Unreality pervades not just Western analyses of the jihad threat, but the Islamic world as well. "Muslims 'Still in Denial' About 9/11, Pew Survey Finds," from the New York Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:
PARIS, June 22 — Non-Muslim Westerners and Muslims around the world have widely different views of world events, and each group tends to view the other as violent, intolerant, and lacking in respect for women, a new international survey of more than 14,000 people in 13 nations indicates.In what the survey, part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project for 2006, called one of its most striking findings, majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Turkey — Muslim countries with fairly strong ties to America — said, for example, that they did not believe that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. The findings, illustrating the chasm in beliefs, follow another year of violence and tension centered around that divide. In the past 12 months, there have been terrorist bombings in London, riots in France by unemployed youths, many of them Muslim, a global uproar over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and no letup to the war in Iraq....
Over all, Muslims in the survey worldwide, including the large Islamic populations in Britain, France, Germany and Spain, broadly blamed the West, while Westerners tended to blame Muslims for the bad relations. Muslims in the Middle East and Asia depicted Westerners as immoral and selfish, while Westerners saw Muslims as fanatical.
The results were not uniform, however, and delivered some surprises: Support for terrorism declined in some Muslim countries surveyed, dropping dramatically in Jordan, where terrorist bombings killed more than 50 people in Amman in November.
Two-thirds of the French people surveyed expressed positive views of Muslims, and even larger majorities of French Muslims felt favorable toward Christians and Jews. Muslims in Europe surveyed were less inclined to see a "clash of civilizations" than general publics in Europe and Muslims elsewhere.
Pew found sharp divergences on respect toward women: Non-Muslims in the West view Muslims as lacking respect, the survey indicated, while Muslims outside Europe say the same of Westerners....
Majorities in the Muslim world, Pew said, also expressed the opinion that the victory of the militant group, Hamas, in Palestinian elections in January would "be helpful to a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians — a view that is roundly rejected by non-Muslim publics."
Disbelief was strong among Muslims that Arabs were behind the Sept. 11 attacks, with 65 percent in Indonesia and 59 percent in Turkey, for example, expressing that viewpoint. Even in Britain, 56 percent of the Muslims surveyed did not believe that Arabs carried out the attacks. The results, Mr. Kohut said, show that "many Muslims are still in denial" about something that even Osama bin Laden has acknowledged.
It was the Jooos, don't you guys know anthing!
So they think it was the Boy Scouts screaming allahu akbar as the planes slammed into the towers?
Hold on i dont know who did it, and although it was wrong, i dont really care. but what is certain is that the USA government has benefited from this and have used it to carry out worse crimes,
so a plane can fly into a buliding and everything is evapoated in the heat, yet a passport survives in tack with a clear photo and name. YOU BOUGHT THAT LINE!!!!
Whenever I think about the poor souls on the aircraft on 9/11{screaming Women with Children in their laps being slammed into buildings} it just makes me want to go beserk. But my government says dont be hasty. Dont blame anyone. I am not an idiot born of idiots. No penalty is too extreme for me.
Saladin says:
"so a plane can fly into a buliding and everything is evapoated in the heat, yet a passport survives in tack with a clear photo and name. YOU BOUGHT THAT LINE!!!!"
Hello???
They had passenger lists!!
That is also how they knew who flew the plane that crashed in PA. The passengers used cell phones and gave the seat numbers.
And don't tell us that the US hired those saudi's.
Bin laden admitted doing this - when will you accept this fact or was he lying as usual?
As if Bush would ruin the financial operations in the WTC,,let alone kill so many people.
Get real!
Yes,,I know. You are going to say muslims are not smart enough to do things like this. But this time they were.
Re: Muslims 'Still in Denial' About 9/11
Muslim culture-religion has a sick sense of reality. Their arrogance is a cover for very deep insecurity, and they don't see how people really see them. Islam is an intolerant religion and culture(especially in Saudi Arabia). Muslims don't realize how many people are offended by their arrogant demands for equal rights that they refuse others (Hindu, Christian, etc.) in most Muslim countries, or how people are tired of their infantile threats. They seem immune to reason as they thump Korans and with glazed eyes call for jihad against Jews, Hindus, Christians-all who are not part of Dar-al-Islam.
