Beautiful young Russian girl GANG-RAPED by 6 men in India
- Thread starter PashtunBradar
- Start date
- Status
Thumboor
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2018
- Messages
- 125
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Just taking in the local culture.New Delhi: Indian police were holding six men on Thursday after a Russian tourist was allegedly drugged and gang-raped in a popular southern tourist town, officials said.
Media reports said the 21-year-old had bite marks on her face and arms when she was found naked and unconscious on the floor of her hostel room early on Monday.
“Six men have been detained over the rape and drugging of the woman,” investigating officer Mangayar Karasi told AFP.
The woman, who was travelling on her own, had arrived in the town of Tiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu state, 190 kilometres (120 miles) from Chennai, last Thursday.
Those in custody included the hostel manger and her tourist guide, who told police he found her on the floor hours after they had consensual sex, another investigator said.
She said the woman was being treated in hospital for a drug overdose and minor injuries, with efforts being made to record her statement.
The medical report has confirmed sexual assault, the officer said.
Local and foreign tourists flock to Tiruvannamalai for its 9th-century Annamalaiyar Temple, one of the largest Hindu temple complexes spread over 25 acres.
Sexual violence is rife in India with nearly 110 rapes reported every day but activists say that figure is the tip of the iceberg as most cases go unreported.
Several foreign tourists have been sexually assaulted in India in recent months.
Last month a Japanese tourist was raped by a taxi driver in a north Indian town, followed by the rape of a 20-year-old Canadian tourist by her guesthouse owner in Delhi.
India’s junior interior minister Wednesday told the national parliament that 110,333 rape cases were reported in the country between 2014 and 2016.
The country’s dire record on sexual violence has been in the global spotlight since the 2012 gang-rape and murder of a woman on a New Delhi bus sparked angry protests.
The incident led to tougher sentences and reforms in the country’s rape laws but sexual crime against women, as well as against minors, remain rampant.
https://gulfnews.com/news/asia/india/russian-tourist-allegedly-gang-raped-in-india-1.2254063
Sorry , to say , 30% are domestic , Balance are NRP, rest are Blackops....and Most PAK develop the habit of lies and present thing in fantasy,Lmao as if Hindustan is free of that.
Keep living in fantasy land.
Wrong, we see roughly 2 million a year as of 2017:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1403800
Considering how much smaller we are than you in terms of area and population and the fact our country is viewed much more negatively in most parts of the world, that statistic is far more impressive.
those visited 10K , are Security Guards and diplomats and Chinese who doing construction
Lmao as if Hindustan is free of that.
Keep living in fantasy land.
Wrong, we see roughly 2 million a year as of 2017:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1403800
Considering how much smaller we are than you in terms of area and population and the fact our country is viewed much more negatively in most parts of the world, that statistic is far more impressive.
lol.... In PAK , If Rape is NOT watched n enjoyed by 5 Male witness is not consider RAPE. thats why PAK has NO reported rape...
Chinese
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-04/18/content_12348485.htm
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-04/18/content_12348485.htm
read this ... dude, You consider support rapist,, Watch HK
In India single person rape are not reported or ignored by indian police, only brutal gang- rapes are considered crime
Hamza913
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 8,954
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
The only part of your BS post that is right is that 30% of tourists are domestic, but I'm pretty sure the same can be said for tourists to Hindustan.
Incorrect, it used to require 4 witnesses but that law has (thankfully) been changed. Also, Hindustan would have plenty of unreported rapes too since it's socially stigmatised to such a high degree and is such a common occurrence in some places I doubt many people would bother.
Hamza913
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 8,954
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Wrong, read it again. Only 30% of those visitors were people of Pakistani origin.
khansaheeb
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 17,009
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Fear of Islam Leads India to Snub Refugees
Why a Bollywood star caught flak for visiting a camp for Rohingya Muslims in Bangladesh.
UNICEF goodwill ambassador Priyanka Chopra speaks at a news conference at Le Meridien Hotel in Dhaka, Bangladesh on May 24. PHOTO:SONY RAMANY/ZUMA PRESS
By
Sadanand Dhume
May 31, 2018 7:03 p.m. ET
102 COMMENTS
Who could object to a movie star visiting a refugee camp? Yet when Priyanka Chopra visited Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh last week, Indians bombarded her Instagram andFacebook accounts with protests. Some demanded to know why Ms. Chopra, best known in the U.S. for the TV drama “Quantico,” had not visited Hindu refugees who fled Muslim-majority Indian Kashmir nearly three decades ago.
