Jump to content

User talk:Hkelkar/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Ignorance

Well, if you go by that way then christ is for Christainity, Buddha is for Buddhism, Mahaveer Jain is for jainism and the list goes on. The point is simple if you use by this way then mohammeddian is for muslim, which is wrong. Infact people due to ignorancy, misinterpret the term as they are not aware as what the term means.The term "mohammedian" is term to be "offensive" to Muslims Mohammedan, universities coutrs Islamic views Though you said "not workship" is true but I am just trying to educate you on these "offensive" terms

Mujeerkhan 11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't linkspam my talk page.Hkelkar 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Going by your loginc Mujirkhan, Dalai Lama is either ignorant or offensive here, when he calls muslims mohammedans.nids(♂) 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As did several popes and several scholars such as this:

Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p. 9-10 plus I already mentioned Will Durant and Serge Triflovich before.Hkelkar 09:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Thats an offence of islam, what if people say the followers of ram as ramism, followers of krishna as krishnism, followers of durga as durgaism would that not create a offence (i am not insulting anyone) since centuries people have called muslim as mohamaddeians because they simply thought that muslim workship mohammed and not allah just like christians workship jesus, buddha to buddhism, adam to adamism, Abraham to abrahism etc. can you have any why muslim should be called as mohammedian?

Hkelkar, mujeerkhan had given you links to which i saw a few hours ago and you have removed them saying as linkspam. What about others!when they provide link to sources...would you say linkspam.Please dont remove anything according to wikiRemove personal attacks "Don't destroy context". Shezaad786 13:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Er don't mis-cite wikipedia policy. RPA has nothing to do with Linkspam. Plus, if it's ok for the Dalai Lama it's okay for me.Hkelkar 10:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


"Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, Mohammedanism is the only truth, the only religion" u know what that means mohammedanism is the only truth and the only relegion..tries to say mohammedanism is a relegion how akward! i am quite puzzled that dalia lama ever said this.

The site which is referred is a propoganda site and violates WP:Reliable Sources which spreads the word for freedom in tibet from the chinese.just like sabrang and pakistanlink and various others.Can you please rectifying your proof by showing more reliable sources (like you said pope).

Shezaad786 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Ha!Ha! Subha-an Allah begum. Aap ne to kamaal kar diya!You (plural) can sure be funny. Tibet.ca may be partisan, but it is reliable. I find it funny that you (plural) attack Buddhist websites as "propoganda"[sic] (btw it's spelled propaganda) but have no problem with citing terrorist sympathizers like milligazette. That's extremely meshggenuh indeed. Thanks for making me laugh. I really needed that to brighten my day.Shalom.Hkelkar 10:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


By the way, you are misquoting wikipedia policy again. We can use partisan sources as primary sources (read WP:Reliable Sources in detail). Thus, a website that is partisan to Dalai lama can be used to cite a quote by Dalai Lama. Do you understand the logic here?Hkelkar 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Shalom eh...ur a jew right....how come u know urdu/hindi.just check the talk page on tipu sultan and when you quoted partisan for other member reference then why not here, please read once more WP:Reliable Sources.dont go walking from kashmir to kanyakumari by asking the people address " where is kanyakumari" but use a modern day transport..lol. indeed you have also made my day..allahafiz!

By the way you have still not answered my questions "Can you please rectifying your proof by showing more reliable sources" and linkspam! maybe single this time! Shezaad786 16:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ji haan begum. I am a genuine "Man Transformed into Apes and Pigs" (per the Koran) Jew. I don't suppose Muslims have heard of Indian Jews except when terrorist elements like Lashkar e Toiba spread hate against us, or the Pakistanis when they drove us from our homes during partition.

The reliable sources are the names of the book(s) I have cited above.Hkelkar 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


My dear laila and umro jaan.I have lots of Jewish freinds in my uni and they respect other relegions. Could you please forward an attachment of the books to my email (Saniakhan192003@yahoo), if you have only heard about the book and not read the contents just forget it. The best idea will be to save an file from your uni journal articles and send them as an attachment or just put them here..have a great day

Shezaad786 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we Jews also respect the ability to spell (relegions[sic]).Hkelkar 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and since you are so worried about "causing offence to Islam" you need to refer to me as "Jewish" instead of "Jew" because using the term in the second person singular is highly offensive to Jews if used by a gentile (third person plural is acceptable).Hkelkar 13:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


"man transformed into a ape and a pig" is that what you are saying to yourself. i think you have a close connection with terrorism why chant Lashkar e Toiba, Taliban all the time, and "Man Transformed into Apes and Pigs" as per koran ( could you please tell me the sura or ayyat) or per the latest version of Torah..hey hold on whats ur sacred book...look you are making a personal attack on me by saying pigs in the holy Koran( could you cite it). you are indirectly making personal attack on a relegion.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Shezaad786 12:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference in Quran wherein it is claimed that Allah will turn Jews into Apes is 7:166.nids(♂) 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Also in 2:65-66.nids(♂) 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


AL-BAQARA (THE COW)2:65-66 says [And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."] but if you remember the story how isreali's went from Egypt to the promised land and when moses went to Sinia to get the ten commandments Tavrat and when he came down and saw some of the isreali's dancing and singing and broke the Sabbath and when sacrificing a animal, moses burnt the golden calfand said to fear god,they laughed and moses( or god) said this words ( Be ye apes, despised and hated! )with the help of god divided the believers and non believers and the wrath of god the non believers were destroyed! and the next verse says "let this be an example for the future generations". THIS WAS SAID TO ISREALIS AT THAT TIME AND NOT TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE OF NOW.


AL-ARAF (THE HEIGHTS)7:166 "So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed!" this is a broader translation of the above verse.

Hope i am correct in translating the verses. Allah knows best' Aameen.

