Jihad against India will continue, says Pakistani jihad chief

And should India lose part or all of Indian-controlled Kashmir, this will not stop the Muslm assault on India any more than Israel's surrender of all of Gaza, or the West Bank, would stop the Jihad to eliminate the Infidel state of Israel. The Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira do not say: "once the Unbelievers have shown themselves willing to surrender part of what they possess, be satisfied. For whenver the Unbelievers show weakness, and partly yield, it is time for the Unbelievers to be satisfied, and cease to make demands upon them." This would entirely contradict the letter, and spirit, of Islam. What Infidels may regard as compromise, as signs of good-faith, even of yielding, mean nothing.

This has immediate relevance to the case of Israel, now giving up even the Jewish villages in Gaza. This is to give up territory to which the Israelis have by far the strongtest claim. It is a claim based on the Mandate for Palestine of the League of Nations, which saw a "Jewish state" as the intended successor to Mandatory Palestine. It is a claim based on history -- the Jewish connection to the land, the Jews who bought land from the Ottomans or the large Arab landlords before 1948 (including the land in Gaza on which some of those villages sit). It is a claim based on law, morality, and all the rules that have until now governed post-war settlements -- for how else did Italy, for example, acquire the Sudtirol, 97% ethnic German, after World War I,or why else were many of the borders of Europe re-drawn, after World War II, if not because of the very laws which now many wish to deny apply to Israel, without ever offering a convincing reason for this, or indeed, offering any reason whatsoever?

There is no more certain way to inflame Muslim irredentism against India itself than for any further compromises being made with the Jihad-state, the Muslim state of the "Pure" (Pak), of Pakistan. There is no more certain way to fill with a sense of malevolent triumph the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel -- the "Palestinian" Arabs -- than for the Israelis to behave as they are, giving up control of vital territory, damaging their own morale, wounding their own country. It is that damage to morale that they ought to be trying to inflict on the relentless enemy that will never be satisfied either with some territory (all must be controlled by Muslims, none must remain under Infidel -- i.e., Israeli -- control), or with all the aid that the ever-idiotic or possibly also malevolent Western governments insist on lavishing on the "Palestinian" Arabs, whose un-viable state can only exist through rendering intolerable the life of Israelis, and in the continued receipt of ever-increasing amounts of jizyah supplied by the long-suffering American and European taxpayers, who have by now outrun their own governments and elites in their understanding of Islam.

No one should be surprised as Jihad is "eternal," until the desired result has been attained -- triumphalism of Islam and the subjugation of all mankind to Islam and Muslims.

“We will continue our armed struggle until we get our goal of independence,” Salahuddin said.

Now the question is,will the armed struggle stop there.

Barking dogs seldom bite...

India has sumfin like 2.4 million men (reservists included in its army with a budget of $17 billion. I dont see how they hope to achieve "independence" with jihad.

btw i've read somewhere tat British Moslems r the main financers of Jihad against India. Can anybdy point out some major muslim businesses in England which support this "Jihad of Thousand Cuts".

India cannot “eliminate the movement of jihad (holy war) in Kashmir,” Syed Salahuddin, leader of the Hezb-ul Mujahedeen organization, said Sunday at a conference on Kashmir held in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.

And Condi has cheek to tell India tat Pakistan is doin everything it can to prevent cross border terror. I s'pect shes one of those old school guys who still harbour cold war bais against India.

Vikrant,

Condi is blinded by her loyalty to Dubya, whose integrity is compromised by Saudi wealth.

How else can a commander-in-chief of a country attacked, take the aggressors as his 'allies'?

SO, either Pakistan is are not 'true Muslims' or Islam is not a 'religion of peace'.

Which is it?

I think its important to realize that what are now Pakistan and Bangladesh were created out of India not because Muslims feared that they would not be treated as equals by Hindus, but because they could not live an a country where non-Muslims shared the same dignity as Muslims. Note that the name Pakistan itself means "Land of the Pure". This is to indicate that non-Muslims are impure and inferior to Muslims.

The fact that India survives as a robust secular democracy with a majority Hindu population, but with a Muslim population as large as that of Pakistan itself, frightens Muslim leaders in Pakistan (and, to a lesser extent, in Bangladesh). It threatens the very foundation of Pakistan itself. It defies its raison d'etre. It belies the premise that Muslims can only live harmoniously and prosperously with other Muslims.

That is why it is essential for Pakistan to support Islamic terrorists (and, to a lesser extent, Sikh terrorists) in India. The terrorists attacks on Hindus in India were meant to elicit a violent reaction from the Hindu majority against its Muslim neighbours. In the attack on Hindu passengers on a train in Godhra, the terrorists got the reaction they wanted. The subsequent attack on a Hindu temple in Gandhinagar did not elicit a violent reaction from Hindus.

I think it is important for Hindus in India to take the moral high ground as Mahatma Gandhi taught. When Hindus retaliate against Muslims, they fall into the trap set by the Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. We have to stop the cycle of violence that the terrorists thrive on.

Barry

Barry. I agree with every word. There have been rather too many hymns to Hindutva on this site, and implicit recommendations to India to become as nasty as its enemies. But India is strong and getting stronger, and one day soon is going to count as a world power. I remember when I visited there in 1990, already you could not see the large city of Bangalore for all the universities: you could see that the country was investing heavily in knowledge, and the results of that investment are becoming increasingly evident. India can therefore "take the moral high ground" from a position of increasing and already overwhelming strength. Meanwhile Pakistan and Bangladesh look on and hope for a few crumbs from the burgeoning Indian banquet. Pakistan has only ever invested in military development - which is why they have the Bomb but no information-technology boom - and Bangladesh, poor sods, hardly have anything to invest at all. And the military strength that Pakistan built up by starving the rest of the country (the Army in Pak holds something like 45% of GNP, according to Time magazine) will fade like snow in the sun as Indian military investment increases in pace with its increasing prosperity.

When one looks at Pakistan and compares it to India, it is like night and day. Yet they are the same people! Nothing reveals the retrogressive character of Islam any better than a side-by-side comparison of these two countries.

India gave away a big chunk of itself to mollify the implacable muslims, to no avail. Why are muslims oblivious to the obvious disparities between Islamic governments and democracies? India and Pakistan are the perfect examples of progressive democracy and backwards, stultified, destitute, largely illiterate Islamic state.

All of the Indians I know are extraordinarily intelligent. Most Indians in my area are either physicians or businessmen, and very successful. My own physician is an Indian and I wouldn't trade her for anything. There are no Pakistanis that I know of here, but in a city not too distant there are thousands of them and they are despised by everyone.

Islam calls itself non-racist and in a sense, I suppose it is. It is not the least bit discriminatory when it comes to reducing the people of superior civilizations to the level of primates.

Hutchrun: I think you ought to read Chairman Mao on the likely effects of a-bombs on a nation of one billion people. If the Pakistanis were ever insane enough to seek a confrontation, their atom bomb would only delay their defeat. Sure, India would suffer badly, and so would the rest of the world, which these days is seriously plugged into the Indian economy. But it would not be annihilated; and the use of WMDs would only make it more determined to annihilate the enemy.