Different types of terror- Hindu terror- meaning

But who said a Maoist is not called a terrorist because he is a Hindu? I read many news items saying Maoists killed everyday in encounters.  A Terrorist is a terrorist whatever his religion. But if people want to use it for counter attacking purpose, that is something different.

Whatever may be the prefix and suffix of a Terrorist a Terrorist is a Terrorist. A thorn is a thorn, even though you call it as a Soft thorn.

yes, sir #suni #rambabu both are right a person weather of any caste if he is a terrorist he will be and he is terrorist no matter of what cast or what community he belongs too.

suni51 wrote:

But who said a Maoist is not called a terrorist because he is a Hindu? I read many news items saying Maoists killed everyday in encounters.  A Terrorist is a terrorist whatever his religion. But if people want to use it for counter attacking purpose, that is something different.

 

Maoist is not called Hindu terroist even if he is Hindu because he does not raise Hindu slogans and does not fight ofr Hindutva or Hindu Rashtra. similarly, Turkish revolun are not called Muslim terroists even though they are Muslims. Those fighting in name of Islam and so calle Jehad are called Muslim terrorists. similarly, the abhinav Bharat terrorists are xcalled Hindu terrroists. Thus it is not just religion of the terrorist but his purpose and motivation determines whether he is a Hindu terrorist, Muslim terrorist or extreme left terrorist.  The link explains well. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

suni51 wrote:

But who said a Maoist is not called a terrorist because he is a Hindu? I read many news items saying Maoists killed everyday in encounters.  A Terrorist is a terrorist whatever his religion. But if people want to use it for counter attacking purpose, that is something different.

 

Maoist is not called Hindu terroist even if he is Hindu because he does not raise Hindu slogans and does not fight ofr Hindutva or Hindu Rashtra. similarly, Turkish revolun are not called Muslim terroists even though they are Muslims. Those fighting in name of Islam and so calle Jehad are called Muslim terrorists. similarly, the abhinav Bharat terrorists are xcalled Hindu terrroists. Thus it is not just religion of the terrorist but his purpose and motivation determines whether he is a Hindu terrorist, Muslim terrorist or extreme left terrorist.  The link explains well. 

 

You are absolutely right at this point but in case of Muslim Terrorists when they kill Muslims in the name of Islam are still called Islamic Terrorists (Like ISI, Al-Quida etc are doing).

Maoism is a totally different group with its own set of principles however warped it may be, so why even link it with Hinduism or or any other ism... I read the news report of Rajnath Singhs statement....One thing that stands clear is the fact that Congress has always been double faced in its policies when it comes to terrorism ..

suni51 wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

suni51 wrote:

But who said a Maoist is not called a terrorist because he is a Hindu? I read many news items saying Maoists killed everyday in encounters.  A Terrorist is a terrorist whatever his religion. But if people want to use it for counter attacking purpose, that is something different.

 

Maoist is not called Hindu terroist even if he is Hindu because he does not raise Hindu slogans and does not fight ofr Hindutva or Hindu Rashtra. similarly, Turkish revolun are not called Muslim terroists even though they are Muslims. Those fighting in name of Islam and so calle Jehad are called Muslim terrorists. similarly, the abhinav Bharat terrorists are xcalled Hindu terrroists. Thus it is not just religion of the terrorist but his purpose and motivation determines whether he is a Hindu terrorist, Muslim terrorist or extreme left terrorist.  The link explains well. 

 

You are absolutely right at this point but in case of Muslim Terrorists when they kill Muslims in the name of Islam are still called Islamic Terrorists (Like ISI, Al-Quida etc are doing).

 

I agree with you. But one thing that is beyond  my comprehension . Why Killings should take place at all. Is it necessary and mandatory to kill persons because these people do not belong to a particular country or religion ?. Why Yakub Mamon killed killed innocents. Doesn't he know that there are Muslims also in the holocaust he created ? Is there a policy to these Barbarians ?

 

All animals kill to have their domination. We as humans also belong to the animal species. Our basic instincts are similar. We have invented sophisticated instruments to kill other human beings. Reason and labels may vary but killing is common tactic to achieve domination. 

The practice of Using weapons by the man to kill his prey was prevalent right from the caveman's age. These facts are well depicted through cave paintings of yore. Hence, as you said weapons are the age old practice to dominate one species over the species.

vijay wrote:

All animals kill to have their domination. We as humans also belong to the animal species. Our basic instincts are similar. We have invented sophisticated instruments to kill other human beings. Reason and labels may vary but killing is common tactic to achieve domination. 