Waffa Sultan-where the heck are you? Do something for these poor unfortunates...
Terror called 'product'
of Arab society
Saudi official: 'This is a one-dimensional culture, a culture of tyranny'
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50753
The American public isn't supposed to know Islam is evil and homicidal and after them!!
SSShhhh!!! That's THEIR secret!!! Islam is evil (but, keep that under wraps, because no one is supposed to know!!!!!).
It just happens to be the crazy, wacko nut jobs like Alex Jones and others who keep fueling the belief that this government orchestrated the 9/11 hijackings or else did nothing to stop it because of ulterior motives. The fact that Alex Jones, Noam Chomsky, and others are not locked up is proof that this government is still functioning under the rule of law.
Saladin says:
"so a plane can fly into a buliding and everything is evapoated (sic)in the heat, yet a passport survives in tack (sic) with a clear photo and name."
Yes, Mr Saladhead, a passport could survive without even a scortch mark or other rip or tear. When the planes hit the towers they were ripped apart and a lot of the contents were scattered everywhere.
You people latch onto the most obscure myths as if this proves something. You have as much credibility as those idiots who deny that there were any moon landings. By the way, do you believe that the US made several trips to the moon in the 70s?
How long until we continue to operate on the rule of law?
Is anyone willing to sacrifice their grandchildren? That’s what this fight is about. Not us the living, but the future. Are we willing to give our lives to the future? I personally think YES. I am heartened by all I see now. Yes Sir. I know I am not alone anymore!
Our in-house Jihadi is only too happy to confirm the pew findings above.
Next, he'll say that all the 3000 victims of the attacks were Muslims. Don't put that past him. He is even more valuable for pedagogic reasons than Naseem has been. Let him keep posting, but my suggestion - ignore the troll, and let him be exhibit A Jihadist for the other people reading this weblog.
Salad: Wrong again! Everything onboard the planes was NOT incinerated because the structural ruptures on the jets caused by the impact of the crash happened before the detonation, permitting many items to escape the flames and extremely high heat (as they were thrown out of the planes)!!Among these items were a stewardesses hands that had been hacked off with a knife and bound with cord. These and other interesting items survived because they were ejected from the planes BEFORE they exploded. And were later retrieved by US authorities. Get it, dimwit??
Now as it happens, many people on board the planes used their cell phones to call their loved ones to say good-bye--and the recipients of these calls in many cases clearly heard the hijackers screaming at the passengers and were able to give accounts of what they heard going on aboard the planes in the last minutes before they crashed. One of the names they all heard being screamed by the hijackers was Ousamah bin Laden!!!!!! Imaghine that!
You also forget that workers at the airport witnessed the hijackers board the planes, and there is video camera footage of Muhammed Atta and others boarding. If you are going to claim that these were robots built by the CIA the burden of proof is on you...and the burden of not laughing to death at you is on US!!!!!
It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Muslims were responsible for the 9-11 hijackings of the ill-fated US commercial jetliners. All it takes is someone with an IQ higher than an average Indonesian or Turk (which is most of the world).
salahudin,
Its not the US Government that you should worry about. The people decide in this nation . After that we all get on board and annialitate our enemies. Care to be next?
On the other hand, Islam has also benefited from 9/11. Following your line of reasoning, that could only mean one thing as to "who did it".
Which will bring us back to "DOH!"
Saladin:
As you can see, a lot of people are pretty sure that the big crunch is coming soon.
And you know what?, since we in the western world are genuinely educated (not indoctrinated) we KNOW a hell of a lot of things about your mob and your beliefs, we do not need to BELIEVE anything, we know it! So, you can ask yourself, what is better: knowing or believing ??
