bullets from Kakadbhitta border entry point in Ilam of eastern Nepal, police said.

Accompanied by two other persons, Ajaya Gurung and Ajeet Mahato, the suspect Raju Sah was heading to the Nepali side. All of them are said to be 18-year-old.

Security personnel deployed at Kakdbhitta along the Nepal-India border had taken them in custody after the discovery of lethal arm and ammunition from Sah’s possession.

Sah had carried the gun and bullets, wrapped in paper, in his hand, police said.

Bullets weighed 200 gram, according to police.


Like & share IndiansForGuns Facebook Page
Follow IndiansForGuns on Twitter

FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS - JOIN NAGRI NOW!

www.gunowners.in

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein

For Advertising mail webmaster
sam 47
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:49 pm
Location: kolkata

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby sam 47 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:33 pm

Air gun bullets!! Says the police!! :shock: :shock: :o
Don't they get any weapons training or something of that sort which teaches them atleast the basics about guns and ammunition??


"Aim small, miss small."

You may not like guns, and choose not to own one. That is your right. You might not believe in God. That is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home the first two things you're going to do are: 1) Call someone with a gun. 2) Pray they get there in time.

Big Daddy
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:54 pm
Location: Hyderabad

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby Big Daddy » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:46 pm

Once a dumb ass, always a dumb ass I guess.

At this rate, gun forums are bound to be classified as "lethal sites"

BD


The early bird gets the worm, but the fact is, if the worm had woken up late, it would still be alive.

goodboy_mentor
Posts: 2890
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby goodboy_mentor » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:30 pm

Is calling air gun pellets as bullets and calling 12 gauge pump action shotguns or shortened barrel .303 SMLE rifles as pellet guns part of some disinformation public relations campaign to mislead?


"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:36 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby Woods » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:23 pm

It's a piece showing intelligence of the reporter only . Nobody knows as to why exactly they were arrested . Many village people drill a .22 bore airrifle for .22LR cartridges . It's rampant . The reporter hasn't mentioned the " charges " .
And yes ,
It's bizarrely inappropriate that those who are trying to break this country yet again due to their jehadi mentality are being treated so leniently . As per law they may very well be shot dead .


Never seen a thin person drinking diet coke .

User avatar
Pran
Eminent IFG'an
Eminent IFG'an
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Bengaluru, Karnataka

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby Pran » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:15 pm

To start with, it's a case of bad reporting!

I'm assuming the chap may have had a 0.22 airgun which is now classified as a fire arm.

Pran


"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it."

goodboy_mentor
Posts: 2890
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby goodboy_mentor » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:16 am

Woods wrote:It's bizarrely inappropriate that those who are trying to break this country yet again due to their jehadi mentality are being treated so leniently . As per law they may very well be shot dead .
Unnatural Nation States, having no rule of law or justice, break automatically as per laws of nature. They do not need some imaginary "jehadis" or enemies. It is unfortunate but true, like the former U.S.S.R., the Indian State is on the path towards self created road to balkanization due to all kinds of gross injustices. Yes as per the imaginary laws of enemies of humanity, any imaginary enemy can be shot dead. But as per law, no one can be shot dead, every accused must be tried as per rule of law and justice.

It is necessary to understand the history of this land. What forces were actually responsible for partition in 1947? Was it not both Hindu Mahasabha and Congress who actually wanted partitition? Were they doing just mock fighting, shedding crocodile tears to fool the religious minorities(especially Sikhs) and dalits(OBCs, SCs, STs) so they may not put there foot down to demand their political rights before transfer of power from British? Jinnah being an astute lawyer, was he able to smell this dishonest game and put his foot down to demand everything to be decided before transfer of political power?
Nationality vs. Partition

The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming publication of R.U.P.E., India’s Nationality Question and Ruling Classes, by Suniti Kumar Ghosh. (This is a revised version of an earlier edition published by the author himself, Kolkata, 1996.)

