After thirty years of marriage, a wife asked her husband to describe her. He paused a moment and then said, “You’re A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. And I, J, K.” She asked, “Just what does that mean?” He replied, “Adorable, Beautiful, Cute, Delightful, Elegant, Foxy, Gorgeous, Hot.” She smiled happily. “That’s lovely! But what about I, J, K?” He said, “I’m Just Kidding!”
July 19, 2011
Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami
It is intriguing that terrorists are being identified by too many adjectives – “British Muslims of Pakistani origin”. Now should a terrorist be identified by his nationality or religion? And if it is nationality, should it be the present one or the past or even that of his parents, assuming that he held no other citizenship? Why does the media mix nationality with religion – because it suits the western media and even sections of the Indian media to do so. Why not just say that the terrorists were Muslims – regardless of nationality- or that they are British – regardless of his religion or past nationality? That would be really interesting, provided the media has the courage.
In fact if we carry this analogy a little further – are not all Pakistanis and hence the terrorists who come from there of Indian origin?
TERRORISTS AND RELIGION
Remember the often repeated cliché that terrorists have no religion? Then why should the Government have a cease fire agreement during Ramzan, as reported in the media? Let us tell the Hizbul Mujahideen and other groups that there will be no cease-fire as Muslims themselves have said that terrorists have no religion. Hence Ramzan should not matter to them. If we accede to their request then we are hypocrites. Perhaps there may be more attacks on places of worship of other religions but wouldn’t that tell us who the terrorists are? Will the Government show some spunk at least now?