When the crunch is coming you guys wont even have the chance to do major damage, because we know... You calling for your own dismissal..
later then, we may be discussing it amongst ourselves, no-one of you guys will be around anymore... the selfrighteousness of your muslim beliefs is sheer stupidity...
Remember Adolf Hitler?, he had a cyanide tablet...
Didn't Osmam Bin Laden claim credit for 9/11?
Do Muslims doubt the word of a fellow terrorist?
Shame on them!
We know a hell of a lot of things about your mob and your beliefs,
That is so perfect... MOB... that describes it for sure.
The troll above is beneath contempt. Like so many other Mohammedans who have managed to infiltrate infidel countries, he shamelessly smears the victims of 9/11-Islamic terror and other atrocities committed in the name of Islam...
Mass-murder committed proudly in the name of Islam, but there you have it:
"The USA government has benefitted from this"... the mind boggles! Insanity absorbs reason, projection, deflection, tu coque and the most perverse conspiracy theories are thrown around, all from the same mosque, the same rumor mill, the same mindset...
An we still haven't interned them, we still haven't razed the mosques, we still fail to call the enemy by its name...
When will the deportations begin???
sheik yer'mami,
Patience Sir... We have them right where we need them. America is close to understanding the threat. Bear with us, we are slow, but we will come around before it is too late. And God have mercy on my enemies, I wont! Gen. G.S. Patton USA
Aasalam'u'Alaikum to all:
The ummah's confirmed fitnah -
brother Salahuddin famously fulminated:
"...USA government has benefited from this and have used it to carry out worse crimes."
astaghfirullah !
This is a tell-tale sign that Muslims need to be kicked out of USA, and the practice of Islam banned here in USA.
It is because of this attitude that Islam inculcates inside its followers, that many have decided to leave Islam, so that reason and rationality prevails.
Infidel Pride do you get the drift in my posts in other forums on Jihadwatch ?
Jazak Allah !
"Muslims in Europe surveyed were less inclined to see a "clash of civilizations" than general publics in Europe and Muslims elsewhere."
Muslims in europe posing as moderates?
Reember the conditions of such a poll. In Europe, those taking down the opinions of Muslims are fellow Muslims (you don't think non-Muslims would dare to enter the quartiers chauds in France or their equivalents elsewhere, do you?) And these poll-takers will certainly have a vested interest in diminsishing the percentage of negative comments made by Muslims about non-Muslims and non-Muslim societies and governments. So of course the results will be slanted only one way -- to appear to offer a rosier view, a less negative and hostile view, by Muslims of non-Muslims. And if you reply that the poll-takers are "professional" and would never collude in such a thing, or encourage it, or simply jigger the results, then you are a complete innocent.
Sal, you stated on a previous thread that you think that Bush is behind 911 -- so which is it? You either know, or you don't know who's behind 911.
You're obviously a liar and attracted to lies of every size and description, and you want to deflect the attention away from the real criminal -- Osama Bin Laden. One of your own.
Denial seems to be a way of life for most Muslims, including you. You deny the Truth, and instead you choose to believe and follow lies propagated by Liar-in-Chief, Mohammad himself.
Up is down, and down is up when you're a Muslim. Black is white, and white is black. Everything is backwards, inside out, and upsidedown. Don't you see how you've CHOSEN to believe a bunch of crap and that you've been brainwashed; not only for who's responsible for 911, but what lies beyond the grave, and what paradise will be like.
Why does Allah consider it a sin to sleep around with 80 virgins here on earth, but in heaven Allah sanctions it? Does that make sense to you? Well, it shouldn't!
That's because it's a lie -- SNAP OUT OF IT!!!
[quote]but what is certain is that the USA government has benefited from this
[/quote}
Oh?
We've lost over 2500 of our best and brightest men and women the US has to offer... we've spent over a half a TRILLION dollars... we are despised the world over, even though we liberated two entire countries from their terrorist dictators... and we have received exactly NOTHING in return for our sacrifice.
