<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Jun 7 2008, 11:31 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Jun 7 2008, 11:31 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This Freedom Team of India founder Sanjeev Sabhlok has no clue about desert cultoterrorism.[right][snapback]82482[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Either that, or Sabhlok is playing communistics and ignoring what he learnt on purpose. After all, check out his Liberal Party of India (LPI) linked off from his own page (which in turn is linked to from Shantanu's Satyameva Jayate site).
Have often given people the benefit of the doubt: assuming ignorance of facts rather than deception on their part. But if Sabhlok can write a book and set up a political party, perhaps he may not be innocently ignorant in the way many another may be.
http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity.com/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beware of these communal parties
Communalism of the Congress and BJP | BJP are not true Hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The two elements of the second line are links and the second contains for instance this unhistorical gem (must be Sabhlok's history rewriting again):
http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity...l/communal.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LPIâs rebuttal to Advani
[...]
"You and your predecessors CAUSED the partition of India by scaring Muslims. Many of your type resisted freedom. ....."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hysterical stuff. Where did they learn their history? Oh wait, it was probably from the novel "Indian history: our version of what would/could/should have happened" that they themselves wrote, then memorised and now parrot.
It was communists that were against India's independence and Hindus who fought for it. Congress for a long time never even asked for independence but merely requested "home rule, home rule". Meanwhile most Islamics in politics only agitated for their own independence so they could go back to their long-dead make-shift islamic "empire" in India and tyrant it out over Dharmics all over again.
Which links to this page where Opinion is substituted for History:
http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity...mmunal/bjp.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In my current <b>opinion</b>, it was not merely the events of 1906-1937 that led to a breakdown in relations between the two major religious groups in India; it was the thick headedness of the Congress in 1937 and the hatred displayed by the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 that led to the subsequent and huge bloodshed of the 20th century in India - the partition, the violence in Punjab and Kashmir, and now the continuing bloodshed as Muslim fanaticism retaliates against Hindu fanaticism within India itself. The Muslim league had become effectively impotent many times in its few decades of existence, as the Congress leaders engaged with Muslims, particularly in the Khilafat movement. Engaging with the minorities is crucial in easing their fears.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is sooooo much wrong in that one mini para I'm just going to let you read it.
These people do not merely want to make history all positive and nice (which would be an offence against History in itself), but they go even further: they like to twist matters around completely and make it look like
- islamics are merely 'retaliating' (to what? to Kaffirs existing in a distant land called Hindustan? Well, there's a name for that ya know - it's called <i>Jihad</i>...)
- and that partition was Hindus' fault <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (Don't ask, I couldn't explain their weirdo logic even if I wanted to)
Also, with all these pages lecturing the Hindus and the BJP - where are the pages lecturing the christoislamiterrorists?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shantanu, in my opinion, is a real seeker after the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Shantanu comes off as sincere. But why is he supporting these double-speaking history falsifiers?
He ought to investigate the dubiousness of the Freedom Team of India before endorsing them. They sound pretty much like the Lite version of the South Asian Communist Web (sacw) and of course the proudly communist whineblog "communalism-combat" in that they do not ask islam/islamics to change but only preach to Hindus that these should accomodate and accept (christo)islamiterrorism. Truth means nothing to communistas and psecularados. That is why in their view, history is merely a tool that is to be manipulated in order to then manipulate the present and future the way they want it. Dharmics, however, think of history as an objective list of what happened and when. Motivations should only be listed as factual if they were directly given by historical characters (or their narrators, as often happened with islamic tyrants regularly gloating in their chronicles over the mass bloodshed they caused) AND where these can be substantiated by other evidence such as archaeological indicators.
(The reason I added that "AND" portion was because the Romans were pretty nasty when it came to writing their "histories" on the conquest of the Celtic world. They never said straight out why they wanted to capture the Celtic strongholds like Bibracte - they preferred to pretend they were merely killing off "troublemakers" when what they really wanted was always kept carefully secret and has only been revealed by archeaology. So trusting to mere writings of historians and chroniclers is not always enough.)