We would like to discuss briefly the question raised by C.H. Philips – the question why the Muslims could found a state in the Indian subcontinent and why the nationalities like the Bengalis could not.
“Who killed India?” asked Khwaja Ahmad Abbas indignantly. “The wonder and the tragedy is that India should have been killed by the children of India,” said Abbas.1

It was only a handful of “children of India” that killed her. And Mushirul Hasan said: “…Never before in South Asian history did so few divide so many, so needlessly.”2

Many hold the Muslim League led by M.A. Jinnah responsible for the partition of India. Facts lead to a different conclusion.
Michael Brecher, Nehru’s biographer, writes that the consensus among the people, including Nehru, whom he met, was that “a united India was within the realm of possibility as late as 1946”. He adds that “one must assume” that the partition of India “was a voluntary choice of Nehru, Patel and their colleagues”.3 Abul Kalam Azad also held that “Patel was the founder of India’s partition”. He said: “I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the two-nation theory than Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of partition but now the real flag-bearer was Patel.”4 He also blamed Nehru for the partition. In fact, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and their close associates shared the responsibility. To quote Frank Moraes, “Reflecting on my many conversations and discussions with Jinnah I am convinced that he did not really want Pakistan but was driven by the logic of events and the intransigence of the Congress leaders into finally embracing it.”5

To be brief, when during the negotiations between British imperialism, the Congress and the League, there was no agreement between the leaders of the Congress and of the League as regards the future political set-up in India, the Cabinet delegation which came to India in 1946 and Viceroy Wavell produced their own plan, known as the Cabinet Mission Plan, on 16 May. It rejected the League demand for a separate Pakistan and argued that “a radical partition of the Punjab and Bengal, as this would do, would be contrary to the wishes and interests of a very large proportion of the inhabitants of these Provinces”. It said: “Bengal and the Punjab each has its own common language and a long history and tradition.” Besides, the partition of the Punjab would be harmful to the interests of the Sikhs who were spread over the whole of the province.

The Cabinet Mission Plan outlined a scheme for a united India. The plan, recommended for India comprising both ‘British India’ and the native states, was a three-tier one – a Union Centre dealing with foreign affairs, defence and communications and with powers to raise the necessary finances and equipped with an Executive and a Legislature; three groups of provinces (or sub-federations) with their own executives and legislatures – one including all Hindu majority provinces, another comprising the Punjab, Sind, the NWFP and Baluchistan; and the third one consisting of Bengal and Assam. The provinces would be vested with all subjects other than the Union subjects and with residuary powers. British paramountcy over the native states would lapse and there should be negotiations between them and the rest of India for their inclusion in the Indian Union.

The three groups of provinces would frame constitutions for the provinces included in them and decide whether to have group constitutions. A province would be free to opt out of a particular group after the first general election under the new constitution.

The Muslim League agreed to a united India with its grouping of provinces.6 The Congress Working Committee resolution of 24 May insisted that “India must necessarily have a strong central authority.” The Nehrus were violently opposed to the grouping system, which, according to the British government, was an essential feature of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Talking glibly of provincial autonomy, of which the Nehrus were sworn enemies, they torpedoed the plan which envisaged a United India.

The Congress leaders’ real objection was not to the denial of provincial autonomy to Assam and the NWFP – the NWFP, which they soon threw to the wolves, as Abdul Ghaffar Khan accused the Congress leaders of doing. What they really objected to was the emergence of groups or sub-federations, which would render the Centre weak. Their policy was basically opposed to the essence of the Cabinet Mission Plan – decentralization of powers and a weak Centre. As they had chosen the royal road of negotiations to attain the goal of self-government, they were prepared to settle for an India minus certain parts in the north-west and the east. But they were not willing to make any compromise on the issue of a strong Centre – a strong Centre which would not be restricted to the exercise of merely three subjects. That is why on the pleas of upholding the sacred principle of provincial autonomy and Sikh interests, they buried the Cabinet Mission Plan, which would have preserved the unity of India.

As noted before, the Congress (and the people) were offered another chance for having a United India. After assuming office on 23 March 1947 as Viceroy, Mountbatten realized that the Cabinet Mission Plan could not be revived as the difference between the Congress and the League over the grouping system could not be reconciled. The Viceroy and his British staff drafted a plan which gave to the representatives of the provinces (the NWFP after a fresh election) and the Muslim-majority and non-Muslim-majority areas of the Punjab and Bengal the right to decide whether they would join the existing constituent assembly (dominated by the Congress) or group together in one or more constituent assemblies or stand out independently and act as their own constituent assembly. Among the main features of the plan were: compulsory grouping was avoided to meet the objections of the Congress to this feature of the Cabinet Mission Plan; the right of the provinces to decide their own fate was recognized; Bengal and the Punjab would be free to decide whether they would remain undivided with their integrity intact and free to decide their relations with the rest of India.

The plan also envisaged that “the constituent assemblies, if more than one, should also create machinery for joint consultation among themselves on matters of common concern, particularly Defence, and for the negotiation of agreements in respect of these matters.”