Mujeerkhan 3:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

“You will battle the Jews until one of them will hide behind a rock. (The rock) will say: ‘O ‘Abdullaah (Worshiping slave of Allaah)! Behind me hides a Jew come and slay him.’” (from Bukhari).Hkelkar 21:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There are further verses (ayats) about never trust Jews or slay all Jews etc.Hkelkar 21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar obviously hasn't read too much of what the Talmud says about Gentiles. BhaiSaab talk 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a standard anti-Semitic canard. The Talmud says very little about Gentiles other than the law of apology during the High Holy Days and that Jews were given higher priority in Eretz Yisrael (not Medinat Yisrael) than gentiles. Big deal. That's a sort of parochialism that was there everywhere, and Jews, being small in #, had to protect themselves from extermination through some often stringent laws.
Most claims of mistreatment of gentiles in Talmud have been adequately ref1uted and demonstrated as hoaxes/mistraanslations/lies spread by Nazis & Muslim fanatics.Hkelkar 22:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
So Simeon ben Yohai's opinions count for nothing? Why do you always bring up anti-Semitism - Can't take any criticism? BhaiSaab talk 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai did say, "Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed".His statement was specific to the Romans. Talmud does not endorse nor generalize Yohai's statement. Nor is it interpreted that way except by maybe a few kooky extremist Hassidic/Haredi Rabbis and nobody listens to them anyway. Certainly not reformist/recostructionist Jews (the majority).
Yohai was personally distraught becuase his friends/family were murdered by Romans in the Bar Kochbah rebellion and he was referring to the only Gentiles he knew (Romans).
You really should stop learning about Judaism from hate sites.Hkelkar 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Simeon ben Yohai is one of the most respected scholars in the history of Judaism. Reform Judaism isn't real Judaism. BhaiSaab talk 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The same applies with islam, stop learning islam from hate sites and read the original verse.Why are you folks hell bent on Islam and remember Judaism has a long history of turbulance, they made a plot to kill Jesus Christ,took away the palestian lands and made them refugees, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indiandesi (talk • contribs) .

Er, Jews have a legitimate claim to Israel. The accusation of deicide on Christ is a well-known anti-semitic canard. Read Anti-Semitism#Accusations of deicide.Palestinians chose to live the way they do. Israel had little to do with it. If they choose to strap bombs to their children and send them to blow up Jewish schools then Israelis have little choice but to protect themselves with force.Hkelkar 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
the Jews had no choice but to return to the homeland on account of the holocaust.Hkelkar 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

legitimate since when! israel was not thier land but were slaves in egypt and then moses came and delevered them to the promised land. Even after hundreds of year later they migrated to many Arab and European countries for a better life and the countries welcomed them. Then hitler carried on a holocoust in which millions died and after this they again migrated to palestine just like banjaras, gypsies

During 1920-1940 there were hardly

Year Total Muslim Jewish Christian Other
1922 752,048 589,177(78%) 83,790(11%) 71,464(10%) 7,617(1%)
1931 1,036,339 761,922(74%) 175,138(17%) 89,134(9%) 10,145(1%)
1945 1,764,520 1,061,270(60%) 553,600(31%) 135,550(8%) 14,100(1%)



So how come legitimate when more thousands Aliyah are coming each year, more than 4,255,120 Palestinian refugees live outside of israel. In simple terms where were the jewish till 1920 when thier population was just 80,000 and within 50 years they number 5,548,523!

What would you do when you invite a guest to your house, feed him, shelter him and finally the guest greed goes too far and wants to occupy to your house...would you not throw him out of the house by any means and would your neighbours be quite, they will help you to throw the burglur out!

False analogies and misinterpreted history as always. Medinat Israel was once part of Eretz Yisrael, the original fount of the Jewish civilization of the Levant. Prior to that, Jews weren't even technically Jews (the Jews before Yisrael were not a 'civilization' per se but a loose group of nomads when they established civilization in Eretz Yisrael). Thus, Eretz Yisrael, the Holy Land, was the beginning of the Jewish civilization where our forefathers rightfully belonged since the Canaanites were defeated and they are not around anymore (nothing can be done about that). Our ancestors were ethnically cleansed from there by Romans and then by the Islamic invaders. The very name 'Palestine' was coined AFTER Yisrael (by the Romans:Roma Palestina). Thus, our original roots were in the holy land.The Palestinians were the occupiers, not the Jews. They were the imperialist aggressors, not the Jews. They built the mosque over the Temple Mount, which was a Jewish site of worship prior to the diaspora. In on itself, this would have not been a big deal since most Jews had found homes in Europe, Africa, India etc. However, it was clear that Europeans hated the Ashkenazim and Sephardim in Europe. Jews were assaulted, segregated, murdered, attacked en-masse in pogroms throughout the time they were in Europe.Eventually, Jews started the Aliyahs in the 19th Century to flee European persecution. Where would they go? where would they have the right to be? Only back to where they came from viz Israel. Finally, the holocaust made it clear that Jews needed a home of their own again, a place where a Jew can be a Jew without fear of persecution like it was after Babylon and before the Romans.
Israel is the only place where they really belonged. In the beginning the Palestinians did not mind so much but then the wider Arab world, which hated the Jews (still do hate the Jews) for centuries started to corrupt the minds of the Palestinians and pushed them to hate the israeli Jews. There was no choice but to segregate as otherwise life would have been impossible. We did not have much trouble in India except from the Christians because we were few in number and got along well with the Hindus, but the situation in Europe was far more dismal and so the Euro-jews needed to return.
Zionism also represents the creation of a of a democratic, scientifically sophisticated, secular culture into a part of the world that for centuries had been medieval, backward and obsessed with religion. It is this modern nature of Zionism that makes it good for the middle east.
It is the Western character of Zionism (brought over by the Western Jews who were ingfluenced by modern European thinking) that makes it so hateful to Muslims and those blindfolded Westerners who for one reason or another find it comfortable to line up with the adversaries of modernization. By attacking Zionists, they perpetrate a myopic view of superficial solidarity that will be detrimantal to the middle east in the long run.
Thus, it is vital that Israel exist for the sake of the middle east. Israel is the only secular democracy in the region (thanks to modern ideas that the Jews brought from Europe) and most of the middle east is STILL run by medeival backward governments of Oligarchs, Autocrats and Dictators. Israel will help modernize the middle east with a western-style democracy so that other countries, seeing the immense progress Israel has made over the years, will hopefully follow someday and with democracy and modernisation many of the problems with terrorism wars etc will reduce. It is natural that there will be stiff resistance, given that most of the Arabs have had a deep-seated hatred of the Jewish people for hundreds of years.Anti-Zionism thus serves vent anti-Semitic feelings, and helps in maintaining Middle Eastern oil.This is why the Arabs hated us. If the Arabs and the Palestinians can get past their antisemitic prejudices and try to work with the Jews to accept that they are there to stay and they will help bring the middle east into the 21st century, then all the problems will reduce. Instead, the Palestinians choose a life of terrorism, hatred, violence and degradation. They CHOOSE to hate Jews, they CHOOSE to attack Jews, they CHOOSE to vote for terrorists and mass murderers like Hamas and back countries like Iran whose president wants to reenact the holocaust (which he denies despite the obvious proof) and exterminate the Jews like Hitler tried to do.The Israelis are fighting a war of sheer survival now and are, for the most part, ideologically justified (though perhaps their actions might have been heavy-handed in recent years; but bear in mind that Israel is a small country surrounded by bigger countries that want to destroy it, so they are a bit paranoid sometimes; it is only human nature).Hkelkar 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Any sourced information. For the better of mankind all human beings should co-exist with each other. For the peace in palestine, israel should move to the 1947 mandate and stop the aliyah.