What bothers me most is that Shantanu is advertising and endorsing these guys of the FTI/LPI when he seems like he ought to know better. And of course the fact that gullible Hindus may be wasting their precious votes on the likes of SACW-Lite.
Have often given people the benefit of the doubt: assuming ignorance of facts rather than deception on their part. But if Sabhlok can write a book and set up a political party, perhaps he may not be innocently ignorant in the way many another may be.
http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity.com/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beware of these communal parties
Communalism of the Congress and BJP | BJP are not true Hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The two elements of the second line are links and the second contains for instance this unhistorical gem (must be Sabhlok's history rewriting again):
http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity...l/communal.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LPIâs rebuttal to Advani
[...]
"You and your predecessors CAUSED the partition of India by scaring Muslims. Many of your type resisted freedom. ....."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hysterical stuff. Where did they learn their history? Oh wait, it was probably from the novel "Indian history: our version of what would/could/should have happened" that they themselves wrote, then memorised and now parrot.
It was communists that were against India's independence and Hindus who fought for it. Congress for a long time never even asked for independence but merely requested "home rule, home rule". Meanwhile most Islamics in politics only agitated for their own independence so they could go back to their long-dead make-shift islamic "empire" in India and tyrant it out over Dharmics all over again.
Which links to this page where Opinion is substituted for History:
http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity...mmunal/bjp.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In my current <b>opinion</b>, it was not merely the events of 1906-1937 that led to a breakdown in relations between the two major religious groups in India; it was the thick headedness of the Congress in 1937 and the hatred displayed by the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 that led to the subsequent and huge bloodshed of the 20th century in India - the partition, the violence in Punjab and Kashmir, and now the continuing bloodshed as Muslim fanaticism retaliates against Hindu fanaticism within India itself. The Muslim league had become effectively impotent many times in its few decades of existence, as the Congress leaders engaged with Muslims, particularly in the Khilafat movement. Engaging with the minorities is crucial in easing their fears.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is sooooo much wrong in that one mini para I'm just going to let you read it.
These people do not merely want to make history all positive and nice (which would be an offence against History in itself), but they go even further: they like to twist matters around completely and make it look like
- islamics are merely 'retaliating' (to what? to Kaffirs existing in a distant land called Hindustan? Well, there's a name for that ya know - it's called <i>Jihad</i>...)
- and that partition was Hindus' fault <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (Don't ask, I couldn't explain their weirdo logic even if I wanted to)
Also, with all these pages lecturing the Hindus and the BJP - where are the pages lecturing the christoislamiterrorists?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shantanu, in my opinion, is a real seeker after the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Shantanu comes off as sincere. But why is he supporting these double-speaking history falsifiers?
He ought to investigate the dubiousness of the Freedom Team of India before endorsing them. They sound pretty much like the Lite version of the South Asian Communist Web (sacw) and of course the proudly communist whineblog "communalism-combat" in that they do not ask islam/islamics to change but only preach to Hindus that these should accomodate and accept (christo)islamiterrorism. Truth means nothing to communistas and psecularados. That is why in their view, history is merely a tool that is to be manipulated in order to then manipulate the present and future the way they want it. Dharmics, however, think of history as an objective list of what happened and when. Motivations should only be listed as factual if they were directly given by historical characters (or their narrators, as often happened with islamic tyrants regularly gloating in their chronicles over the mass bloodshed they caused) AND where these can be substantiated by other evidence such as archaeological indicators.
(The reason I added that "AND" portion was because the Romans were pretty nasty when it came to writing their "histories" on the conquest of the Celtic world. They never said straight out why they wanted to capture the Celtic strongholds like Bibracte - they preferred to pretend they were merely killing off "troublemakers" when what they really wanted was always kept carefully secret and has only been revealed by archeaology. So trusting to mere writings of historians and chroniclers is not always enough.)
What bothers me most is that Shantanu is advertising and endorsing these guys of the FTI/LPI when he seems like he ought to know better. And of course the fact that gullible Hindus may be wasting their precious votes on the likes of SACW-Lite.