India’s response to the Rohingya crisis next door has been hijacked by domestic identity politics. Though India borders both Myanmar and Bangladesh, it has shied away from a major role in resolving the crisis that erupted last year when the Myanmar military forced some 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh.
India is attempting to deport the 40,000 Rohingya who have trickled in over the years. “We do not want India to become the refugee capital of the world,” a government lawyer told the Supreme Court earlier this year. The Rohingya question has become entwined with anxieties about a growing Muslim population, fears of terrorism, and the fraught history of Kashmir.
Thus while much of the world sees the Rohingya as persecuted refugees, many Indians, especially supporters of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, view them as a threat. This constrains India’s ability to help. China has stepped in to mediate between Myanmar and Bangladesh.
India’s cold shoulder to the Rohingya marks a departure from its traditional approach toward its region’s huddled masses. In the 1950s, India embraced Tibetan Buddhists fleeing Maoist China, including, most famously, the Dalai Lama. In the 1970s, the Pakistan army’s scorched-earth campaign to thwart Bangladeshi independence forced 10 million refugees, Hindus and Muslims, into India. In the 1980s, thousands of Tamils escaping persecution in Sri Lanka boarded boats to India. A small number of Afghans moved to Delhi and other cities.
So why is India treating the Rohingya differently? For starters, religious fault lines have deepened. According to Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, India sees the Rohingya “from a single obsessive prism—that they’re Muslim.” In an era of Hindu nationalism, this alone is enough to dry up sympathy.
The national conversation about the community has hitched itself to deeper anxieties about religious demography. In 1951, four years after the departing British cleaved Muslim-majority Pakistan out of India, Hindus accounted for 85% of the Indian population. By 2011 this had gradually declined to 79%. Over the same period, India’s Muslim population rose to 14% from 10%—or to 172 million from 35 million—the world’s third-largest Muslim population, behind Indonesia and Pakistan. India’s Muslims aren’t spread out evenly. They account for nearly a fifth of the population in Uttar Pradesh, more than a fourth in Kerala and West Bengal, and more than a third in the northeastern state of Assam.
In most of these states, the Hindu nationalist BJP finds itself battling parties that rely in large measure on Muslim voters. The pressures of competitive politics in a first-past-the-post system combined with shifting demographics have encouraged a national conversation in which fear often trumps fact.
It isn’t uncommon for BJP supporters to argue that the Rohingya are part of an elaborate plot to Islamize India. That many of them settled in the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir adds a patina of plausibility to this conspiratorial take.
Finally, Indian liberal elites have hurt the Rohingya by tending to play down the violence associated with terrorist groups such as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. According to the Jamestown Foundation and others, ARSA is led by Ataullah Abu Ammar Jununi, a Rohingya born in Karachi, Pakistan, and raised in Saudi Arabia. The Myanmar government blames ARSA for attacks on border-police posts that preceded last year’s stepped-up violence against the Rohingya.
Last week Amnesty International accused ARSA fighters of murdering scores of Hindus in Myanmar last year. In one incident, the militants reportedly killed 53 Hindus execution-style, and spared eight women and their children only after they agreed to convert to Islam. Not surprisingly, foes of the Rohingya jumped on the Amnesty report to discredit the argument that India ought to treat the refugees kindly.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
India’s reluctance to treat the Rohingya the way it has treated other refugees may be explicable, but that doesn’t make it right. It should not take more than common sense to see that the tiny Rohingya minority poses no demographic threat to India’s huge Hindu majority, or that almost all Rohingya are impoverished refugees, not hardened terrorists. It shouldn’t be hard for the world’s largest democracy to show a little more compassion for the world’s most persecuted minority.
Why a Bollywood star caught flak for visiting a camp for Rohingya Muslims in Bangladesh.