To my opinion jews were far better off in arab lands than in europe.This issues are very controversial and will be till the doomsday and remember we are from abrahamic religion and fromAdam Mujeerkhan 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to Hamas, Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad.Hkelkar 09:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and here is the source:
Steven Weinberg: A Liberal Defense of Zionism.
Google for it

Hkelkar 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Why is israel always on the loosing side! because they dont have a counrty and are staying in palestine as paying guest..courtesy USA

Indiandesi 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Israel is loosing[sic] ? What newspaper do you read? Communist Party weekly? Lol! Israel has singularly defeated every Arab country that tried to destroy it. read about the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. As for the recent business with Hezbollah, frankly, when Israel's enemies are forced to live in caves and carry their own feces across battle zones, then it's pretty much a sure bet that Israel's won.No Arab can ever beat a Jew. Even HITLER grudgingly acknowledged our smarts.Hkelkar 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Times of India and what do you read Haaretz Daily or some communist newpaper! lol ! Israel defeated with the support of whom...US..u make me laugh! hezbollah has only some thousand men but lol they fought with israel for nearly a month with all the might of israel against a few thousand men [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], Israel never achieved anything(destruction of hezbollah, freeing the two kidnapped IDF soldiers) nothing..we can say that in terms of military and politically Hezbollah won the war .

Thats why hitler and nazis contributed the holocoust...millions died.I pray for those who died.

yeah, keep telling yourself that while hezbollah lives here

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/satellite_image_before_after_beirut.htm http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0608/gallery.israel.hez.aug09/06.ap.jpg

And the "Loosing Israelis" live here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Haifa-view.JPG http://www.ibiblio.org/Bahai/Pilgrimage/haifa.gif

By any legitimate measure Hezballah was handed a resounding military defeat by the IDF in the recent fighting, and while the cancer that is Hezballah was not cured by Israel's soldiers, it was put into remission.
In preparing its offensive, both Hezballah and Iran knew that Hezballah's terrorist army could never mount a successful ground invasion against Israel. The advantages they possessed for their offensive lay in their rockets and missiles which could hit Israel's civilian population and inflict mass casualties, and control of its own terrain and preparation of its own battle field. The idea was not to fight the IDF in Israel's territory, but to set a trap for the IDF in Hezballah's carefully prepared and massively fortified Siegfried line of fortresses, strongholds and offensive positions connected by a series of truly impressive tunnel networks and bunkers meant to withstand and offset Israel's air advantage.


This was perhaps both the most cynical and barbaric disregard for innocent civilian lives of all of Hezballah's and Iran's strategic choices. It was also the most successful. It was predicated not on its knowledge of its enemy (Israel) but its true genius lay in its knowledge of the press. The calculus was simple: launch a rocket from within a civilian population; if you kill Jews that's a victory. If the Jews hit back and in so doing kill Lebanese civilians, that's a victory. If they don't hit back because they're afraid to hit civilians, that's a victory. Now repeat the process until you kill so many Jews they have to hit back and in so doing kill more Lebanese civilians. That's the ultimate victory, because they know that in striking just those chords exactly what music the press will play. The awful truth, which the Western Press was manipulated to ignore or downplay, was that Iran, through its terrorist operational arm Hezballah, had invaded Lebanon from within. Hezballah did not protect Lebanon, they occupied it and they used those Hezballah occupied territories to launch Iran's offensive in response to the West's ultimatum to cease development of nuclear weapons.
From a military perspective there can be absolutely no doubt as to the results of Hezballah and Iran's offensive against Israel. It was a defeat. Every part of their war plan except the manipulation of the media failed. Hezballah expected and planned for a massive charge of Israeli armor into Southern Lebanon. The amounts and type of anti-tank weapons they acquired and had operationally deployed in their forward positions as well as their secondary and tertiary bands of fortresses and strongholds through Southern Lebanon attest to this fact. They intended to do in mountainous terrain what Egypt had so effectively done in the Sinai desert in the Yom Kippur war. In that war, Sinai indeed became a graveyard for Israeli armor. Hundreds of tanks were destroyed. Whole brigades were decimated in single battles by the Egyptians' highly effective anti-tank missile ambushes. In that war almost three thousand Israeli soldiers were killed. That was Hezballah's plan. It was a good one. And it failed.
Far from the prevailing impression in the media, the IDF was not "badly bloodied" nor "fought to a stand still," much less "handed a defeat." Just prior to the cease fire, Israel suffered twenty nine tanks hit. Of those, twenty five were back in service within twenty four hours. Israel suffered one hundred and seventeen soldiers killed in four weeks of combat. As painful as those individual losses were to their families and to the Israeli collective psyche which views all its soldiers as their biological sons and daughters, those numbers in fact represent the fewest casualties suffered by Israel in any of its major conflicts. In 1948, Israel suffered six thousand killed. In 1967, in what was regarded as its most decisive victory, Israel lost almost seven hundred killed in six days. In 1973, Israel lost two thousand seven hundred killed and in the first week of the first war in Lebanon, Israel suffered one hundred seventy six soldiers killed.
The only reason why it "looks bad" for Israel is because Israel reports deaths more sensationally than the Arab. Israel values Israeli lives more than the Lebanese value theirs.
The numbers speak for themselves. They are the lightest casualties suffered by the IDF in all of its wars.