I challenge you, salahuden, to state exactly how and why you believe the US government has benefited from this mess.
Oh the irony of it all.
I hear (or shall I say read) the following all of the time.
l. The Arabs didn't do 9-11, they are being scapegoated by da Joos
and without missing a beat the next thing they say
2.America had it coming for supporting Israel as it persecutes the poor innocent Arab.
Nothing like eating ones cake and having it too.
And what, btw, is Jazak?
MbKAJ
My point being, if the US is the only Islam free country you have in the world, it won't work. The borders of Islam have to be rolled back to where they were after WWI. Ideally, I'd like to see countries like Persia and Indonesia emerge from their respective Islamic nightmares, but that is like hoping, in 1984, that one day, the Soviet Union gets replaced by a non-Communist Russia.
Infidel Pride,
Reading about this jerk's comment about leaving India to muslims and saving his sorry a** made me wonder about his caste. Even though I don't differentiate on the basis of castes, I wondered what colour his blood is.
2 Hugh: I think that the reason for European Muslims having less radical points of view than Third-World Muslims could be in the definition of the "M" word.
For Euro bureaucrats, anyone who has Algerian/Turkish/Arab roots is a Muslim. On the other hand, not a few Muslims who immigrated to Europe became "Muslims in name only" (from now on, just MINOs), stopped going to mosque, licking the floor 5 times a day etc. Of course, these people do not live in the banlieus.
I cannot assess how many immigrants and their children become MINOs, but I believe it is at least 10 percent. And since these people are better integrated than their fellows, they are an easier target to reach, even for the poll collecters - so they might be actually overrepresented in the samples.
In France, you will also have the effect of the Berbers and Kabyles. They form a significant share of the immigrant community, and they are not as fond of Islam as the Arabs are.
Maldivian literature and websites in denial about 9/11 are there too..and lots of US bashing ...http://www.kavaasaa.com/
Its all in local language so the infidels do not know the brainwashing that goes on..they never come come out with this stuff in english..in english they call for "tolerance"
how have the US government benefited from 9/11 well they have added to invisibal stars to their flag, two states which have very large energy and oil reserves
salahudin -
First of all, Afghanistan doesn't have any oil reserves that I know of... it's a very poor country with little of anything that interests the US.
Secondly, do you actually BELIEVE that the US or US taxpayers are benefiting *AT ALL* from Iraq's 'large energy and oil reserves' ??
Because I'm here to tell ya, we ain't.
We were in fact assured by the US gvmt that Iraq's oil reserves would wind up paying for this war - and this has yet to happen b/c of the stupid 'insurgents' who keep blowing up the pipelines. (These same insurgents who want us out so badly, but can't seem to understand that if they'd quit blowing things and ppl up, our troops would be out of there within months.)
This war has cost American taxpayers a half trillion dollars, our government is running around with egg on it's face still trying desperately to defend a war that's literally fallen apart at its feet, and we've lost so many precious lives in the process (and see, we here in America actually VALUE human life, unlike the muslim 'insurgents' who don't care about anything except 72 virgins upon dying), we've completely spent any 'goodwill' showed towards us after 9/11 and are looked upon as pariahs the world over, and you still sit there and claim that America has gained so much, benefited so much, from this war?
No offense, but you, Sir, are blind.
How I wish I could see what this planet would function like without America being forced into the Bad Cop role all the time, if all the countries of the world couldn't sit back knowing 'America will handle the problem for us.'
nariz: no one who knows anything thinks that 9-11 happened because of the US' support for Israel!
The USA was attacked by the Islamic Caliphate in the year 1786, when it was all of 11 years old, and there was NO ISRAEL BACK THEN FOR AMERICANS TO SUPPORT!!!!
Imagine that. Terrorism attacks happen in India routinely too--yet India has also been at war with Islam for over 1000 years and is by and large too impoverished to give the amount of support to Israel or anyone else that America accords Israel and other "enemies of Islam".
