1. Ashu said: "Obviously, those Nepalis who have not had their family members and/or friends killed or hurt by Maoists harbour such pie-in-the-sky sympathies as though Maoists' having a wonderful-sounding philosophy is good enough of a credential for them to be for democracy and against feudalism REGARDLESS of how their philosophy actually plays out in practice." If you wrote these sentences as a generalization, you proved your mentality once again. It is you, NOT me, who said that unless you were not hurt by anyone personally, you did not give a shit to any problems (For proof, see your history of posts in Sajha). And, it proved once again that my observations over you with some suitable ADJECTIVES were true (mind the previous interactions with me). I do not surprise from likes you to have such generalization. That is fine! If you wrote specifically to me, you are a BIG wrong. I am the one who is exploited from both your royal security forces as well as from the gun-wielded Maoists. I do not need Harvard degree to judge the extent of atrocities committed by both. Your royal security forces were far more worse than the Maoists. 2. Ashu Said "On a larger note, why can't people understand that there is NO such thing as non-violent Maoism just as there is no such thing as a vegetarian carnivore? Violence is THE essence of Maoism. Violence is what gives color to Maoist philosophy. No violence = No Maoism." It is your perception NOT mine and it is not a UNIVERSAL one. You have your own version and that is fine to me. My analysis is slightly different than yours: your royal security forces are far more violence-prone than the Maoists. BUT I hate any kind of violence, I am just comparing among the worsts. 3. Ashu Said: "Because Maoists cannot win the hearts and minds of people through logic, evidence, trials and errors, arguments and public debates, they have to resort to violence, to killings and fear-mongering to get what they want." A wrong analysis. They had won and they are still wining, but the RATE is decreasing! Without wining the hearts and minds of people to some extent, none of the wars would reach at this stage. While writing these sentences, are you claiming that Dacoits at Patlyaiya, Birgunj who loot night buses will stage a Maoists-like war in the future? 4. Ashu Said "So, I would think that the right thing to say the Maoists is this: "So long as you do not denounce violence and give it up altogether and even stop calling yourselves Maoists , you are NOT a political force of any sort. A political ideology with an obviously wrong practice cannot be a right ideology at all. You are just a destructive force. Don't fool yourself and don't fool us."" Very good writing. It better suits to you, THAN me. To make it fit for you, just replace "Maoists" with "Royalists". 5. Ashu Said: "oohi "democrat with a small 'd' ashu" It is the main difference between you and me. I do not have to put signatures like this to be a democrat. Rather, my writings are enough! AND, If you want to know my observations over different political players in our country at present, see my list in descending order (the worst is at the top). a. Gyanendra: is the biggest terrorist of all kinds. b. Gyanendra's clans and slaves: they are the threats for both people and democracy and freedom. c. Maoists: They are NOT threat to the people BUT to the democracy and freedom. d. Group of opportunists and selfish (I think you are quiet aware of this group): they are threat for a success of a particular system. e. Upper 2% leaders and some low-level leaders in SPA: They are treat to the intra-party democracy and success of a particular system. f. Remaining 90% SPA: They are the one who can make the difference, if they remain in the same path. Ashu, I condemn the most 'a' and the least 'f'. Do you have such clear-cut observations? ---- OK