Talk:2006 Malegaon bombings/Archive 1

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 1

India's Gladio?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Wikipedia is too often wedded to the official version of events. Common sense tell us that state terror is VERY widespread and the temptation to mame and kill for political effect (a.k.a terrorism) is always there for agents with the means and motive. Military, police, intelligence-black-ops have been caught many times (see Gladio) but many writers shy away from even considering state terrorism especially when "western" countries are involved. WIKIPEDIA MUST NOT DO THAT. Whats wrong with presenting alternative viewpoints? In India we hear that ARMY people procured the explosives **. Isn't that worth following up? The word that usually derails all honest discussion: Conspiracy Theories shouldn't even be mentioned, it serves no purpose. Conspiracies is what's it all about and fear of heresy is a thing of the past, right? U2r2h (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the title should be [[2006 Malegaon blasts] as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. ^Babub→Talk 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Infobox

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since the Infobox is prominantly shown on the page, I put the here only organizations which have some evidence of links. Perpetrators followed by suspects and then followed by so many names is confusing. Specially when you have enough information on the investigations. SMJayate 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Investigations

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section starting police initially suspected .... does not mean anything now when the case is nearly solved. Let me say that I have no interest of defending Bajrang Dal when it can not defend itself. The point is the whole investigation section is misleading. Why not come directly to the point instead of starting who initially suspected whome. SMJayate 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

POV

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Please try and restrict the POV in the investigations section. There's a lot of selective quoting happening there. Hornplease 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Also, I am not reverting again, but will do so tomorrow: the arrests are the most important part of the investigation section! HKelkar, please stop attempting to bury them at the bottom, because very shortly I will have to stop assuming good faith here. Your edits insisting that the forensic report came before cannot justify, at the very least, putting the past history of Malegaon aead of the arrests. Unless you reply with good reasons, I will revert again tomorrow. Hornplease 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have declared that you will violate wikipedia rules and you have little regard for them. I thank you for your honesty at least.Hkelkar 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are slanting bias into the article by lopsiding the sequence of events.I will put an NPOV tag on this section.Hkelkar 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I have not declared that I will violate the rules! I am trying hard not to. I gave you an opportunity to make your case, while leaving it in your preferred version! How is that a violation? Instead of putting an NPOV tag on it, try and work it out here. I dont want the sequence 'lopsided', I just think that the analysis of the investigation should follow the actual action taken. Hornplease 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe Hkelkar needs to listen to someone who has declared hostilities already.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that input. How precisely have I 'declared hostilities' when I clearly ask for a reply with good reasons? Hornplease 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease you have unilaterally removed a completely legitimate report published by a notable journalist.There is ample precedent for putting columnist opinions (provided they are stated as such) on wikipedia so They should be put back.Hkelkar 09:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The choice of a particular line, out of a long article, by a particular columnist, out of many hundreds, known elsewhere to be sympathetic to a certain POV is deeply disturbing, and your defense of it meretricious. Further, you have provided no reason for rolling back my other edits. I urge you again to attempt to edit this encyclopaedia in the spirit of WP:NPOV. Anything edited not in that spirit will not stand. Hornplease 22:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny how Hornplease doesnt say the same thing about Marxist columnists on Godhra Train Burning. Its ok Hkelkar, the facts have shown it wasn't the Bajrang Dal or any Hindu groups so keep the columnists out I guess.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was the gujarat articles, which i have now taken off my watchlist and dont even think about because they got so pointless, that convinced me that its best to avoid statements from columnists and anyone except those directly involved. Hornplease 05:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Raman

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Why is a single commentator being quoted in an article which otherwise only quotes the police or neutral news stories? Hornplease 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Establishes context of journalistic opinion.Hkelkar 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesnt answer the question. if you wish to establish context, you'll need quotes from all sides and of all types to do so. And why would you wish to? Journalistic opinion is hardly encyclopaedic in this case. Hornplease

Kind of like the Swami on Koenraad Elst and Asgar ali Engineer on G.T. Nanavati. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In articles without any opinion, the addition of a single opinion is unbalanced. Can you deny that? Hornplease 07:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then balance it with the opinion of some Muslim terrorist who demands the slaughter of the Hindus.Hkelkar 11:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you would like to change this statement now that they have arrested Hindu extremists for this attack? Inf fg (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would muslim terrorist bomb a mosque