So please, Nariz, realize there are people who can and do think 'outside the box'--even if you can't.
Pythagoras~ Nariz was merely repeating what he's read on other sites, not what he himself believes.
Infidel Pride wrote:
"No. Your posts seemed to suggest that the US be made an Islam free zone (agree), but that we give up on India (disagree)."
Your disagreement is your viewpoint. It is actually far from reality. Hindus can not fight back. Otherwise in the past 50 years India would have solved the Kashmir problem. India (majority Hindsu) has a tendency to blame USA and other western powers for their Kashmir problem. Why can't India declare Pakistan as a terrorist country and stop all contacts ? Why does it need USA to do so ? USA knows that India and Israel, though both have the same (Muslim) problem, will react totally differently. Israel shall hit out brutally, in retaliation, but India shall cry and weep.
I feel that is a mendicant (beggar) mentality. A beggar begs to solve his/her woes. Ironically, it is a proverb/maxim, that a beggar dies poor. A similar case is with India. If USA stops all support for Pakistan (somehow magically), then would all problems of Kashmir be solved ? Would you be so green to think that the LeT operatives inside India, would stop bombings like in Varanasi, Connaught Place and in Amarnath ? India has seen, throughout history, the most vicious of all Muslim invasions as V. S. Naipaul points out in his book: India: A Wounded Civilization. What has been the result ? Well, Muslim terrorism continues unabated. Who is to blame directly ? It's those against whom brutal crimes have been committed (non-Muslim majority/minority). The majority in India has never supported any anti-Muslim cause. I would qualify this view by stating that the Indian Parliament hasz always enacted lawss favorable gto Muslims at the expense of the majority. I know that the RSS and VHP and Bajrang Dal haved tried their best to turn the tide. But, they are still on the edge of getting the message out. The character of the Hindus is timidity. This is a phenomenon for the past 2500 years - after Emperor Priyadarshi Ashok embraced Buddhism. I think you should pause and think if at all what you are writing is possible. Hindus have always thrived on casteist visions, like the present UPA govt.'s appeasement of 50% reservation. Muslims in India are just laughing their lungs out. They know that Hindus can never be aggressive. Yes, one or two historical luminiaries like Shivaji, Rana Pratap, Prithviraj Chauhan etc. can be cited. But that does not deny the fact that for more than 1200 years Hindus have been subjugated to Islamic oppression and under the Sharia law.
The reason that I think such is the case is because Indian Independence was basically given away. It was never fought like elsewhere. Yes, people went to jail, but so what ? It was more like a "parliamentary democracy" issue - civil disobedience of Gandhi and non-violence. Gandhi did understand that Hindus are timid. Asking them to fight the British with weapons would never work. So, he cleverly brought in the failed and timid concept of non-violence. Yes, Congress did oppose the British. But, it was more like a sophomoric legislative effort than hard-fought battle. At the end of WW-II, Sir Clement Atlee - the then PM of Great Britain argued that maintaining India is becoming a economic liability. So, let them become Independent as they (Indians) wanted self-rule swaraj.
Now consider the situation in Iraq. Iraqis (who are Muslims in majority) are fighting, i.e., committing terrorism. These Muslim terrorists are not afraid to spill their own blood to fight the west. I am not supporting the Muslim terrorists (Al-Qaeda Jihadis), but just observe the difference in character between Muslims (in Iraq) against their perceived "Crusader-Zionist Occupier" (USA), and the same in India just prior to Independence. Do you think Hindus can fight the way these terrorists are fighting (rightly/wrongly)against their perceived occupiers ?
How can you think that India would be able to solve its Islamic problems, when everybody and including Samuel Huntington has realized Islam has bloody borders, and that Hindus have no recorded history of conducting violence (for the right cause) against their oppressors ?
So, get real with your jingoistic visions. Learn to bite the bullet, considering ground realities, and don't be deluded by mirages. India herself has surrendered to her oppressors throughout history. There is no probability of turning that tide.