Hezballah's ambush never happened because Israel didn't take the bait. Instead it used air power and then a series of probing raids, primarily by infantry to methodically, slowly identify and root out the enemy positions. It meant that those small numbers of troops deployed into Lebanon in the first weeks of fighting had to do more with less than perhaps any other Israeli fighters in any other war. Certainly in other wars there were many individual battles in which so much was expected of and accomplished by so few. But no war comes to mind in which so few soldiers were deployed across an entire front. They performed brilliantly and with uncommon courage in the face of withering fire from heavily fortified and prepared positions. These were draft-age soldiers: eighteen and nineteen year olds, commanded on the platoon and company levels by twenty something's, none of whom had ever faced anything remotely like the combat against Hezballah's terrorist army. In spite of what many see as the logistical and command failures of their superiors, they performed brilliantly and achieved their objectives. When the vast bulk of Israel's force was finally deployed, made up primarily of its reservists, these soldiers achieved in forty eight hours what many believe they should have been given weeks to accomplish. Despite logistical failures, some times fighting without food or water, Israel's soldiers, regular army and reserves alike, handed Hezballah a decisive military defeat. All of Hezballah's Siegfried line like system of fortresses and strongholds, their network of command and control bunkers along Israel's Northern border were destroyed, abandoned or under the control of the IDF by the end of the hostilities. Hezballah's mini terrorist state within a state south of the Litani had been dismantled.

Despite being cheered by many in the Arab world for its willingness to confront Israel and its ability to make life miserable for civilians in northern Israel, Hizbullah's actions have only created greater fear among Arab leaders of Iranian attempts to create a "Shiite Arc" stretching through Iraq and ending on the Lebanese shores of the Mediterranean.
Most important, in the coming months, Hizbullah will discover that it has alienated most of the Lebanese population, including large numbers of Lebanese Shiites, because its aggressive actions produced a harsh Israeli response that has brought the destruction of significant areas and infrastructure in Lebanon, as well as a major loss of life. Ultimately, Hizbullah will come out of this conflict considerably weakened.
On balance, despite its somewhat lackadaisical performance, Israel achieved the bulk of its goals while Hizbullah can point to few accomplishments. The degree to which one side is able to achieve long-standing goals should therefore be the ultimate barometer as to the outcome of the Israeli-Hizbullah war. The media may have been seduced by footage of physical destruction, statistics of war dead, declarations of defiance by Nasrallah, as well as spats among the political and military leaders in Israel, but these are not the true measure of victory.


So, the bottom line is that:
If Hezbollah destroys 10 IDF tanks, Israel has 5000
If Hezbollah fires a katyushka into a house in Haifa, Israel reduced Beirut into rubble
If Hezbollah beheaded a Jew, Israeli navy ships bombed a Lebanese village to powder.
The world must know that what followed was one last chance before the abyss. For the Jewish people and the State of Israel, that abyss contained the very Holocaust which Ahmadinijad both denies and vows to complete. Israel will not accommodate the International Community by acquiescing to their own destruction.
As long as Israel stands, Israel wins.Hkelkar 17:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar, Did you write all this yourself.:) nids(♂) 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sort of. I've been doing a lot of research in this area and I feel very strongly about it and "IndianDesi" struck a nerve. It's sad to see so many Muslims (even in India, where they are not all crazy) display such ignorance and sway to the leftist media bias against Israel.Hkelkar 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey...I am not a muslim but a christian..If you ask anyone or read newspapers, articles etc you will find that israel never won the war but a huge success to hezbollah (politically)or either a 'draw'

Your statements "Israel values Israeli lives more than the Lebanese value theirs" "Israel reduced Beirut into rubble" "Israeli navy ships bombed a Lebanese village to powder" etc really amuses me...is that what they care for human life..this statements made by you shows how much hate you have in your heart! Israel.Indiandesi 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're a Christian then you are undoubtably aware of the fact that G-d promised Israel to the Jews in the Bible per our covenant with Him.
Israel fought back because the Lebanese CHOSE to disregard the value of human life by kidnapping Israeli soldiers and sending their own children to die in broken tanks. Israel's retaliation is entirely justified in the context of protecting their sovereign right to exist.Hkelkar 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, what about the hate that Hezballah have in their hearts for Israel? What about the hate that Ahmadinejad has in his heart for the Jews when he denies the holocaust, gives money to the Hezballah savages and demands that Israel be "wiped off the map"? That slipped your mind, eh?Hkelkar 19:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


You have so much anger for muslim in the arab world but have you ever noticed what are the reasons behind it i.e israeli occupation of muslims lands and if your breed ever wants peace with muslims..they are most welcome but first they must return all muslim lands to the arabs and move to the 1947 plan...i know you would never agree but you will someday!

Indiandesi 20:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah! Israel is just an excuse.If Israel did not exist then the Muslim Fundamentalists would have made up some other reason.Hkelkar 16:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New Discussion regarding Pakistani nationalism

Why don't you point out which paragraphs or sentences you have problems with? BhaiSaab talk 05:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The following paragraph is definitely problematic but the rest seems quite plausible. "Pakistan has a long military histoy, establishing some of the greatest empires in history including the Abbasid Empire, Ghaznavid Empire, Ghorid Kingdom, Delhi Sultanate, and Mogul Empire. Pakistan's recent illustrious military history also serves as a great source of nationalist sentiment. The David and Goliath nature of Pakistan and its conflicts with larger foes have recieved international recogition." BhaiSaab talk 05:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My dear brother in Islam, pakistan was formed in 1947 which was part of the Indian subcontinent so any history prior to the creation of pakistan should be said as " history of the sub continent" and the Ghaznavid's, Ghor's were from Afghanistan which spread to hindustan. The mughals ruled from afghanistan to india. Hope this clarifies the point.