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This is why:

http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/15/stories/2006041519180100.htm

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/14masjid.htm

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/terror/06-10-2005/9028-mosque-0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4887856.stm

Hkelkar 11:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

All these speculations have now been proven wrong because of the great work of the anti-terrorism squad of India, especially Hemant Karkare. These attacks were done by Hindu extremist groups which is why we should not always speculate and have the term "Pakistani-backed militants" ready to use once an attack occurs (and sometimes while it is still going on)Inf fg (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.dawn.com/2008/12/31/top13.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inf fg (talk • contribs) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, can we please not make such drastic changes to the article without discussing it first? Someone has taken out all indications of right wing nationalist (Hindu) involvement which is what every news source and investigation is now saying. Someone edited it noting that this relates to the 2008 attacks. The evidence linking an Indian army colonel and a Hindu priest among others is to the attack mentioned in this article, the 2006 Malegaon blasts. I have posted a new news item from Dawn today reporting Dayanand Pandey admitting to being involved in the blasts. Thanks. Inf fg (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the accusations to the Indian Colonel and this Sadhavi woman only extend to the 2008 Malegaon blasts, not the 2006 ones. Even the Pakistani Islamofascist newspaper Dawn doesn;t go as far as to conflate the two, unlike the Islamofascist apologists on this talk page.Ontopofcosts (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you have created so many sockpuppets which have all been banned over a two year period. If you feel so strongly about your beliefs and feel the needs to express them, why not just have one username and say what you want instead of making numerous usernames to make inflammatory comments and agree with yourself. Perhaps I am wrong about the blasts (whether it was 2006 or 2008) but it was an innocent mistake and not part of a conspiracy. Dawn is not an "Islamofascist" newspaper and most of their news comes from the Associated Press. I think its very important to point out facts and not just accusations. With the Malegaon and Samjhota Express bombings, police had initially blamed "Pakistani-backed" elements and were confident of their involvement and stated this to the press on many occassions. Since the evidence has proven otherwise, I think it's very important to point it out. ThanksInf fg (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

MUMBAI: In a startling revelation, the Maharashtra police yesterday said that the bomb blasts on Sept. 29 in the Muslim majority town of Malegaon in Maharashtra and in Modasa in the neighboring state of Gujarat were executed by the Hindu terrorist group, Hindu Jagran Manch (HJM), which is based in Indore in Madhya Pradesh state and is closely associated with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

According to police sources, the police have solved the blasts which killed five Muslims in Malegaon and one Muslim in Modasa in Sabarkantha district. The police have also succeeded in nabbing the key Hindu suspects and were interrogating them.

The Hindu terrorists had tried to hoodwink the police, by placing the bombs on motorbike below the office of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) office in Malegaon, just to give the impression that some Muslim terrorists had placed and triggered the blasts.

The police initially suspected SIMI activists or Indian Mujahedeen terrorists being behind the blasts in Malegaon as also in Modasa. During the investigations, the police found that Islamic stickers were placed on the seats of the motorbikes to mislead the investigators and point the needle of suspicion toward the Muslims.

But police investigators were taken by surprise when they found that the motorbike on which the explosives were placed in Malegaon was traced to Gujarat, even though the alleged Hindu suspects had erased the chassis and engine number. However, with the help from the motorbike dealer and inputs from the forensic experts, the police were able to track down the suspects in Gujarat.

According to a police official, the motorbike was owned by a person who had links with the ABVP and had given his two-wheeler to the Hindu extremists of the HJM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.178.33 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

inclusion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Abhinav Bharat and LeT have both been suspected of the blasts. However, Abhinav Bharat is merely a "right wing" group, not a Hindu group, and if LeT is involved, then there is absolutely no reason for inclusion.Pectore^talk 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Articele is incorrect, confuses 2006 and 2008 blasts

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The information on Purohit being main accused in the malegaon blast case is based on an article written in Feb. 2009. The article clearly states it is talking about blasts "4 months ago", thus meaning the 2008 malegaon blasts. I request somebody to go over the later part of the investigations section and clear this confusion up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorv020 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)