i meant unfortunate in the sense that it had to happen and it is controversial because they won't agree. i agree 100% that it can't be a jihadi because they wouldn't do it in a muslim area on shab-e-qadr.
"Hindu terrorism" label is neither 'unfortunate' nor 'controversial'. It is an open secret that all the blasts in the vicinity of masjids or muslim localities (or Samjhauta express) were handiwork ('hindu'work) of hindus. Even when you discount blasts elsewhere which have been conveniently blamed on muslims (and shadowy organisations like SIMI, HUJI etc.), it doesn't take more than common sense to figure out the reality of perpetrators. It beats me why a so called jehadi would go about setting off deadly bombs to kill their own. Andhra court recently acquitted over two dozen muslim youths who had been rounded up and tortured inhumanely under the charade of solving the Mecca masjid (Hyderabad) bomb blast. Hindu terrorism predates "Islamic terrorism". After all, suicide bombing was patented by LTTE, which is a tamil hindu outfit. Hindu terrorists outnumber Muslim terrorists in India by more than 6:1 (i.e. ratio of respective population). ULFA, bodos, PWG, Maoists, Naxals etc. kill ten times more people annually than Lashkar, SIMI, HUJI etc. "Unfortunately" the former group of militants is never considered representing the hindu terrorism, while the latter groups are conveniently labeled as the face of terrorist Islam. Much of what is passed off as Islamic terrorism is in fact hindu terrorism carried with active assistance of the state machinery and police. I'm not the least bit surprised by the latest developments, although I suspect the political pressures will eventually ensure that the enormity of hindu terrorism will never be completely uncovered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7739541.stm unfortunately, my home town has helped coin a controversial new phrase!