Happy Ramadhan and peace be upn all mankind.Allahafiz

Mujeerkhan 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. This was a common mistake promulgated by Pakistani propaganda engines during the cold war when the US were all buddies with Pakistan.Hkelkar 10:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Israeli and US propaganda! they are still buddies...destroying the world like Iraq, Afghanistan.

Are you actually Indian? The people that the US and Israel are "destroying" (terrorists) will not hesitate to slit your throat with a rusty blade and bathe in your blood screaming "Allahu Akbar"!Try to think past Prakash Karat's and CPM's left-wing dialectic and see the facts. Terrorists like Lashkar e Toiba want to kill you and me and all of us and convert India into an Islamic State. Do you want to live in an Islamic State? do you want to live in a society where they will chop your hands off for whistling on the streets, or hang women in public for not wearing a Naqaab, or have gangs of Mutaween running around the streets imposing Shariah?Hkelkar 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Plus, if you read newspapers other than the rags distributed by Jyoti Basu and his politburo, you will know that some 50% of Afghanistan's population was so vehemently anti-Taliban that they welcomed the US with open arms. Afghanistan was a huge success for America. Iraq's not going so well, but that's the bungle of the Bush Administration and should be corrected in a couple of years.Frankly, it's better to have America and Israel near my backyard than Osama bin-Laden, Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Dawood Ibrahim.Hkelkar 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert anything check the history

Revert rule applies if you are changing the text. Did you see any change in your text?

Putting Dispute tag does not mean revert.--PakkaPunekar 01:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Factual error is a correct tag for this line. And Please dont loose patience. go out of your lab get some fresh air.
I have lost patience with your tendentious edits long ago. I think what you need is therapy.Hkelkar 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheema

The article is just ridiculous and full of POV nonsence. There is a lot of cleaning up to do. I will do whatever I can to help. And you have been doing a great job on Wikipedia in general. Keep up the good work. Syiem 04:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your archives

Do you realise that your archives are placed at Talk:.... instead of User' talk:..... ? Mar de Sin Talk to me! 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility again

I would request you to be more civil on the "Ignorance" section on your own talk page, and not point out others' spelling errors in such a mocking manner; you must have made your own share of spelling mistakes and so has everyone else. Also, your accusation of legitimate news organizations, like milligazette, as "terrorist sympathizers", may be viewed as hostile and incivil. I would also like to request to to spell Bodhidhamma's name as -dhamma, not dharma, as dhamma is a Pali spelling, and is possibly the way that Bodhidhamma would prefer to be spelt. If your spelling were intentional, it could be viewed as a slight personal attack, since it could suggest that you hold a slight hostility towards Pali, a language that is known for its association with Buddhism alone. Thank you. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 20:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:AGF that excuses you for failing to do so with Street Scholar. BhaiSaab talk 04:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Milligazette is absolutely sympathetic to terrorists. Somehow I dont see any legitimacy in the warnings above.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Jatt History books

I have seen this, regarding Jatt oppression. Its very well documented in the literature by Jatt historians.

History of the Jats by Ram Swaroop Joon , 1938, 1967 online in files section on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

Stop reverting

I will have to issue you a warning if you do not stop adding {{Dubious}}, and {{cn}} tags to test which is clearly referenced. I have verified and checked the references. History of the Jatt by RSJ is available online. Furthermore, Sindhi Culture, by U.T. Thakur. Bombay 1959 is available at http://www.smi.uib.no/library/title5.html (CENTRE FOR MIDDLE EASTERN AND ISLAMIC STUDIES University of Bergen)

--Street Scholar 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Not dubious

Taken from talk page of Street Scholar

I will check the references. If I find that they don;t exist and/or they have been mis-cited then I will begin RfA process accordingly.Hkelkar 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. The Centre of "Islamic Studies" is obviously partisan and so not entirely reliable. If my University library attests to the existence and/or availability of the ref then good. Else, I wil get an affidavit from the chief librarian that the references cited are fake and submit it as evidence in the RfA.Hkelkar 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, not unlike the racist Muslim Caste system, eh? (Ashraf/Ajlaf, Sayyid, Mojahir,Quomiyat, Biradari etc.). I still intend to file an RfA on account of the fact that I don't trust the veracity of the "refs".Hkelkar 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The "scholarly" nature remains to be established.Hkelkar 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the personal attack. Now I have all that I need.Hkelkar 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, there is a caste system in Islam per the Fatwa-i-Jahandari http://www.anti-caste.org/muslim_question/caste/bhatty_article.html.Hkelkar 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And you know where the personal attack happened. You have been warned by admins before (see sections above) and action will be taken in accordance to your past behaviour.16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
here making threats.
here against another user.
here earlier also.Hkelkar 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the Muslim Caste system, the Fatwa-i-Jahandari has nothing to do with Hinduism as it was written by an Islamic Cleric Ziauddin al-Barani in a Muslim dominated area (Lahore). Plus, the al-Akhdham in Yemen (the Yemenese untouchables) are in a Muslim country not connected to Hinduism at all. Same with the Janjaweed in Sudan and the Abyssinian white muslims against the Abyssinian black Muslims.

http://www.yemenmirror.com/index.php?action=showDetails&id=136

http://www.yementimes.com/99/iss01/l&d.htm

Dirty little secret, eh? Hkelkar 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


This [4] is definitely a personal attack through an implied threat and a violation of many wikipedia policies such as WP:OWN and WP:NPA and a defensive response to a clear violation of WP:Reliable Sources, as I'm sure many admins will agree.Hkelkar 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing the tags that illustrate the partisanship and Dubious scholarly nature of a reference does not take away the facts. I have just emailed my university librarian who will attest that one of your two references do not exist, except in a yahoogroups webpage (hardly "Peer Reviewed"). As to the other ("A History of the Jats sorry, mistake I meant the UT Thakkur reference"). I see a copy in the library and I will read to verify if you are lying about the edits or not.Hkelkar 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This side of the debate

