[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Melusine: I don't think Groj was trying to say it would have been alright if the victim truly were a Muslim - quite the opposite!! I think what he's saying is that it's sad that people can be so fanatical in their racist fixations, they don't even stop to check whether the person they're beating up is actually of the religious persuasion they have convinced themselves they have a problem with. And I agree - how ****** stupid is that?? I shouldn't be so surprised really... if you're moronic enough to want to beat up a fellow countryman just because he's a muslim, you're probably also dumb enough to mistake anyone with a slightly different colour than yours for one. I can't speak for Grojlach of course but I do have some idea of his opinions on such things and I believe he's definitely not saying it would have been OK if the victim was a Muslim.

Thanks, Mel. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I suppose (hope?) they were criticising the situation sketched in the article and the things being focused upon, not me in particular. Else they've *cough* missed the point, to say it as diplomatic as possible.

I suppose the title may have given the wrong impression, but I've merely copy/pasted the original title of the article... So blame them. And keep in mind the meaning of the title is mostly reflected in this part of the article:

The men originally intended to rob Bhalerao, but intensified their assault thinking he was Muslim, continuing to beat him even as he tried to explain that he was Hindu, Souza said.

So the article emphasizes that the assault was *intensified* once the robbers thought they were dealing with someone's who's muslim, and instead of merely robbing him, they started to beat him - or at least that's what the victim seems to claim about their motivations. And that's pretty much the "reason" for the title; they don't imply in any way it's "okay" to beat someone if it *was* a muslim.
A case of misinterpretation, I suppose.