<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Mar 2 2008, 10:47 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Mar 2 2008, 10:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->they banned Lagaan and 'A Case for India'.[right][snapback]79179[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They really banned Lagaan? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Then again that's quite in line with their behaviour, when even their flagship, the BBC, is into censorship (still):
Banning songs not a rare occurrence for the BBC
Can't imagine why they <i>wouldn't</i> have banned Durant's Case for India.
Freedom of speech is only an idea they want their psecular soldiers in the "3rd World" to gobble and thus enforce/trickle down on others there. That way their psecular footmen can rush up to defend MF Hussein's "freedom of speech" to paint offensive garbage and Sonia's christo and christo-conditioned minions declaring our Rama and RamarSethu as a "myth".
Meanwhile, for themselves, the west will reserve the right to ban anything offensive or provocative - most certainly if it's something that proves the barbarity of the christobritish 'civilising' mission in India (or anything exposing the non-historicity of that 'beloved' fable jesus).
I do understand their position: because the truth <i>will</i> greatly offend them (and turn inside-out their thus-far false perception of their own history).
Then again that's quite in line with their behaviour, when even their flagship, the BBC, is into censorship (still):
Banning songs not a rare occurrence for the BBC
Can't imagine why they <i>wouldn't</i> have banned Durant's Case for India.
Freedom of speech is only an idea they want their psecular soldiers in the "3rd World" to gobble and thus enforce/trickle down on others there. That way their psecular footmen can rush up to defend MF Hussein's "freedom of speech" to paint offensive garbage and Sonia's christo and christo-conditioned minions declaring our Rama and RamarSethu as a "myth".
Meanwhile, for themselves, the west will reserve the right to ban anything offensive or provocative - most certainly if it's something that proves the barbarity of the christobritish 'civilising' mission in India (or anything exposing the non-historicity of that 'beloved' fable jesus).
I do understand their position: because the truth <i>will</i> greatly offend them (and turn inside-out their thus-far false perception of their own history).
Death to traitors.