Your tagging of articles is "dubious" when the sources have clearly been cited, rather then damaging the hard work of others maybe you should help out. There is no doubt and pretty well documented the Jatt had suffered oppression due to the racist caste system the ruling Hindus followed at the time. This is not mythological claim. --Street Scholar 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What does that matter? if the book comes from the Islamic Studies section of the university? its a scholary book which is also peer reviewed. --Street Scholar 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


There is no caste-system in Islam or Sikhism. --Street Scholar 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yes there is.Hkelkar 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time, and stop tagging the articles unnecessarily when the references are clearly cited or I will have to issue you a warnings. For vandalism, and disruptive behavior so please refrain from further editing those articles. --Street Scholar 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where I personally attacked you? thanks --Street Scholar 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Tell me where I personally attacked you, please provide the evidence. --Street Scholar 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Again I will have to inform you there is no caste-system in Islam, if Muslims are following a caste-system in India then they are not Muslims and are influenced by Hinduism. As believing in a caste-system goes against the fundamental teachings of Islam. --Street Scholar 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


There is no caste system in india.Stop editing articles which are baseless or useless , are you a muslim and i know you are not a muslim but an indian jew as you have said in your previous comments.

How can you tell that is a muslim caste sytem in indian and most probably you are confused with hinduism which has lots of caste system. I dont believe your comments and let me tell you whoever follows or practices is not a muslim which is against the principles of islam.

stop using nonsense comments on Quran, have you read it in the original form. Lots of quranic articles which are put on the web are changed so as to change thier transalations and have a negative impact on islam. You can take some books from your uni library and see the differences.

Why are you so much interested in islamic issues! if you dont have any knowledge about islam why do the baseless edits..why not edits articles on judaism or Hinduism which you are very familiar with.

Mujeerkhan 11:57, 7October 2006 (UTC)

I have been working there too. Plus, Muslims most definitely do have a cste system in India. Read my sources friend (posted below).Hkelkar 04:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


:::Actually this is precisely what Hindu users were saying on Talk:Rajput but our muslim freinds didnt listen. They even wrote an article on Muslim Rajput. Would you like to take that to afd.nids(♂) 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Those other issues of personal attacks have been addressed, furthermore you did not provide any credible evidence where I personally attacked you. I said "you" please don't try to bring other users into this as I am asking which personal attack I have made against you. I can also go through your contribution and cite personal insults which you have made. However the issue remains you have not shown me where I personally insulted/attacked you. --Street Scholar 16:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK we will see which admin agrees with you. You clearly were, unnecessarily adding tags to the article which were unnecessary. --Street Scholar 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead actually this will be fun. One of the book comes for a Jatt historian and the other book comes form a Hindu who had written about Sind. --Street Scholar 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I have the book "Sindhi Culture" by Thakkur with me right now. The book is a University of Bombay Sociology Series No 9 publication and has a total of 250 pages (including index).It is divided into 5 Chapters. Cradle, People & Occupation, Human Relations, Religion, Spirit World, Rituals and Re-formation of society. I have run through the pages and
  1. I have not found this sentence " Humiliating conditions were imposed on the Jats depriving them of many civil rights.This sentence is not there anywhere.

This sentence:Th Brahmim chamberlain who usurped the throne of Rajput King Sahasi II went to Brahmanabad, he enjoined upon the Jats and Lohanas not to carry swords, avoid velvet or silken cloth, ride horses without saddles and walk about bare-headed and bare-footed" anywhere" is there on page 14. However, it is ONE sentence that does not necessarily bolster the claim of systemic discrimination against the Jats.

  1. In fact, several of MY assertions concerning Qasim are SUPPORTED by theis book viz pgs 14-15



Nasty little bugger wasn't he, eh?



There is more on p16 qbout forced conversions and other atrocities imflicted on Hindus.

Gee, thanks. I have a lot of stuff I can add in bin-Qasim from here :-).

  1. I do not see any mention of atrocities inflicted on the Jats by Hindus in this book. The tone of the bok is positive to the pre-Islamic Jats, Hindus and Buddhists and is generally pejorative to the old Ay-Rabs.Hkelkar 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thus, I conclude that Street Scholar just practiced some good-old-fashioned "taqqiya" here by a little mis-citing ^__^.Hkelkar 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheema

I'm taking a look at it now - Che Nuevara 18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to help out, but please refrain from making personal attacks and using racial epithets, especially on my talk page. Simply don't do it, please. I won't ask again. - Che Nuevara 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

You're using Manusmriti as a source for a quote - that doesn't prove that such conditions actually ever existed. BhaiSaab talk 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's there in Manusmriti it should exist. Plus, Shivaji is a precedent.Hkelkar 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because it's in a religious text doesn't mean the conditions exist. You'll need to find a secondary source for that information. Manusmriti also states that there was a Manu - that doesn't mean everyone believes it. BhaiSaab talk 05:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
His laws don't necessarily represent normative Hindu rules regarding castes. BhaiSaab talk 05:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if you look at the history of Hinduism, he was the exception - not the rule. Could you provide a quote from the source you linked so I don't have to read the entire thing? BhaiSaab talk 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Then I'll change the article to reflect that caste mobility was extremely limited in Hinduism. BhaiSaab talk 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can provide a source, great. BhaiSaab talk 05:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
My sources indicate that there was no social mobility at all. I'll use them tomorrow to make that statement then. Good night. BhaiSaab talk 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not whitewashing