If either of the two plans was accepted by the Congress leaders, the holocausts throughout India in 1947 and after would have been averted. But the lives of tens of millions of ordinary Indians were dirt cheap to the Congress leaders who have been falsely acclaimed as leaders of India’s freedom struggle.

The Congress Working Committee, which met early in May for several days with Gandhi attending, took a completely different stand. In an interview to the Associated Press of America, Patel proposed two alternatives. All power should be transferred to the Central Government “as it now stands” (“the interim Government”, formed by Congress representatives on 2 September 1946 and joined by Muslim League representatives later, in which the Congress had majority support), which should function as a dominion government with “the Viceroy standing out”. “If there were conflicts in the Cabinet on any question, the majority would rule.” The other alternative was that power should be transferred to the two constituent assemblies – the existing one [boycotted by League members] and the other composed of Muslim League members already elected. Patel affirmed: “Congress would like to have a strong centre.” So the alternatives were either Congress rule or partition on communal lines.

This plan drawn up by Mountbatten and his British staff fully satisfied Nehru’s craving (more hypocritical than genuine) for provincial autonomy. So Nehru had to raise another bogey: the plan, if implemented, would lead to the balkanization of India.

To obtain a monopoly of power (of course, under the British umbrella), the Congress leaders opposed the plan that the provinces should initially be successor states and the central authority or authorities should emerge on the voluntary coming together of the provinces – their voluntary agreement to part with some powers in favour of some central authority – the essence of genuine federalism. Every province (or national region like Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Bengal, Maharashtra etc.) was large enough to constitute an independent state – many of them far larger and more populous than most of the states of Europe. Instead of accepting the federal principle to which the Congress leaders often paid lip service, they killed the provincial choice and insisted on having an undivided India with a centralized, authoritarian state run by them; or, if that was not possible, they were prepared for the partition of India on artificial, religious lines with the national regions or parts of them coerced to join either Hindustan or Pakistan. That this would cause countless millions mourn did not matter to the political representatives of the Indian big bourgeoisie. Millions of lives of the common people were nothing compared to profits earned by this class. Quite sometime before the Muslim League demanded the partition of India on a religious basis, G.D. Birla had pleaded for it. On 11 January 1938, he wrote to Mahadev Desai, Gandhi’s secretary:

“I wonder why it should not be possible to have two Federations, one of Muslims and another of Hindus. The Muslim Federation may be composed of all the provinces or portions of the provinces which contain more than two-thirds Muslim population and the Indian states like Kashmir … if anything is going to check our progress, it is the Hindu-Muslim question – not the Englishman, but our own internal quarrels.”7

Not only did Birla try to persuade Gandhi to agree to the partition of India on communal lines as early as January 1938 but he also approached Viceroy Linlithgow with the same proposal in the same month.8

Even after the partition of India became a settled fact, there arose the possibility of Bengal remaining undivided outside Hindustan and Pakistan. A memorandum of the Secretary of State, dated 4 March 1947, envisaged the possibility of the emergence of three states: Pakistan, Hindustan and Bengal.9

On 15 May, Lord Ismay informed Mountbatten that the British Cabinet’s India and Burma Committee “were pledged to give the Provinces the option of remaining independent of either Hindustan or Pakistan, if they so desired. This was particularly applicable to the case of Bengal.”10

In a memorandum, dated 17 May, the Secretary of State, Listowel, said that “there are strong practical arguments for giving the third option of remaining united and framing its own constitution certainly to Bengal and probably also to the Punjab.” He refuted Nehru’s charge of balkanization and said that it would be consistent with the right of self-determination.11 At the Cabinet meeting on 23 May, Prime Minister Attlee said: “In the North-East there were good hopes that Bengal might decide to remain united on the basis of a coalition Government elected on a joint electorate.”12 On the same day Attlee mentioned in his messages to the prime ministers of the British dominions the emergence of “two or possibly three independent states” in the Indian sub-continent.13

Curiously, in his letter of 9 March 1947 to Wavell, Nehru demanded that Bengal and the Punjab should be partitioned even if India was not partitioned. The demand had already been raised by Birla’s Hindustan Times. On 1May Nehru again conveyed to Mountbatten the same demand. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee of the Hindu Mahasabha, who had become a special favourite of the Patels, went on echoing it.14

