Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

by Kayalvizhi Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:06 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172967/Indian-government-spends-700-000-buy-letters-prove-national-hero-Gandhi-gay.html

Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 700,000 pounds

by Idéfix Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:13 pm

What is "homosex"?

Let us say Gandhi was bisexual as some readers of those letters claim. So what?

by Kayalvizhi Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:17 pm

he is a hypocrite. thats my point.

this hypo did not care for family either. Then how can he care for world

He used nonviol when he is weak. He approved viol when he was stronger. a total hypocrite

by Idéfix Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:18 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:he is a hypocrite. thats my point.

this hypo did not care for family either. Then how can he care for world

He used nonviol when he is weak. He approved viol when he was stronger. a total hypocrite

How does being a bisexual make him a hypocrite?

What violence did he approve of?

by Kayalvizhi Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:29 pm

when congress gov of rajaji shot at at anti-hindi protesters in 193i9. this hypocrite bastard MK GaNDHI DID NOT SAY A WORD

by Idéfix Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:39 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:when congress gov of rajaji shot at at anti-hindi protesters in 193i9. this hypocrite bastard MK GaNDHI DID NOT SAY A WORD

How is that connected to the speculation that he was bisexual? I can see that you are angry and upset, but you don't need to be incoherent.

Silence is not approval. You have been silent on the use of child soldiers by LTTE, but that doesn't mean you approve of the practice, does it now?

by Kayalvizhi Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:41 pm

i said 3 different, not necessarily correlated things.

1. he was homsex

2. he did not care for his family

3. He did not condemn violence when he had the force tro inflict on others

by Idéfix Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:46 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:i said 3 different, not necessarily correlated things.

1. he was homsex

2. he did not care for his family

3. He did not condemn violence when he had the force tro inflict on others

Ah, I see, so my original question to you stands: so what if he was bisexual?

Also, what is "homosex?"

by Kayalvizhi Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:54 pm

he was pretending to be nonsexual. he should have said bisex instead of hiding. why did india spend 700,000 to buy those leters

by Hellsangel Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:57 pm

Trollus fishyeyus looking for Baitus suckerus

by Idéfix Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:02 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:he was pretending to be nonsexual. he should have said bisex instead of hiding.

Every human being has the right to keep her / his personal life as private as (s)he chooses. Not telling you that he was bisexual -- assuming that he was that -- does not make him a hypocrite.

Kayalvizhi wrote:why did india spend 700,000 to buy those leters

Perhaps because the Indian government unnecessarily tries to make him out to be a saint*. That is not necessary. His legacy is not as brittle as those government-types believe.

* You of all people should find their inclination to deify Gandhi very easy to understand. After all, you elevate a mass murderer into a god!

by Kayalvizhi Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:05 pm

commander is no hypocrite like gandhi. gandhi was all for nonviolence until he has got a gun. may be tamil life does not matter to him. May be its ok to shoot at anti-hindi protesters

by Guest Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:38 am

Hellsangel wrote:Trollus fishyeyus looking for Baitus suckerus

by Kris Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:02 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:commander is no hypocrite like gandhi. gandhi was all for nonviolence until he has got a gun. may be tamil life does not matter to him. May be its ok to shoot at anti-hindi protesters

>>>>Commander was a megalomanaiac, a murderer, a terrorist and a demon who sacrificed children, but a hypocrite he was not. You certainly have the moral high ground on that.

by Kayalvizhi Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:11 am

>>>>Commander was a megalomanaiac, a murderer, a terrorist and a demon who sacrificed children, but a hypocrite he was not. You certainly have the moral high ground on that.

I am not comparing the two as such. They are two different people with different philosophies.

What I said was Gandhi was a hypocrite about nonviolence. He was all for nonviolence but he did not condemn shooting the anti-Hindi protesters.

As for the commander, he never pretend to be nonviolent. He was not a hypocrite about it.

That was all I meant to say. That was all I said. Nothing more.

by Guest Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:30 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:>>>>Commander was a megalomanaiac, a murderer, a terrorist and a demon who sacrificed children, but a hypocrite he was not. You certainly have the moral high ground on that.

I am not comparing the two as such. They are two different people with different philosophies.

What I said was Gandhi was a hypocrite about nonviolence. He was all for nonviolence but he did not condemn shooting the anti-Hindi protesters.

As for the commander, he never pretend to be nonviolent. He was not a hypocrite about it.

That was all I meant to say. That was all I said. Nothing more.

There is one other difference. Gandhi was slim while Commander was fat.

------
No, the blame for the LTTE’s great debacle lies squarely on the well-padded shoulders of Prabhakaran himself. The simple but awful truth is that he has committed the most heinous sin a guerrilla can ever commit — he has become fat.

Leading a sedentary life in the jungles of northern Sri Lanka, the LTTE leader often found time hanging heavily on his hands. Like so many of us, Prabhakaran succumbed to the temptation of eating the hours away. Starting with jackfruit and pumpkin idlis, he moved on to jaggery dosas and sweet pongal rice, though he soon abandoned these patriotic recipes for more sinful savouries. Cakes and ice-cream followed and some say he even dumped rasam for sweet French sauces. But it was when he started on chocolates and Black Forest cakes that the bulge really began to grow and soon he was the proud possessor of the largest revolutionary paunch in history.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/Platform/A-visceral-mistake/Article1-406634.aspx

by Guest Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:22 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:he was pretending to be nonsexual. he should have said bisex instead of hiding. why did india spend 700,000 to buy those leters

homosex, bisex. your arguments are utter nonsex trollus fishheyus! you suxus. admin please ban fisheyeus for trollsex behaviour! *i am appealing very non-violently*

Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds

Re: Letters show Gandhi was homosex. India bought those letters for 70,000 pounds