Article V. T. Rajshekar is tagged as needing wikifying. That's how I came to it. I hadn't heard of him before. This article has to be NPOV, especially since it's a biography of a living person. (See WP:LIVING). It doesn't mean endorsing this person's views and definitely doesn't mean endorsing anti-semitism. I think we could usefully have a conversation about sources, which in my opinion are the way to make sure articles stick to the facts and avoid taking any POV. Itsmejudith 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Italy is also in need of wikifying, which is what I have been doing. Please show me the diffs that you think amount to whitewashing - or just revert them. If you have evidence of anti-semitic views of Rajshekar then I am more than happy for that to go in the article. If there is no evidence, then it can't. WP:LIVING is there to prevent the Wikimedia Foundation from being sued, at great expense. We could put an RFC on this article which would speed up its wikification and help it develop as an article. What do you think? Itsmejudith 15:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There is still work to be done on the Rajshekar article, making sure that there is a reference attached to each point. For example there is no reference for links between Rajshekar and Nation of Islam. According to WP:LIVING I should have immediately removed that claim but I feel it would be better to trust you to reference the source. Unfortunately my knowledge of the Dalit question begins and ends with respect for M.K.Gandhi's position on it. Thanks for your intervention, which I shall not take as a warning, because Wikipedia would be nowhere if editors were afraid to get involved with improving articles on controversial subjects. I am realising how much there is for everyone to learn about world politics and religion. Itsmejudith 16:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your further message. I would just like to quote the following paragraph to you from WP:VERIFY.
Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism,[2][3] and do not move it to the talk page. This also applies to material about living persons in other articles, as well as user and talk pages. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. When removing information be careful to observe Wikipedia:Civility.
But what the Rajshekar article needs is some fresh minds to the problem, so I'm putting in an RFC on it.
I would very much appreciate it if you would clarify what you meant about "whitewashing anti-semitism" in relation to History of the Jews in Italy. I appreciate that you have been trying to be civil, but I'm afraid I can't let such a serious allegation pass without comment. Itsmejudith 19:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Some of your comments on Itsmejudith's talk page seem rather incivil. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 03:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"You're afraid that wikipedia will get sued because of this? Who will sue wikipedia, the ghost of the legal offices of the Third Reich???". This comment you made seems rather rude. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 03:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The comment you made was harsh in tone, and was a backlash at a comment Itsmejudith made. I am not trying to get you banned, although I have reported several instances of attacks you made. Please assume good faith, as I have never tried to get you banned. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 03:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but your friendly warning was by no means friendly. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 03:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that is not just my opinion. You demanded why Itsmejudith whitewashed, which is assuming that she actually did whitewash, which is against WP:AGF. You made a command in the imperative mood, right after you say that your are just giving a "friendly" warning. The imperative mood by no means friendly. You use the terms "crap" and "whackjobs" to refer to things. And your last comment was rather impatient and rude, since it was a hyperbolic remark that acted as a backlash to something Itsmejudith said quite nicely. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 04:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No its just Basawala's opinion.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cheema again

Hi! Thanks for the heads-up on Cheema. Unfortunately I do not know much about Cheema's except for some rather "inconsequential" and "insignificant" Cheema Jatt Sikhs living in my neighbourhood. Anyway, the article is full of fake Cheema-glorification if you may, and a lot of ridiculous PO-(Cheema)-V. We have a lot of work to do on this article and many others. I am therefore compelled to do some research on this. I will shortly be making some edits to the article. Please let me know of you require any specific help. Syiem 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindu appellation

You removed one of my edits on Hindu pages citing

(Deflt meaning is "Land of Hindus" only.Indus river does not pass thru India much. Plus, Land of Indus would be Hindstan, not Hindustan)

Are you sure Indus did not pass through ancient India and secondly why which rule of Persian and/or Arabic grammar should that be Hindstan, not Hindustan TerryJ-Ho 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

About your addition at the Koenraad Elst page, please attempt to be civil. The conversation was perfectly civil till your interpolation. Also, accusing a tenured scholar of being a propagandist on a talkpage is skating on thin ice, in the absence of evidence. I see above that you have been accused of incivility before. I submit that you are more likely to get the changes you want in articles if you discuss them civilly. Thanks!Hornplease 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Somehow Koenraad Elst has less legitimacy than some random history professor now?Bakaman Bakatalk 01:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
errr... do I really need to answer that one? In any case, the point here is simply that it is an admissible addition under WP:BLP. Hornplease 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, someone apologizing for Islamic terrorism is talking trash about a respected writer, exactly how is that permissible?Bakaman Bakatalk 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You have called a living person an "apologetic" for Islamic terrorism. I presume you meant apologist, and if so, that is a violation of WP:BLP. I will give you a chance to remove it from the talk page. It is permissible as it appeared in a reliable source, is written by a tenured academic, and will be presented as a statement about the man in a mainstream media source and nothing else, which is permissible under WP:BLP. Hornplease
Note that the 'random history professor' in question was the Chair of Indian History at Oxford, and Director of Studies at France's apex Social Sciences institute.Hornplease

Bajrang Dal

The article here talks about Malegaon and is titled "Malegaon: the road to perdition". That's when unidentified motorcyclists bombed a Muslim cemetery, not when Hindutva activists killed themselves while bombmaking. It briefly mentions Nanded though, and talks about Nanded: "In April, Bajrang Dal activists Naresh Raj Kondwar and Himanshu Phanse were killed while attempting to fabricate an improvised explosive device along with their fellow extremists Maruti Wagh, Rahul Pande, and Ramraj Guptewar."

This makes it clear that they were BD activists. What are you talking about when you mention LeT in this? Mar de Sin Talk to me! 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert again until things are settled. Coteries eh?? Does that mean you think I have sockpuppets, or does that defy Wikipedia 3rr policy? Mar de Sin Talk to me! 02:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting me of sockpuppetry? Mar de Sin Talk to me! 02:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

PUCL and Milli are not terrorist sources. They are OK on Wikipedia. Even if they may be partisan, they are still OK per WP:RS Mar de Sin Talk to me! 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

PUCL are a bunch of useless liberals but do qualify per WP:RS. Milligazette are a group of rabid terrorist sympathizers and advocates of Taliban. They are also anti-semites and demand the mass murder of Jews in Israel.Hkelkar 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

unblock please

[unblock requested and denied]