And again you (unthinkingly) wrote:
"My point being, if the US is the only Islam free country you have in the world, it won't work. The borders of Islam have to be rolled back to where they were after WWI."
Let USA free itself of Islam and Muslims first. The US people have the infrastructure, and will. Upon achieving that (at least largely), then USA can help other countries (and Europe) to defend against Muslim problems. If USA itself can not clean its own house, how can it help others ?
Arjun Sevak wrote:
"Reading about this jerk's comment about leaving India to muslims and saving his sorry a** made me wonder about his caste."
Thank you. Get a life son ! Been there even before you were conceived.
However, your other point above contrasting India with Israel is baseless. You've obviously missed the many threads, and the several Israeli posters who lament not just the pressures brought to bear on them by the State Department, but also the fact that within Israel, both Labor and Kadima have sold them out, and Likud simply doesn't have the support needed to prevail.
Israel's retaliations are incredibly limited - a suicide bombing usually gets followed by a few terror sources being bulldozed, and that's it. Look at the way Israel reacts when Katyusha rockets are fired from Gaza, or Hizbullah shells Israeli positions in Galilee. It's no different from the war dances India has with Pakistan along the Kashmir LOC.
Had Israel ever responded by enforcing the "transfer" solution i.e. expelling all Palestinians out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, your point about the contrast between Israel and India would have been valid. Also, none of Israel's neighbors - Syria, Egypt, Jordan or KSA - have nukes the way Pakistan has. In fact, given that reality, it's a wonder that India prevailed in the Kargil conflict, when Pakistan had threatened the first use of nukes.
LeT operatives will operate because they can - that will happen even if Bal Thackeray becomes the Prime Minister and orders an endlosung on the Muslims. It isn't the question of whether Muslims survive or not that inspire them. I do think this however - if India bans Muslims from coming into India, it could go some way. However, it isn't difficult for Pakistani Muslims, properly disguised, to infiltrate India in order to pull of terrorist activities. But if every terror act is followed by, say, a 100m Muslims being united with 7.2b houris, a point will come where India would slide down lower on the priority target, unless of course Pakistan thought it's worth going to war over.Where I am chagrined is at the fact that Indians seem to see attacks on Ayodhya, Varanasi et al as minor attacks, in contrast to the terror attacks on Delhi shortly after 9/11. I do fear that it would take a major terrorist attack to change the mood completely in India. But I don't agree with your assessment that nothing will do it.
What do you mean, one or two? I cited a whole list of them in my post the other day; besides, if what you are saying about Hindus not fighting back is true, we'd all be reciting the Shehada. The fact remains that throughout India's history, the Muslims never ruled the whole of India, and were always at war with each other, thereby being too busy to consolidate Islam in the country; besides, at every point, somewhere or the other, there were Hindu rulers who organized military campaigns against them. The only time Muslims came close to conquering the whole of India was at Aurangzeb's death, but by then, there were so many Infidel revolts - Rajputs, Sikhs, Marathas, Jats, et al that it started coming unhinged in a few years.Also, caste based politics is a staple in UP and Bihar, but is relatively low in other states. In fact, the BJP is still a powerful opposition; the reason they lost was the NDA allies being trounced in states like AP, TN, Punjab, etc, so that the Congress, with its allies, came to power. But like in 1984, where Indians all came together when they thought that a Khalistan movement was threatening to become a reality, you can bet that they'd solidly unite against any Islamic threat, including internal ones. After all, the Hindu population is a lot less anti-Sikh than anti-Islam, but if despite the anti-Sikh riots they could give Rajiv Gandhi a record victory, they'd probably do the same if they saw India in the danger of folding to Muslim forces.