The leaders of Bengal, both Hindu and Muslim, who had a mass base, started a move to prevent the dismemberment of Bengal and keep her undivided outside both Hindustan and Pakistan. Earlier, in April 1946, when rumours were afloat in Delhi about the possible partition of Bengal, Sarat Chandra Bose, then leader of the Congress party in the Central Legislative Assembly, arranged a meeting of Congress representatives of Bengal. They expressed their unanimous view that “partitioning of Bengal would ruin the national life of the Bengalis for all time. They are reported to have stated that, although in the minority, the Hindus of Bengal would prefer to remain as they were at present and work with the majority community in the political sphere rather than accept any scheme of partitioning Bengal.” According to the report, “ They also contended that the scheme for partitioning Bengal was absolutely uncalled for.”15

The destinies of Bengal, the Punjab, the NWFP, etc, were being traded between the big compradors of the Hindu (and Parsi) and Muslim communities. The representatives of these provinces whose fate was being decided were excluded from the negotiations. It is the minuscule coteries of Congress and League leaders, especially Nehru, Patel, Gandhi and Jinnah, and the British rulers, who were seeking to make the best bargain for those whom they represented – the decisions that would have the most profound impact on the lives of hundreds of millions and of their descendants.
Sarat Chandra Bose resigned from the Congress Working Committee in January 1947. In the same month he, Abul Hashim (the secretary of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League) and several other leaders started discussions about how to settle communal differences, form a new representative ministry, prepare an outline of the future Constitution of Bengal and prevent her dismemberment. They believed neither in India being one nation nor in the two-nation theory. They held that India was a subcontinent, the home of many nationalities.16

At the invitation of Akhil Chandra Datta, former Vice-President of the Central Legislative Assembly, a representative conference of prominent persons was held on 23 March in Calcutta. The conference regarded partition as a “ retrograde and reactionary move”. It stated: “Communalism is only a passing phase in our national life. The destiny of our country will inevitably be shaped by socio-economic and political forces which have already begun to work. The partition of Bengal will create a permanent cleavage between the two communities and perpetuate an evil which is bound to die out even earlier than some people find it difficult to believe.”17 The All-Bengal Anti-Pakistan and Anti-Partition Committee was set up in April with Sarat Bose as President and Kamini Kumar Dutta, M.L.C., as Secretary.

Bengal’s Muslim politicians of different political hues were unanimous in their demand for a united Bengal outside Hindustan and Pakistan. H.S. Suhrawardy, then Prime Minister of Bengal, made every effort to build a “united, undivided, sovereign Bengal”. Khwaja Nazimuddin, a former Bengal Premier and then deputy leader of the Muslim League Party in the Central Legislative Assembly, and Mohammad Ali, then Bengal’s finance minister, too were opposed to Bengal’s dismemberment. (All three later became at different times Prime Ministers of Pakistan.) So were Fazlul Huq, Professor Humayun Kabir, then general secretary of the Krishak Praja Party, and others.

Jogendra Nath Mondal, a leader of the Scheduled Castes Federation and Law Member of the Interim Government of India, declared in a statement to the press on 21 April that the majority of non-Muslims were not behind the demand for the partition of Bengal and that this could be proved by a referendum. He also said that it was not in the interests of the Hindus to divide the province, and the scheduled castes, who together with the backward castes formed a majority of the population of proposed West Bengal, were definitely opposed to partition.18

On 25 April, at the Viceroy’s eighth miscellaneous meeting, Mountbatten “said that he had got the impression that Bengal, for economic reasons, wanted to remain as an entity…. Sardar Patel said he believed that the feeling in Bengal among non-Muslims was that, whether there was Pakistan or not, they could not remain united unless joint electorates were introduced.”19

The fact is, the joint committee which was set up at a meeting of Congress and League leaders in the last week of April and which included Sarat Bose, Kiran Shankar Roy (leader of the Congress party in the Bengal Legislative Assembly), Suhrawardy, Nazimuddin, Abul Hashim, Mohammad Ali , etc, drew up a draft constitution of united Bengal by 19 May. To be brief, while envisaging future Bengal as a Free State, it provided for election to the Bengal Legislature on the basis of joint electorate and adult franchise with reservation of seats proportionate to the population amongst the Hindus and Muslims.20

Parties like the Forward Bloc and Communist Party of India supported the cause of a united Bengal outside Hindustan and Pakistan.
The British government, as Mountbatten said, “had declared themselves willing to agree to an independent Bengal – in fact willing to agree to any solution for Bengal with which the leaders of the principal parties [ the Congress and the League] agreed.”21