3RR is not an entitlement. Simply, do not revert at all. If there is a dispute, discuss it on the talk page. You should never be doing a complete revert more than once, and only then if it is a new, previously undiscussed change, and the revert should be with a full edit summary that would reasonably convince the other user that his edit was incorrect. Except in such special case, do not make any reverts in a content dispute. You have been edit warring before, and you should realize that aside from being blocked, it is simply not productive. The change you want is not going to be implemented by reverting. You must convince the other editors there why a change ought to be made. —Centrx→talk • 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have been trying to talk to BhaiSaab but it has been a frustrating exercise. He has also formed a cabal from the Muslim Guild on wikipedia to mass-revert Tipu Sultan and has been admonished accordingly in an AMA mediation [5] [6]. He also has the same deal in Pakistani nationalism [7],[8].Hkelkar 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to talk reasonably with this person and have tried very hard to do so (check my earlier posts to his talk page) but I have been unsuccessful, given what looks to me like an Islamist anti-Hindu and anti-Semitic bias on his part.Hkelkar 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, user hornplease, another metapuppet of Basawala, has been doing the same revert again. Please talk to him.Hkelkar 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I take strong exception to the above allegation. I have no idea who Basawala is, and have made but a single edit to the Bajrang Dal article, which consists of adding new information and noting that a reference does not stand up to verification. I ask this editor to withdraw the allegation, and to moderate his conduct in future. Hornplease 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It is eminently clear that you have been stalking my edits and reverting changes I made. Meatpuppetry with Basawala is a reasonable contention as he has been doing the exact same thing from roughly the same period.The reference stands to verification as LeT is clearly mentioned in para 10 as a suspect.Hkelkar 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Assuming good faith till I am blue in the face with it, I think I see where part of the allegation comes from. This diff [9], which was over 10 edits to the article ago, consists of removing a failed verification tag, which I reinserted. The edit summary says "look at paragraph 10". (Paragraph 10 of that article deals with a totally different incident.) If I reinserted the failed verification tag, it was independent of any earlier removal, and was because the reference - er - failed verification. Simply put, this editor accused me of meatpuppetry and revert-warring on the basis of, at best, a severely mistaken reading of the situation, as well as the linked article. Hornplease 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I will paste para 10 below:

It is far too early, of course, to be anything like certain that a Hindu fundamentalist group carried out the bombing. Islamist terror groups have long sought to provoke communal violence. Several have demonstrated their willingness to stage large-scale attacks against shrines and mosques in West Asia, Pakistan, and even Jammu and Kashmir, in the hope of securing their political objectives.

Malegaon has long had a strong presence of such networks. Just this May, the Mumbai Police recovered 13 kilograms of RDX, as well as assault rifles and grenades, from a Lashkar-e-Taiba safe house. The explosives were part of a larger consignment organised by Rahil Ahmed Sheikh and Zabiuddin Ansari, the two Lashkar operatives believed to have executed July's serial bombings in Mumbai.

Clearly, they say that they are not sure is BD is involved and lashkar may be.Hkelkar 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That para talks about Malegaon. You inserted it in a section talking about Nandhed. This has been pointed out several times. Sheesh. I have asked you today to be more civil. A random accusation of meatpuppetry is not the way to go. Hornplease 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You know as well as I that BD was never formally accused of Nanded (show me in the article where they have categorical evidence that says otherwise).The Muslim Lashkar is far more likely for perpetrating Nanded, given their Pakistani connections and their resources from the Islamist terrorist netoworks in the Middle-East, Nigeria, Tunisia Algeria etc. BD is just a bunch of hotheaded kids with practically no weapons and explosives training and they simple do not have the capability to engage in such acts. They are less capable than they let on. The Islamist/Leftist ideological axis is merely trying to obfuscate the issue by pinning the blame on BD.This is a dangerous trend that spells doom for the civilized world as it gives the Muslim terrorists currency to carry out further terrorist attacks and frame it on BD. Hkelkar 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


More ref alluding to Islamist involvement in Nanded:

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127006800800.htm http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/portal/2006/08/536

These don't expressly point to Hindus being involved there at all, thus falling to Muslims by default.Hkelkar 03:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The greater political consequences are unimportant on WP, where only WP policy counts. Your points, made after your little speech, are irrelevant given (A) the article you linked to does not mention the LeT in connection with the bombing being discussed (b) the frontline article you link to above mentions the LeT in connection with another earlier bombing in Nanded, and so is irrelevant to the Bajrang Dal page. I am still waiting for an admission that you were misreading the article that you linked to and that I tagged as miscited and an apology for calling me a meatpuppet.

Accusation

Do you have any proof for that nonsense accusation you made about me above organizing a group to "attack" the Tipu Sultan article? BhaiSaab talk 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Self evident since Mujeerkhan did his little postie on the Muslim Guild page.Hkelkar 06:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So where's my postie on the Muslim Guild page? You said I organized it. BhaiSaab talk 06:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you people have a nice cozy irc chat room too.Hkelkar 06:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Again with your conspiracy theories. BhaiSaab talk 06:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Look who's talkingHkelkar 06:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You're saying that as if I'm part of Hamas or something. BhaiSaab talk 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Protocols of Zion is circulated in Mainstream Arab/Muslim society and treated as fact. Hamas has little to do with it.Protocols was circulated among Arabs and Persians well before Hamas even existed.Of course, our own Dalit friends arenlt far behind, such as VT Rajshekar of Dalit Voice and their paranoid anti-semitic conspiraciy theories.Hkelkar 06:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoinst, anti muslim..etc is that you have learned and studied! Indiandesi 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I said "I have read from my own college text book's (karnataka) that tipu was a great soldier and the first indian king to openly defy the british dominance of india, that makes him a freedom fighter! Hkelkar were you not barrded from using wikipedia for quite some time!" does that make a personal attack by asking you "were banned"..lol Indiandesi 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You said I was "Zionist and anti-Muslim". Calling me an anti-Muslim is a personal attack, and falsely associating Zionism with anti-Muslim is an anti-Zionist attack. That's two.Hkelkar 11:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, most textbooks are politically correct garbage. We are interested in scholarly sources, not the supermarket rags that schools in India call "textbooks".Hkelkar 11:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I said "Zoinst, anti muslim" is that what you have studied on islam! I did not say to you that you were "Zoinst, anti muslim" and if you think i have said to you then I am sorry.

Indiandesi 17:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology.Hkelkar 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So do I yours!

Indiandesi 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hkelkar/Archive_3&oldid=1251641378"