aryan2007
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 0
aryan and stealth
be neutral and comment fairly.
compare the difference between ,18, 19 centuray and today.
k
Bhagat Singh did attack and tried to kill the British officer but mistakenly a native police official was killed isnt it???
Mistakenly.. duh...
He wanted to take revenge for killing the British official responsible for getting Lalaji murdered in a non-violent protest..
I see nothing wrong with that.. he just wanted to restore the Indian pride and teach a lesson to the British..
Udham Singh went all the way to UK.. to kill the then the gov of Punjab who was involved in Jallianwala Bagh,, he is a celebrated martyr too...
these acts were acts of barbarity .. these were responses to terrorism..
he did not have sophisticated weapons at that time whatever he had he used it isnt it???
He had bombs in the assembly.. he didn't kill anyone with it...
today's scenario is totally different with more weapons to use by all sides.
yep.. but in that when you don't have weapons and fighting an enemy who has weapons.. and that enemy kills you when you are protesting and not showing any violence...
even Gandhi did not approve of his way of fighting for freedom rather he was taking revenge for killiong of lala which can not be called freedom fight rather a revenge.
Killing a murderer to restore the pride of the nation is not wrong... that act was an act of a revolutionary.. He has very explicity said that the military wing of HSRA is nothing without its political wings.
He staged shows to protest the British, got arrested, then staged protests, he refused to snitch, he acknowledged all the charges, he died to be an inspiration to the masses..
He did justify violence against the guilty.. He actually moved the children(British I presume) away from the police station before shooting the Cop..
He refused to eat food for over a month to protest injustice and inhumanity in treating the goray and Indians..
He was fighting for his land... He did not discriminate against Muslims or Hindus.. he was against that..
if you justify his action than do have moral courage to accept that all those who are fighting foreign occupation today are fighting for freedom and they are also freedom fighters.
Anyone who is fighting for the cause and not killing innocent women and children whether they be Jihadi, Mujahideen, LTTE..
why does LTTE have no support in Rest of India because they are using terrorism to spread their message.. and killing innocents..
Why does your so called Kashmir Freedom Fighter has no sympathy from the world because they are fighting a political battle and calling it a religious one.. & at the same they are killing innocents(armymen are not innocent)... they are terrorising and torturing civvies..
Look at Kashmir from a third party POV.. these guys are armed and killing all iresp whether they are army people or not. they are killing Kashmiri non-muslims.. Kashmir is a diverse land.. how can you call Kashmir struggle a religious one.. when it is a political fight.. do you call them freedom fighters.. kudos.. I call them terrorists..
why did the Khalistani terrorists have no sympathy within the Sikhs.. because they were killing innocents..
Why do I not have sympathy to either Israelis or Palestinians because they hide behind innocents both, and then carry out suicide attacks and what not...
Dalai Lama is a freedom fighter..!!