Srilankan population may be grouped under : a) Srilankan forces, b)Non-Tamil Srilankan civilians, c) LTTE militants, d) Tamil LTTE sympathisers, e) Non-LTTE-sympathiser Tamils. I suppose this is a fairly well defined, nonoverlapping grouping. In a war-like situation, can a)  really make out who belongs to c, d or e ? Unlike in a conventional war, collateral damage can't be avoided in guerilla acts of militancy.

Joshipura,

You are still talking about the LTTE. The propsed UN resolution is against the Sri Lankan government on alleged human rights violations of Tamil civilians.

 For a change, RSS is talking sense. Eliminating LTTE is not the same as killing the Tamil people on the Island. 

The point is, if ever the Shia government crush heavily armed minority (Sunni) which is terrorizing majority (Shia) which would be comparable to what happened in Sri Lanka where heavily armed minority (LTTE) was terrorizing majority and the government crushed minority.  East Pakistanis might have been weaker but they were in a majority and except very few incidences, were not terrorizing government.  All they were demanding was duely elected Mujibur Rehman be given PM-ship.

>> What West Pakistanis did to East Pakistanis is completely different.

East Pakistanis were the weaker section of Pakistan. The point is about government troops killing civilians, as they did in Sri Lanka and East Pakistan, but not in the Shia-Sunni killings in Iraq.

RSS has properly described LTTE, their capabilities and their action.  To compare LTTE with any other minorities in Pakistan or Bangladesh is, at best dis-honest.  What West Pakistanis did to East Pakistanis is completely different.  First of all Begalies in East Pakistan were in majority not minority.  For apple to apple comparison, the closest case would be Iraq where Sunni minorities are creating havoc on Shia majority.  If someday after suffering Sunni atrocities for years, Shia majority crushed Sunni minority would West arrange such resolution against Shia of Iraq?

>> Did the RSS also support the right of Pakistan to slaughter Bangladeshis in 1971?

Let me try and understand. When RSS talks about a resolution on Lanka, you wonder if they did something similar for Pukistan.

But when someone asks a sickular talking about Gujarat if they said the same for 84, why do you start whining like a stuck pig?

>>Did the RSS also support the right of Pakistan to slaughter Bangladeshis in 1971?

Only hate filled jihadis can see such hidden meaning in the above article.

The RSS is wiser than the BJP when it comes to this - because really WHO in India is most likely to be haulted up in an international court for genocide and crimes against humanity?

 I think RSS is influenced by Tamil Brahmins who have an hatred for anything related to "Tamil" causes. This is the unfortunate by-product of the "Dravidian" movement and its hatred for Brahmins. 

Does the same logic apply in the case of RSS talking about Bangladeshi Hindus?.

Does RSS have a right to talk about Hindu minorities in other "democratically elected" countries?.

"....the RSS today said India should not support the US-sponsored resolution in the UN against the Sri Lankan government on alleged human rights violations, calling it an attempt by the west to dictate to a democratic government."

The RSS is true to its creed. Massacring minorities is the sovereign right of "democratic governments". Did the RSS also support the right of Pakistan to slaughter Bangladeshis in 1971?

now that is something.

>>Did the RSS also support the right of Pakistan to slaughter Bangladeshis in 1971?

Only hate filled jihadis can see such hidden meaning in the above article.

>> Did the RSS also support the right of Pakistan to slaughter Bangladeshis in 1971?

Let me try and understand. When RSS talks about a resolution on Lanka, you wonder if they did something similar for Pukistan.

But when someone asks a sickular talking about Gujarat if they said the same for 84, why do you start whining like a stuck pig?

Does the same logic apply in the case of RSS talking about Bangladeshi Hindus?.

Does RSS have a right to talk about Hindu minorities in other "democratically elected" countries?.

 I think RSS is influenced by Tamil Brahmins who have an hatred for anything related to "Tamil" causes. This is the unfortunate by-product of the "Dravidian" movement and its hatred for Brahmins. 

"....the RSS today said India should not support the US-sponsored resolution in the UN against the Sri Lankan government on alleged human rights violations, calling it an attempt by the west to dictate to a democratic government."

The RSS is true to its creed. Massacring minorities is the sovereign right of "democratic governments". Did the RSS also support the right of Pakistan to slaughter Bangladeshis in 1971?

Srilankan population may be grouped under : a) Srilankan forces, b)Non-Tamil Srilankan civilians, c) LTTE militants, d) Tamil LTTE sympathisers, e) Non-LTTE-sympathiser Tamils. I suppose this is a fairly well defined, nonoverlapping grouping. In a war-like situation, can a)  really make out who belongs to c, d or e ? Unlike in a conventional war, collateral damage can't be avoided in guerilla acts of militancy.

"....the RSS today said India should not support the US-sponsored resolution in the UN against the Sri Lankan government on alleged human rights violations, calling it an attempt by the west to dictate to a democratic government."

The RSS is true to its creed. Massacring minorities is the sovereign right of "democratic governments". Did the RSS also support the right of Pakistan to slaughter Bangladeshis in 1971?

The RSS is wiser than the BJP when it comes to this - because really WHO in India is most likely to be haulted up in an international court for genocide and crimes against humanity?

 I think RSS is influenced by Tamil Brahmins who have an hatred for anything related to "Tamil" causes. This is the unfortunate by-product of the "Dravidian" movement and its hatred for Brahmins. 

>> What West Pakistanis did to East Pakistanis is completely different.

East Pakistanis were the weaker section of Pakistan. The point is about government troops killing civilians, as they did in Sri Lanka and East Pakistan, but not in the Shia-Sunni killings in Iraq.

Does the same logic apply in the case of RSS talking about Bangladeshi Hindus?.

Does RSS have a right to talk about Hindu minorities in other "democratically elected" countries?.