1. Here ravish assumes (twice!) that the rape of the nun occurred and that Hindus did it.
<!--QuoteBegin-ravish+Oct 27 2008, 04:09 PM-->QUOTE(ravish @ Oct 27 2008, 04:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We do not condone the violence or the rape of the nun.[right][snapback]89517[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the raped nun and the concern voiced by the Pope and the Christian world<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Even the Indian media has referred to it as 'alleged' rape, which is what it is until further evidence is discovered.
There is this little thing known as Innocent Until Proven Guilty, ya know. But not for psecular ravish - not when Hindus are among the accused, at any rate.
2. Meanwhile ravish makes another assumption - in favour of christianism, in case people weren't expecting it - and calls the Pope "his holyness" ("HH") <i>twice</i>:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the utterances of HH the Pope and his associates in India and elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HH the Pope is paid to make noise in the appropriate forum for the protection of the Christians whom he represents.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Popes are not holy. Popes have been rapists, murderers, con-artists (relics, forgeries), vandals, book-burners (and library burners), slave holders, and oh yeah - incestuous and paedophilic. But holy - now that would be a first. See Details from the lives of some early Popes
3. Where did ravish study? (Did he study at all, may be a more pertinent question.) Doesn't he know that most of britain is not catholic now nor was during the christobritish empire? It was mostly anglican, which is a kind of faux-protestantism. It was specifically <i>not</i> papist, therefore where does the imaginary respect ravish alleges that Indians have for the pope come from - can't be from the christobrits, after all. Perhaps ravish means it came from the christoportuguese or christofrench colonialists, but then they didn't control that much landmass in India:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ravish: Due to 200 years of slavery under the British, many of my countrymen are always respectful to <b>the religion of the Emperor</b>. Even after, sixty years of our existence as citizens of a free nation, <b>due to our English education and Western ideas and thinking, we are prone to give very special treatment to the utterances of HH the Pope and his associates in India and elsewhere.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your Emperor is dead, by the way. But his religion was *anglicanism*. As was the religion of your British empress, queen, king - whatever titles they took.
And the words of the pope - who is 'HH' to you - is given such special treatment only by you (among the claimants to Hinduism), as far as I can tell.
Don't know why I'm going to try reasoning with ravish - annoying reasonable IF has rubbed off on me momentarily (IF: <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Ravish, you have a terrible habit of blathering without giving any supporting evidence for the vast amount of nonsense you impose on everybody. Why do you do it? Who do you think you're convincing?
Prove your claims ravish:
That the latest alleged nun rape case is true <i>and</i> that her alleged attacker(s) was/were Hindu.
Don't post again until you have evidence to prove <i>both</i> parts of that statement. (References to the 'Indian' christomedia grapevine do <b>not</b> count.)
Following not aimed at the ravish character anymore:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ravish: There is absolutely no need to over react and be on the defensive as if it is only in India that communal violence takes place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The communal violence in India is instigated by christoislamic aggression and outright terrorist activity. The islamics like to terrorise as do the christian militants of the NE and Orissa, while the christos in Karnataka and TN and elsewhere like to abuse Hindu Dharma, precipitate a backlash and then cry to their foreign handlers about how "the Evil Hindoos Got Angry And Didn't Take To Jeebus" in spite of their christo-abuse.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->there is no guarantee that such a thing will not happen in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, wherever there is christoislamicommunazism these things will keep happening, because they will keep terrorising people. That's what they <b><i>do</i></b>.
Get rid of the terrorist memes and people will be free to live in peace.
<!--QuoteBegin-ravish+Oct 27 2008, 04:09 PM-->QUOTE(ravish @ Oct 27 2008, 04:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We do not condone the violence or the rape of the nun.[right][snapback]89517[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the raped nun and the concern voiced by the Pope and the Christian world<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Even the Indian media has referred to it as 'alleged' rape, which is what it is until further evidence is discovered.
There is this little thing known as Innocent Until Proven Guilty, ya know. But not for psecular ravish - not when Hindus are among the accused, at any rate.
2. Meanwhile ravish makes another assumption - in favour of christianism, in case people weren't expecting it - and calls the Pope "his holyness" ("HH") <i>twice</i>:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the utterances of HH the Pope and his associates in India and elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HH the Pope is paid to make noise in the appropriate forum for the protection of the Christians whom he represents.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Popes are not holy. Popes have been rapists, murderers, con-artists (relics, forgeries), vandals, book-burners (and library burners), slave holders, and oh yeah - incestuous and paedophilic. But holy - now that would be a first. See Details from the lives of some early Popes
3. Where did ravish study? (Did he study at all, may be a more pertinent question.) Doesn't he know that most of britain is not catholic now nor was during the christobritish empire? It was mostly anglican, which is a kind of faux-protestantism. It was specifically <i>not</i> papist, therefore where does the imaginary respect ravish alleges that Indians have for the pope come from - can't be from the christobrits, after all. Perhaps ravish means it came from the christoportuguese or christofrench colonialists, but then they didn't control that much landmass in India:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ravish: Due to 200 years of slavery under the British, many of my countrymen are always respectful to <b>the religion of the Emperor</b>. Even after, sixty years of our existence as citizens of a free nation, <b>due to our English education and Western ideas and thinking, we are prone to give very special treatment to the utterances of HH the Pope and his associates in India and elsewhere.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your Emperor is dead, by the way. But his religion was *anglicanism*. As was the religion of your British empress, queen, king - whatever titles they took.
And the words of the pope - who is 'HH' to you - is given such special treatment only by you (among the claimants to Hinduism), as far as I can tell.
Don't know why I'm going to try reasoning with ravish - annoying reasonable IF has rubbed off on me momentarily (IF: <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Ravish, you have a terrible habit of blathering without giving any supporting evidence for the vast amount of nonsense you impose on everybody. Why do you do it? Who do you think you're convincing?
Prove your claims ravish:
That the latest alleged nun rape case is true <i>and</i> that her alleged attacker(s) was/were Hindu.
Don't post again until you have evidence to prove <i>both</i> parts of that statement. (References to the 'Indian' christomedia grapevine do <b>not</b> count.)
Following not aimed at the ravish character anymore:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ravish: There is absolutely no need to over react and be on the defensive as if it is only in India that communal violence takes place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The communal violence in India is instigated by christoislamic aggression and outright terrorist activity. The islamics like to terrorise as do the christian militants of the NE and Orissa, while the christos in Karnataka and TN and elsewhere like to abuse Hindu Dharma, precipitate a backlash and then cry to their foreign handlers about how "the Evil Hindoos Got Angry And Didn't Take To Jeebus" in spite of their christo-abuse.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->there is no guarantee that such a thing will not happen in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, wherever there is christoislamicommunazism these things will keep happening, because they will keep terrorising people. That's what they <b><i>do</i></b>.
Get rid of the terrorist memes and people will be free to live in peace.