The reason India got its independence was that Britain, and other European colonial powers were too burnt out and had no desire to put any more effort into maintaining their empire. Different people in India can give credit to Gandhi, Nehru, Netaji, et al all day long. Ultimately, not to endorse Nazism, but the reason for India's (and the entire British empire's) independence was Hitler and Tojo.India isn't currently occupied, unless you are thinking of 130m Mohammedans, who I agree are a cancer. But while that's 13% of the population, do you really think that they are capable of ever becoming a majority in India demographically? Note that in India, dawa is not tolerated - in fact, the only conversions from Hindu to Islam are those pro-leftist wackos who, in a post-Soviet era, have no anti-Hindu ally to latch on to, and have therefore recited the Shehada and enlisted in the Jihad?
The reason is trends. Until 1989, no Hindutva party - be it the Jana Sangh or the BJP - ever had a significant presence in parliament; it was a one person dynastic show. In 1989, the BJP went up from 2 seats to 89, and in 1991, they increased their strength even further. After that, they got to the point of diminishing returns on their own, but with their allies, they managed to come to power. Note that all this was in the absense of a perceived threat - when the NDA lost the last election, it was under a climate where it was okay to resume ties with Pakistan - which is why Jaswant Singh, though okay as a Finance minister, was horrible as a Foreign Minister.
If things do get ugly, the rest of India can look at the Gujarat model and learn from that. You think they won't - fine. But see my 1984 example above. If Indians could come together against the threat of Khalistan, you better believe they'll be far more intolerant of yet another threat from Islam.
Sort of, like Iran, Egypt, Syria, Mahgreb, Turkestan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaya? YawnIt's not jingoistic to look at India and its policies, and compare that with those of Israel, Russia and the US. The US should be faulted for dinging India for making textbooks that told the truth about the Islamic conquests. India should be faulted for playing footsie with Iran, and diplomatically participating in the isolation of Israel. Russia should be faulted for being in bed with Jihadis, despite the threat they face from Chechens. Israel should be faulted for not expelling all Arabs out of the Holy Land.
If you have been reading JihadWatch long enough, you'll see that there are a lot of people who dispair totally about countries like Netherlands and Sweden. But if you were to, like Naseem, tell them that that's their destiny, you'd, like Naseem, end up pissing off at least people from those countries. After all, if all hope is lost, there's nothing more to be done, and such an attitude is a plain exhibition of Inshallah fatalism.
This is a cliche. In India, most people know what Islam is like, what allowing conversions to Islam entails (although they haven't done much about their breeding), what Shariah is, et al. Unlike Europe, Hindus don't have a stagnant population growth, even though it has slowed down due to population awareness.In the US, outside this forum, it's largely unknown what the consequences were to be if the US ever became Islamic. Which is why if Robert or anyone were to publicly point out on Radio or TV to any public figure - Democrat or Republican - that dawa conducted in prisons, for instance, or higher birth rates of Muslims, was a long term threat to the US constitution, few would believe it. They'd think that American Muslims would simply preserve the US consitution like any others. The fact that no group of citizens has ever attempted that is part of what makes those people so cocksure.
I'd be the first to point out all the faults of Indians (I prefer using the term Hindus only for those who regard themselves as that, and not include Athiests or pro-Muslims in that category), but to say that India is worse off than even the US is really stretching it.
Infidelpride is right about Israel's situation. Israel is under constant pressure by a pro-Muslim international system. Every Israel measure against mass murderous jihad terrorists is criticized by the infinitely hypocritical EU and by the State Dept, etc., whereas the EU finances the anti-Israel jihad quite shamelessly.
So Israel's mostly brain dead present leadership restrains our armed forces from striking effectively against the terrorists in Gaza and Judea-Samaria and southern Lebanon, etc. We too have a "peace movement" much like the "peace movements" in Europe and the USA in the 1930s and 1940s. We have a "peace now movement." There was a pro-Nazi body in the United States during WW2 which advocated peace with Nazi Germany, peace with Hitler, and was called by exactly the same name, "peace now movement" and also "peace now committee." [for more, see NYTimes index for 1943 and 1944; and google "peace now movement" + "second world war" or "World War 2" or some such; and or "appeasement" + "john collett"].
The shallowness of historical knowledge in our times is illustrated by the general ignorance of the existence of the original "peace now."