UNICEF goodwill ambassador Priyanka Chopra speaks at a news conference at Le Meridien Hotel in Dhaka, Bangladesh on May 24. PHOTO:SONY RAMANY/ZUMA PRESS
By
Sadanand Dhume
May 31, 2018 7:03 p.m. ET
102 COMMENTS
Who could object to a movie star visiting a refugee camp? Yet when Priyanka Chopra visited Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh last week, Indians bombarded her Instagram andFacebook accounts with protests. Some demanded to know why Ms. Chopra, best known in the U.S. for the TV drama “Quantico,” had not visited Hindu refugees who fled Muslim-majority Indian Kashmir nearly three decades ago.
India’s response to the Rohingya crisis next door has been hijacked by domestic identity politics. Though India borders both Myanmar and Bangladesh, it has shied away from a major role in resolving the crisis that erupted last year when the Myanmar military forced some 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh.
India is attempting to deport the 40,000 Rohingya who have trickled in over the years. “We do not want India to become the refugee capital of the world,” a government lawyer told the Supreme Court earlier this year. The Rohingya question has become entwined with anxieties about a growing Muslim population, fears of terrorism, and the fraught history of Kashmir.
Thus while much of the world sees the Rohingya as persecuted refugees, many Indians, especially supporters of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, view them as a threat. This constrains India’s ability to help. China has stepped in to mediate between Myanmar and Bangladesh.
India’s cold shoulder to the Rohingya marks a departure from its traditional approach toward its region’s huddled masses. In the 1950s, India embraced Tibetan Buddhists fleeing Maoist China, including, most famously, the Dalai Lama. In the 1970s, the Pakistan army’s scorched-earth campaign to thwart Bangladeshi independence forced 10 million refugees, Hindus and Muslims, into India. In the 1980s, thousands of Tamils escaping persecution in Sri Lanka boarded boats to India. A small number of Afghans moved to Delhi and other cities.
So why is India treating the Rohingya differently? For starters, religious fault lines have deepened. According to Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, India sees the Rohingya “from a single obsessive prism—that they’re Muslim.” In an era of Hindu nationalism, this alone is enough to dry up sympathy.
The national conversation about the community has hitched itself to deeper anxieties about religious demography. In 1951, four years after the departing British cleaved Muslim-majority Pakistan out of India, Hindus accounted for 85% of the Indian population. By 2011 this had gradually declined to 79%. Over the same period, India’s Muslim population rose to 14% from 10%—or to 172 million from 35 million—the world’s third-largest Muslim population, behind Indonesia and Pakistan. India’s Muslims aren’t spread out evenly. They account for nearly a fifth of the population in Uttar Pradesh, more than a fourth in Kerala and West Bengal, and more than a third in the northeastern state of Assam.
In most of these states, the Hindu nationalist BJP finds itself battling parties that rely in large measure on Muslim voters. The pressures of competitive politics in a first-past-the-post system combined with shifting demographics have encouraged a national conversation in which fear often trumps fact.
It isn’t uncommon for BJP supporters to argue that the Rohingya are part of an elaborate plot to Islamize India. That many of them settled in the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir adds a patina of plausibility to this conspiratorial take.
Finally, Indian liberal elites have hurt the Rohingya by tending to play down the violence associated with terrorist groups such as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. According to the Jamestown Foundation and others, ARSA is led by Ataullah Abu Ammar Jununi, a Rohingya born in Karachi, Pakistan, and raised in Saudi Arabia. The Myanmar government blames ARSA for attacks on border-police posts that preceded last year’s stepped-up violence against the Rohingya.
Last week Amnesty International accused ARSA fighters of murdering scores of Hindus in Myanmar last year. In one incident, the militants reportedly killed 53 Hindus execution-style, and spared eight women and their children only after they agreed to convert to Islam. Not surprisingly, foes of the Rohingya jumped on the Amnesty report to discredit the argument that India ought to treat the refugees kindly.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
India’s reluctance to treat the Rohingya the way it has treated other refugees may be explicable, but that doesn’t make it right. It should not take more than common sense to see that the tiny Rohingya minority poses no demographic threat to India’s huge Hindu majority, or that almost all Rohingya are impoverished refugees, not hardened terrorists. It shouldn’t be hard for the world’s largest democracy to show a little more compassion for the world’s most persecuted minority.
I have done my part and convinced at least 5 to 6 women travellers from visiting India until now. Will continue to do so until all the sexually frustrated monkeys are either exterminated or taught to control their urges forcefully.
HAIDER
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 21, 2006
- Messages
- 33,771
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
From sacred cows to women .....
- Status
Latest posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
