08-21-2011, 02:27 PM
"Husky terrorism"? That inane retort to a legitimate question doesn't even pass for wit.
You must feel persecuted all the time: "Oh my gawd, my shadow keeps *stalking* me every night. It's terrorism, I tell you! Terrorism!" Yeah, *sure* it is...
1/2
Mrs Rajan quoted someone she referred to as a PIO (I guess they hold an OCI?):
But consider the shock to the PIO person above - busy mounting their watertight defence of Swamy - had Swamy done the Hindu thing and disowned his daughter for marrying a muslim (like the Parsees' religion automatically disowned his wife; one doesn't call Parsees bigots for it). Imagine the "terrorism" of him being called a "BIGOT" then. (Of course, the simple fact of the matter is that Hindus can never be called bigots anyway, because Bigot is literally a synonym for a christian.)
But the question was on what example Dr Subramaniam Swamy has himself set in the very matter he spoke on, in order for Hindus to accept his lectures on what they should do about *christoislamic* terrorism. The question won't go away merely because of irrelevant (and mad) retorts.
- Dr Swamy is free to lecture a Hindu audience about politics etc. That's fine. He can even lecture them on nationalism (since Indian nationalism has come to be equated with unity with christoislamism in India, after all. We're all Indians here. Well, minus the Goan christians, the Kashmiri muslim seccessionists and so too the christian ones in the NE, etc. All of whom insist they are not Indian yet want to take Indian land with them.)
- But Swamy can't lecture Hindus on what they should do about christoislamic terrorism, because 1. islam (like christianism) IS the reason and cause for islamic terrorism, i.e. christianism-islam IS terrorism. And 2. his son-in-law is a muslim = part of the ummah = the hand that implements islam. And 3. Swamy's never turned his daughter out for marrying into islam, but lives with it (apparently "closest of relations" with muslim son-in-law.) Swami's not giving Hindus any reason to trust him - though some clearly trust him implicitly.
But since he's done nothing about islam at home, why would Hindus listen to him telling them what to do about (christo)islam in the homeland? It sounds like so much inconsistency: sounds like asking people to do what you can't/won't do yourself.
You must feel persecuted all the time: "Oh my gawd, my shadow keeps *stalking* me every night. It's terrorism, I tell you! Terrorism!" Yeah, *sure* it is...
1/2
Mrs Rajan quoted someone she referred to as a PIO (I guess they hold an OCI?):
Quote:I cannot understand how anyone can call Dr. Subramanian Swamy a BIGOT. Dr. Swamyââ¬â¢s brother-in-law is Jewish, his son-in-law Muslim, his sister-in-law Christian and his wife Parsi. One of his two daughters is married to an Indian Muslim with whom he has closest relations, and therefore how can he possibly be a bigot against the Indian Muslims or Christians.Classic. Swamy's multicultural family's married into not one but all 4 monotheisms at once, of which 2 are aggressively missionising ones. (To be fair, one is not allowed to count his "Parsi wife" as a Parsee: the religion of the Parsees is closed off to any who have married out. Including any offspring thereof, which means none of Swamy's kids can ever be Parsees. I don't make the rules, I'm just repeating them.)
But consider the shock to the PIO person above - busy mounting their watertight defence of Swamy - had Swamy done the Hindu thing and disowned his daughter for marrying a muslim (like the Parsees' religion automatically disowned his wife; one doesn't call Parsees bigots for it). Imagine the "terrorism" of him being called a "BIGOT" then. (Of course, the simple fact of the matter is that Hindus can never be called bigots anyway, because Bigot is literally a synonym for a christian.)
But the question was on what example Dr Subramaniam Swamy has himself set in the very matter he spoke on, in order for Hindus to accept his lectures on what they should do about *christoislamic* terrorism. The question won't go away merely because of irrelevant (and mad) retorts.
- Dr Swamy is free to lecture a Hindu audience about politics etc. That's fine. He can even lecture them on nationalism (since Indian nationalism has come to be equated with unity with christoislamism in India, after all. We're all Indians here. Well, minus the Goan christians, the Kashmiri muslim seccessionists and so too the christian ones in the NE, etc. All of whom insist they are not Indian yet want to take Indian land with them.)
- But Swamy can't lecture Hindus on what they should do about christoislamic terrorism, because 1. islam (like christianism) IS the reason and cause for islamic terrorism, i.e. christianism-islam IS terrorism. And 2. his son-in-law is a muslim = part of the ummah = the hand that implements islam. And 3. Swamy's never turned his daughter out for marrying into islam, but lives with it (apparently "closest of relations" with muslim son-in-law.) Swami's not giving Hindus any reason to trust him - though some clearly trust him implicitly.
But since he's done nothing about islam at home, why would Hindus listen to him telling them what to do about (christo)islam in the homeland? It sounds like so much inconsistency: sounds like asking people to do what you can't/won't do yourself.
Death to traitors.