Infidel Pride,
You cited the names of some of the most prominent Hindu warriors who fought against the muslim aggression. You gave quite a few names of the big warriors with mighty armies behind them. And even then you know that we are not even including .01% of all, and are quoting from the most recent history. Also we had the concept of Khalsa, the warriors made especially to combat the muslims who abandoned the value based fighting of the Kshtriyas. The Khalsas were also one of the bigger armies active in fighting muslims. The spectrum was Kshtriyas (lots of them in all states), Jaats, Gujjars, Rajputs, Banjaras (They were Shudras, but are regarded as Kshtriyas in Rajasthan belt), Sikhs, Bundelas, Thakurs, Dogras, Aroras, Gorkhas. And these are some of the fighters of North West India alone. I am not talking about other regions. And all of them led large armies against muslims throughout the 1200 years of muslim aggression.
What lies buried in small, ancient books are the tales of the small satraps that led small armies (500 - 10000) against the aggressors. They were barons of comparatively small areas, and even they joined in the fight. In my area alone there are the tales of Rani Durgawati, Udal Singh, Rajvijay Singh, Bhimsingh Rana, Hari Singh Rathore, Jai Singh Tomar. These are names that I recite out of hand. They are remembered by their villagers still. I have been to their villages. Most had a small fort or Castles from which these satraps ruled. And they are not forgotten by their people. They have songs of valor of these brave warriors, who sought death over collaborating with a muslim ruler. And I am talking about just a few villages. There are hundreds. And thousands of such satraps. These satraps still live on. In the memories of their people.
Thank you. Get a life son ! Been there even before you were conceived.
Posted by: Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal
Chicken. I spit on the 'life' you advise me to get.
You seem to believe that there is a monolithic Hindu opinion that is pro-Islamic, anti-US, anti-Israel,... There isn't. From my observations over the years, I've seen a 45-55 split in the direction you are implying. But in India, it isn't that majority opinion that carries the day.
That is the problem I was trying to get at. Good, you have realized. There is a major lack of connectivity between political charlatans and the people who voted them to power. I am not stating that in all cases majority opinion is good. But, the question, that now gets connected with the pan-Islamism of Indian Govt., (suppossedly voted upon by the majority of Indians - Hindus), is why the mass (aam janata) are voting them back to power again and again over the past 50 years ? Why has the previous and successive Indian Govts. not been able to implement Article 44 of the directive principles of state policy on thbe Uniform Civil Code and also abolsih Article 370 ? Going by your logic, this situation of status quo for Article 44 and 370 are actually not what an average Hindu wants to see, but the Govt. does not give a damn about majority (Hindu) opinion, so the status quo goes on and on.
This explains the case. Hindus, don't have representation in their own country. Otherwise the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits would not be living as refugees in their own motherlan (India) in the trans-Jamuna extension in New Delhi. Hindus can not do it, as they need to do serious soul searching on this score. This fact that Govt. does not represent majority opinion, even if more than 50% of votes are cast (unlike USA where only 35% of eligible people vote), is a shame. It shows corruption. Unless corruption is exterminated whatever lofty thoughts you have about India changing the tide in this pan-Islamism will continue.
Muslims entered India because some of the kings and landlords (Hindus) were corrupt. Read some of the books in the eight part series by H. M. Eliot and John Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians.
The last strong Hindu govt. in India was more than 2500 years ago: The Gupta Empire. (Eminent Historian Arthur Little Basham has described the rule of the Guptas.)
besides, if what you are saying about Hindus not fighting back is true, we'd all be reciting the Shehada
That would be somewhat redundant. Even Quran (009:029) calls for subjugation of infidels if they don't convert. The Jiziya tax was enforced for most of the time and hence the cost of conversion was deemed unprofitable. Because the rulers figured out, if the whole India magically became Muslim, then the tax sources would be far reduced. Why bother to kill the goose that is laying the golden egg ?
Get the drift ?