Besides the British government, the leaders of one of the two “principal parties” – the Muslim League – declared several times their agreement to Bengal remaining united and ‘independent’. When, on 26 April, Mountbatten spoke to Jinnah of Suhrawardy’s proposal for a United Bengal outside Hindustan and Pakistan, Jinnah “said without any hesitation: ‘I should be delighted, they had much better remain united and independent.’”22 Liaquat Ali Khan, the League’s General Secretary, told Mountbatten’s principal secretary, Mieville, on 28 April that “he was in no way worried about Bengal as he was convinced in his mind that the province would never divide. He thought that it would remain a separate state, joining neither Hindustan nor Pakistan.23 The same view was expressed by Jinnah and Liaquat Ali several times afterwards24

It was the leaders of the other ‘principal’ party – the Nehrus – who were firm and inflexible in their opposition to any such possibility. It is they who alone insisted on breaking up Bengal on communal lines. No plebiscite or fresh election on the issue of Bengal’s partition was held though it was demanded by Jinnah, Jogendranath Mondal, Humayun Kabir , CPI and others. There arose the possibility of Bengal emerging with her integrity intact and with joint electorates and a Constituent Assembly of her own, based on adult suffrage, which would decide her relations with the rest of India. In such a Bengal communal strife would yield to the united struggle for the overthrow of the indirect rule of imperialism and of its Indian lackeys and new vistas of progress and development would open up. This possibility was killed by the Nehrus, which inflicted an endless series of tragedies the like of which few countries have experienced.

It is the interests of the big Indian compradors like the Birlas that decided the fate of Bengal. The Nehrus were willing to have an undivided Bengal within Hindustan but not outside it. At that time Calcutta was the seat of big Marwari capital. So they would not allow West Bengal to escape from their clutches.

Replying to Patel, B.M. Birla wrote on 5 June: “I am so glad … that things have turned out according to your desire…. I am very happy that the Bengal question has also been settled by you.”25 When the prospect of being uprooted from their homes and terrors of an unknown future haunted tens of millions of Bengalis the big compradors were elated, for their long-held objective was fulfilled.

Later, G.D. Birla, who had been putting pressure on Gandhi at least since January 1938 to agree to partition of India on a religious basis and consequent dismemberment of Bengal and the Punjab, wrote in a self-congratulatory vein:
“I somehow or other not only believed in the inevitability of Partition but always considered this as a good way out of our difficulties.”26
Source http://rupe-india.org/50/ghosh.html Is there anything more left for imagination?


"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:36 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby Woods » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:30 pm

Good_boy_mentor
Carry on cut-copy-paste , as much and as lengthy you like but jehadis stand exposed worldwide ( curiously enough , you call them " imaginary jehadi " ROTFL

It astonishes me to see that whenever a burden of responsibility tends to shift over ' radical islamic terrorism ' in anyway , you just start employing tactics of obfuscating the issue itself . Even once you said ISIS are only members of intelligence agencies of non-moslem countries trying to defame moslem .
Likewise , in the matter of gun rights or other problems like corruption , you say that they exist because of Hindu imperialism and castism !! Well I never found a Christian officer not desirous of wrenching bribe from Christians or a brahmin/ sc/st /moslem officer reluctant to take bribe from his own community . Where are the sc/st officers who wish to refrain from taking advantage of reservation because generations in their family has already taken enough and the benefits should be passed to those who exist only hand to mouth .

Also , when referring to horrors of casteism , you quote a news that runs like ' Man of a lower cast murdered for twirling moustache in front of a man of higher caste '. You deliberately forget that in an attempt to rob a person when that person is killed then robbed and the robbers find that he was carrying only 1 hundred rupees , the newspaper cries ' Man killed for hundred rupees' .

At the other hand , when jehadi atrocities are taken into account you say these all are media cooked stories .

This all reminds me of Farid zakaria , Linda Sarsour , Louis Farrakhan and other countless rats who infiltrate various public forums , gain popularity and advance the tactics of confusion ( called "taqqiya" ) by anyhow silencing the critics of jehadi atrocities .

Cut-copy-paste as much as you like .
Whenever the cause of any problem are not evaluated objectively , whenever we wish to find culprit of our own choice , result is unhappiness /dissatisfaction.

Added in 22 minutes 56 seconds:
In our sympathy or hate we are sometimes so much blinded that we infer even laws according to our penchant .
A culprit when caught can be executed only after trial in a court of law . But arsonist / rioters can be shot dead , if need be . It's law too .