 

But I was under the impression that animals only killed when they were hungry. They do not kill to have their dominance over anyone but the human is the only animal that kills for the sake of kick or for the purpose of showing his mastery over weaker ones. Some human races/persons go to any distance to prove their point.

suni51 wrote:

vijay wrote:

All animals kill to have their domination. We as humans also belong to the animal species. Our basic instincts are similar. We have invented sophisticated instruments to kill other human beings. Reason and labels may vary but killing is common tactic to achieve domination. 

 

But I was under the impression that animals only killed when they were hungry. They do not kill to have their dominance over anyone but the human is the only animal that kills for the sake of kick or for the purpose of showing his mastery over weaker ones. Some human races/persons go to any distance to prove their point.

 

Animals kill other animals when they are hungry. This is one aspect. But Animals kill other animals with the motive of dominating is also another aspect.

" Survival of the Fittest " is not only a Jungle law it's true in every living organism. Here in this case man being the animal with brain and thinking power, took the advantage and gained dominance over the other species.

 

suni51 wrote:

vijay wrote:

All animals kill to have their domination. We as humans also belong to the animal species. Our basic instincts are similar. We have invented sophisticated instruments to kill other human beings. Reason and labels may vary but killing is common tactic to achieve domination. 

 

But I was under the impression that animals only killed when they were hungry. They do not kill to have their dominance over anyone but the human is the only animal that kills for the sake of kick or for the purpose of showing his mastery over weaker ones. Some human races/persons go to any distance to prove their point.

 

Very true, in that respect animals are far better than human beings although at times they do display animosity against a rival and go to any extent ..

Hunger is one reason why they kill. Up the chain they do kill for dominance because that ensures many supplies like food, sex, security, shelter etc. Man also needs all these and if necessary resorts to killing. Living beings have a desire to dominate and this is a undeniable fact. Those who say they do not have have accepted the realty and preach to the contrary. It is a perfectly normal desire but tempered by the fact that man can think and create systems where killing is not necessary. But to create that system killings do take palce right from Ashoka the Great's time till today and shall continue in future also. If groups of persons or even countries are not prepared to kill they fall prey to those who want to dominate them. Right or wrong that is the reality. Accept tt or not is one's choice. It is oneos choice to accept whether animals are better than humans. After all humans are also animals.

Survival of the fittest is the survival Sutra holds good be it in the Animal kingdom or human world. Fittest will survive a weakling perishes.

vijay wrote:

Hunger is one reason why they kill. Up the chain they do kill for dominance because that ensures many supplies like food, sex, security, shelter etc. Man also needs all these and if necessary resorts to killing. Living beings have a desire to dominate and this is a undeniable fact. Those who say they do not have have accepted the realty and preach to the contrary. It is a perfectly normal desire but tempered by the fact that man can think and create systems where killing is not necessary. But to create that system killings do take palce right from Ashoka the Great's time till today and shall continue in future also. If groups of persons or even countries are not prepared to kill they fall prey to those who want to dominate them. Right or wrong that is the reality. Accept tt or not is one's choice. It is oneos choice to accept whether animals are better than humans. After all humans are also animals.

I agree with you that animals in most cases kill for as you said in need of food, sex, security, shelter etc but man is the only animal that kills for these as well some absolutely needless reasons. The man kills in the name of religion, expansion, greed and simply for the kick of doing something different.

suni51 wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

suni51 wrote:

But who said a Maoist is not called a terrorist because he is a Hindu? I read many news items saying Maoists killed everyday in encounters.  A Terrorist is a terrorist whatever his religion. But if people want to use it for counter attacking purpose, that is something different.

 

Maoist is not called Hindu terroist even if he is Hindu because he does not raise Hindu slogans and does not fight ofr Hindutva or Hindu Rashtra. similarly, Turkish revolun are not called Muslim terroists even though they are Muslims. Those fighting in name of Islam and so calle Jehad are called Muslim terrorists. similarly, the abhinav Bharat terrorists are xcalled Hindu terrroists. Thus it is not just religion of the terrorist but his purpose and motivation determines whether he is a Hindu terrorist, Muslim terrorist or extreme left terrorist.  The link explains well. 

 

You are absolutely right at this point but in case of Muslim Terrorists when they kill Muslims in the name of Islam are still called Islamic Terrorists (Like ISI, Al-Quida etc are doing).

 

Yes. They are Islamic terrorists because they kill in name of Islam. They can kill even the Muslims who don't follow them blindly. 

 

Those who kill in the name of religion are religious terrorists and those who kill in name of ideology are ideological terrorists. Those who kill animals for sport are called killing for Trophies.

That doesn't make any difference. As long as the word Terrorist is there.

Maoist are Hindus and Christians too. They are called terrors. 

I'm of the opinion the word " Terror " itself is unwanted and objectionable.