Comments on: Clinton’s thoughts on the Chittisinghpura Massacre

By: Abhi

Abhi — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:04:41 +0000

I congratulate you for such a great job in cherrypicking passages from different sources. It is also wonderful that you mention that arch traitor, Pankaj Mishra in this context, since it is he with his wonderful investigative reporting, who first started this canard about the Indian Army's involvement in the massacre. I guess this is why he is now sitting in NY instead of India.

This is a post about Clinton and what HE believes. Every source I quote is in order to explain what HIS beliefs may be based upon, inlcuding the one by Mishra that expresses doubt about the original explanation. I have no patience at all for Nationalists who want to read something into this and make idiotic statments based on their own agenda. This is a post first and foremost about how Clinton views a particular incident.

I don't offer any orginal "theories" above. Everything in my post is a quote from an official source.

By: Krish

Krish — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:01:38 +0000

Also, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Indian Army knows that it is a fiercely secular organization, and “shouting hindu slogans” is something no army unit would do.

By: krish

krish — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:59:01 +0000

Abhi, I congratulate you for such a great job in cherrypicking passages from different sources. It is also wonderful that you mention that arch traitor, Pankaj Mishra in this context, since it is he with his wonderful investigative reporting, who first started this canard about the Indian Army's involvement in the massacre. I guess this is why he is now sitting in NY instead of India.

It is interesting to see how easily someone can rely solely on innuendo and "theories" to insinuate things about organizations like the Indian Army. I guess there is something inherently barbaric about us Indians which makes us likely perpetrators of such atrocities.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:33:59 +0000

Any quotes without original commentary and not directly related to discussion of this post will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

By: Abhi

Abhi — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:27:44 +0000

So that I don’t have to waste my time for the next several hours I have now changed the link to point to Amnesty International’s report. Guess what? Same quote.

By: Abhi

Abhi — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:23:21 +0000

But in addition to misreading the Outlook article, thanks also for linking to a Khalistani website in your haste to get to the truth (I look forward to links to jihadi websites on SM). I found this other nugget from the Council of Khalistan (aka wild-eyed crazies): "the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs and justify further repression."

SMR, Have you read any of the comments or are you just jumping in blindly here? I hate having to repeat myself in 50 different ways.

By: SouthWestAsian

SouthWestAsian — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:22:40 +0000

One more fact: There have been several attacks on Armed Forces Families stationed in J&K where wifes and small kids of Army men were killed by shooters wearing Army uniform. I am sure AI says that was also done with approval from GOI. Evil democratically elected leaders of India. I heard something on the same line about 9/11 and 7/7 too.

By: MoorNam

MoorNam — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:17:31 +0000

Is what you are saying that as a Hindu you would no longer support a candidate that believes that Hindus somewhere committed a crime?

Abhi,

When Khalistani websites claim something ridiculous, I don't mind it so much. Rabble rousers don't need evidence or facts to open their mouth.

But when an ex-President of USA quotes events, they must have some semblance of truth in them. They have to be known to the general public as facts, not rumours or hearsay. "Hindu militants killed Sikhs during Clinton visit" belongs in the same category as "Bush administration was behind 911 to facilitate Haliburton making war profits." When ex-presidents sing looney-tunes, there's usually an agenda behind it.

M. Nam

By: SouthWestAsian

SouthWestAsian — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:17:07 +0000

Thanks for putting in link from AI site. Lets now assume that what AI is saying is true. Which mean that it was Renegades(former MUSLIM militants turn pro govt guys) who did it with tactic approval from Armed Forces. And i guess there intention was to impress upon clinton that Pakistran is spreading terror in J&K. And they choose to do this by shouting Hindu slogans? AI is mathmatical calculation here is incomprehensible. If GOI really wanted the attack to look like one done by Pakistani Militants wouldnt they ask the renegades to shout Allah-O-Akbar?

By: SMR

SMR — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:16:48 +0000

Pickled Politics (which I have linked to) has a link to an Outlook Article which gives some possible motivations suggested by some.

Uhhh that Outlook article talks about how the Indian Army may have rounded up 5 entirely innocent Muslims and shot them as the Chhatisingpora accused (an equally heinous but different crime that has nothing to do with the slaughter of the sikhs).

But in addition to misreading the Outlook article, thanks also for linking to a Khalistani website in your haste to get to the truth (I look forward to links to jihadi websites on SM). I found this other nugget from the Council of Khalistan (aka wild-eyed crazies): "the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs and justify further repression."