Added in 2 minutes 30 seconds:
It's only the exemplary discipline of Union forces that casualties are so low in kashmir else see Baloochistan for a good example .


Never seen a thin person drinking diet coke .

goodboy_mentor
Posts: 2890
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby goodboy_mentor » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:27 pm

I am certainly not "astonished" to see you getting upset because the truth hurts you. And that is why the historical facts published in a book by Suniti Kumar Ghosh are being labelled by you as cut and paste job!

Regarding your "radical Islamic terrorism" or ISIS, probably you are not aware how intelligence agencies work, how they bribe or blackmail the media or you want to ignore the facts. It is the work of agencies who want to destabilize Russia by creating an arc of unrest in it's lower southern part. Have you read the books that expose the Indian intelligence agencies behind creation of so called "radical Sikh terrorism" or "radical Hindu terrorism"? These books are all on the internet. For example -

1. The Gallant Defender by A.R. Darshi

2. Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee

3. Sikhs in History by Dr. Sangat Singh

4. Soft Target by Zuhair Kashmeri and Brian McAndrews

5. Open Secrets by Maloy Krishna Dhar

6. Who Killed Karkare by S.M. Mushrif

If you read them you will come to know this "terrorism" was creation of intelligence agencies from within the borders and not from across the borders to get political mileage by fooling the religious majority and win elections. If you do not like the facts, you certainly can call these books work of "taqqiya" to satisfy yourself and confuse the ignorant.

About historic Hindu imperialism and casteism, it is understandable that the facts in the book History of Hindu Imperialism by Swami Dharma Theertha must have hurt you. Unless you want to hide the truth and create confusion, you should have no problem with the facts. Placing the link for connected post having further links here for everyone to read viewtopic.php?f=3&t=25006#p247416

Added in 30 minutes 6 seconds:
Woods wrote:But arsonist / rioters can be shot dead , if need be . It's law too .
The political maps keep on changing, those who are objectively slaves today can become masters tomorrow. This is fact and lesson of history, unless you want to ignore it. Those who commit tortures, mass killings and genocides under color of law can be put on Nuremberg like trials and get the noose around their neck. It's a law too.
Woods wrote:It's only the exemplary discipline of Union forces that casualties are so low in kashmir else see Baloochistan for a good example .
I am not bothered about Baluchistan when there are far worst plenty of examples within this country itself. A great example of exemplary discipline or a great example of ranking cowardice? Answer it honestly, if you can dare to ask yourself honestly -
Another account of events of that same night comes from the teenaged daughter of an SGPC employee who manged to get out. She is quoted by the team commissioned by Justice Y. M. Tarkunde. "Then the tank entered. It had powerful searchlights. I thought the ambulance had come to attend to the dead and injured but it turned out the opposite. The tank went past us; from the tank came the announcement 'Please come out, God's blessings are with you. We will reach you home absolutely safe and sound' There were some among us who were frantic for some water and came out in the open. In the morning I saw dead bodies lying on the parikarma: This was the worst kind of treachery"
Source Politics of Genocide by Inderjeet Singh Jaijee. The book is available for free download on internet. More can be read here viewtopic.php?f=13&t=24170#p240075


"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992

jatindra Singh Deo
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby jatindra Singh Deo » Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:30 pm

Professor Moriarty at it again ?? ;)

Added in 4 minutes 56 seconds:
I would request gents concerned to not morph this thread into a communal one upmanship ,else it would spiral out of control inimical to the purpose of this forum .Drawing your personal ideological conclusion works against the objective analysis of the thread .



User avatar
Woods
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:36 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby Woods » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:40 pm

If lengthy arguments were a sign of truth , the person with speech impairment would be the ultimate culprit .
Taqqiya has caused this world enough suffering and leftist were the biggest conduits for it but at last they all stand exposed .
So , keep doing cut-copy-paste and try to befool gullible .
Here onwards , I will try my best to stik to topic .

Added in 1 minute 1 second:
This topic is better discussed with it .
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=25008


Never seen a thin person drinking diet coke .

goodboy_mentor
Posts: 2890
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: More insanity - Youth Arrested with Airgun!

Postby goodboy_mentor » Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:30 pm

Oh yes when self styled Sherlock Homes and Taqqiya experts are there who can dare show them the mirror? And who deviated from the topic by saying "It's bizarrely inappropriate that those who are trying to break this country yet again due to their jehadi mentality are being treated so leniently . As per law they may very well be shot dead ." When squarely rebutted by showing the facts, now preaching to stay on topic?


"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992


Return to “RKBA”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests