India suspects Pakistani hand in Mumbai jihad blasts

A great deal of time and huffing and puffing is going into examining, as happened on NPR's "On Point" yesteday, whether or not Al Qaeda is involved, or Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Pakistan's ISI, or the man in the moon. The correct answer is: they all wish India ill, all could have had a hand in it, all share the same aim, all but that proverbial man in the moon, unless he is a Muslim Believer, in which case he too is adding his mite to the Jihad.

The same program was a classic study in wasting the valuable time of listeners on trivia and carefully tiptoing around the subject of Islam. Why is it that there is no conception of having a duty to discuss, straight on, the contents of Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah? Why is there no felt need, by the NPR muck-a-mucks, to force such people as Ashbrook to learn about the contents of Islam, and then the history of Jihad-conquest, and give evidence of such? Do they no, does Ashbrook not, have a duty to intruct - but first to learn a bare minimum himself?

Annoyingly rapid-talking, keeping up a mountebank's bright patter, the suddenly more cocky Ashbrook (according to reports from inside, he has apparently bucked up a few months ago by a puff-piece and the fact that while another, quite similar talk-show host was fired, he, Ashbrook, remained in place), who had left the Boston Globe for a fast-buck dot-com scheme that came to naught (so much for his commitment to the profession) came crawling back, desperate for a job that WBUR's then-czarette, Jane Christo, gave him.

And here he is, inviting on as his only local "guest" one Adil Najam, whose sole claim to expertise about Islam, about Jihad and dhimmitude and terrorist groups and the history of Islam in India, is that he happens to be a Muslim. By training he is an engineer; by assocation with the Fletcher School at Tufts, he teaches courses on economic thisandthat. By inclination he is an apologist, falling all over himself reminding people that there has been all sorts of "communal" violence -- what with that Sikh terror attack, and Hindu terror attacks, and -- he adds quietly -- some problem with Muslims as well. [A few years ago this Adil Najam began his speech at a "Muslim-Jewish Dialogue," according to someone who attended, by saying, dolefully, "I have a theory, a theory that Muslims are the new Jews." There's much more about Adil Najam to know, but the main thing to ask is: why does an NPR news program have him on to discuss Muslim terrorism in Mumbai? No one else in the whole wide world who can put that attack not only in context -- the context of all the other attacks in India by Muslim terrorists, of which we hear about only the biggest).

Ask yourself this question. Were you fully aware of the previoius attacks in Mumbia, in 2003 and 1993? Have you already forgotten, or did you never know, about the attack on the Indian Parliament in Delhi in 2001? Do you know about the dozens of attacks that take place every year in Kashmir? Do you know about the expulsion of 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits? For that matter, do you know about the history of Muslim massacres of Hindus (the Brahmins were wiped out) hundreds of years ago? Do you know what the historian K. S. Lal is referring to when he says that 60-70 million Hindus were killed by Muslims during the period of their rule? Does the name "Aurangzeb" mean anything to you? Do you know why Hindus revere the memory of the Mughal emperor Akbar, but Muslims don't?

If some of these matters are entirley new to you, or you can't quite figure out why they are relevant today, you have an excuse. You are not running a talk-show on NPR, and having program after program where some latest Islam-prompted atrocity, in India, or Thailand (no, that isn't on Ashbrook's, nor NPR's radar -- not a peep about that), or Bangladesh (no, nothing about the attacks on Hindus there, in NPR), or Indonesia (ditto about the steady attcks on churches and Christians, and so on)--is supposed to be discussed intelligently, with an informed host carefully asking the right questions.

You have an excuse.

What is Tom Ashbrook's excuse? What is NPR's?

I AM sure other groups are involved. There may be several groups going by whatever name suits them for the moment. Underneath all the makeup is the source __ISLAM__.

THIS ATTACK was a coordinated assault. Surely a lot of planning took place.

India should be making plans for a positive aggressive response. India can be a real pain in the rear for Islam it India so desires--few will care about collaterial damage (except the Dhimmis of the world and the Euroweenies).

Is it any wonder that Pakistan continus it's Jihad against democratic and secular India? Remember Daniel Pearl? The professional American man was slaughtered, on camera, in Pakistan. And what does Dubya do? take Pakistan an 'ally against terror'. Isn't that inviting the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood's grandma's.

And Saudi Arabia, another wolf in sheeps clothing. SO, is Dubya too dumb or has sold his soul to the richs of Riyadh? Or both?

I AM sure other groups are involved. There may be several groups going by whatever name suits them for the moment. Underneath all the makeup is the source __ISLAM__. Posted by: exsgtbrown

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1748774.cms

But using the tagline 'Pakistan behind this', while seemingly a recognition of the Jihad, is in the Indian context refined taqiyya. When the Indian dhimmi establishment says 'Pakistan', it gives them an escape route from saying 'Muslim', and to prove this, they are usually quick to point out that this has nothing to do with the 'peace-loving Muslim community in India'. They will typically use taqiyya press releases from the Jama Masjid and other such seats of Ummah power to bolster their claims.

But these are generally just half-truths. True, Pakistan is involved in many, if not most of them. But this deflects attention from the trecherous Indian Muslim community, which it shouldn't. As has been pointed out, SIMI, which has been planning this operation from Bangladesh, is not a Pakistani or even a Bangladeshi outfit, nor is it a part of al Qaeda. It's an indigenous Indian Muslim outfit, and its loyalty to India is unquestionable - it doesn't exist.

On the subject of NPR and PBS, I happen to think that not covering India at all - as Fox News, for instance, has done - is better than covering it from a pro-Islamic stand. If such a job cannot be done properly, it shoudln't be done at all. Nobody should be that desperate for news from any part of the world to the point that even an extremely biased coverage is acceptable.

It is not.

Alert

By now, I think Bush is a traitor. And I happen to be pro-GOP.

The truth is ANY Islamic nation could have been involved in the terror attacks on Mumbai on 7-11. All Islamic countries are dangerous to India and the non-Muslim nations. EVERY ONE OF THEM IS A POTENTIAL MENACE.
And of course the Islamic community within India itself is a constant danger as well and could easily have perpettrated these rail bombings. It doesn't HAVE TO BE JUST PAKISTAN.

pythagoras, Sir,
"All Islamic countries are dangerous to India and the non-Muslim nations. EVERY ONE OF THEM IS A POTENTIAL MENACE".
I totally agree. Even Maldivian Jihadists have been arrested at Colombo Airport, Sri Lanka on their way apparently on a suicide mission.
The following link gives somehting about it and strangley about American dhimmis getting involved
http://www.maldivesroyalfamily.com/editorial_breach_of_golden_rule.shtml

"India strongly suspects Pakistani hand in Tuesday`s serial blasts in Mumbai suburban trains with all leads pointing to involvement of ISI-backed terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba, highly placed sources said tonight."

Where is an earthquake when you need one?

"India strongly suspects Pakistani hand in Tuesday`s serial blasts in Mumbai

ME TOO!!

AND I believe that the Pakistani government is hiding Osama.

"I listen only to Laura Ingram, Michael Savage, Jerry Doyle, and the rest of the gang on Fox radio---a lone voice of sanity on the airwaves"
Me too. These guys do NOT mince words, calling a spade a spade, no buttery language, no beating around the bush. For many "sensitive ears", it may be hard to swallow, but this is exactly what is needed to wake up the sleeping hordes.

If they were in charge of this country, and many more, it would be happily muslim free.

freetoBEfree

Michael Savage is the unique person who I completely agree with, but loathe at the same time because of his rudeness to callers. Other than that, I find it depressing that he's one of the few people who states the things I agree with, such as Iraq the model is not the job of our army.

Infidel Pride
True, he sometimes has no patience , and is shockingly rude, but that just weeds out a lot of callers, who are wasting the precious airwaves time. He gives attention to really intelligent ones, who can back up thetr statements with historical facts, and he himself has plenty those at his fingertips. Just like Hugh!!

Michael Savage says the real fear Muslims have is western pornography. Just image Abu catching his son in the tent watching playboy channel.

US_infidel,
Great lineup!
Did you happen to catch the debate on Laura Ingraham's program this morning between cair and the Pompano Beach Minister?
Classic. http://www.lauraingraham.com/

After 7/11, I think it's time that the foreign policy makers in the Indian and the US Government be given a refresher course on Musharraf and Pakistan. The first required reading is the speech given Musharraf to his country men (women don't count in Islam!) in the aftermath of 9/11. The following excerpt is the essence of his speech:

Some clerics and some religious leaders are being driven toward an emotional decision. I want to remind them of the first six years of the history of Islam.

Islam's calendar started with migration when Prophet Mohammed himself went from Mecca to Medina to save Islam. It was his, of course, wisdom to go towards a migration.

After migration, when the prophet reached Medina, then he entered a friendship treaty with his enemies, the Jews, in Medina. This was his wisdom. This treaty continued for six years, and in these six years there were three incidents. And in this, because of the peace treaty with Jews, he was able to fight the infidels of Mecca.

After six years, the Jews noticed that Islam was becoming stronger. They got very irritated. In this estate, they started a new alliance with the intelligent people of Mecca. When the prophet noticed that these two enemies were getting together, he decided to sign an agreement, an alliance with the same infidels of Mecca with whom he had been fighting.

I want to draw your attention to the main point of this particular alliance. At the end of this letter, where there were to be signatures, the prophet's name was written where he had to sign. The infidels said they didn't regard him as a prophet, and that the word ``prophet'' should be deleted. He agreed to delete it, but at this point Hasmat Omar (ph), who was present there, he became very emotional and, in this emotional state, Hasmat Omar (ph) asked Prophet Mohammed, ``Are you not the prophet of the Almighty?'' He said, ``No, I am.'' Omar (ph) asked, ``Are we not on the right side in signing this treaty?'' The prophet said, ``No, we are on the right side.''

Hasmat Omar (ph) asked, ``Why are we going to sign it that way?'' The prophet's reply was, ``You are at the moment talking with emotion. You are emotionally charged. But wisdom's demand is that we should sign it at the moment, and this would be beneficial to Islam, and as the time passes, you will become aware of what advantage it has to us now.''

And then in the next six months, there was a battle between Muslims and Jews, and of course by the grace of God, Muslims won the battle. This was possible because there had been a pact with the infidels of Mecca--of a no-war (ph) pact--that Muslims won. And then, of course, Mecca was conquered.

What lesson do we derive with this incident?

And, what lesson should US and India draw from Musharraf's speech? If these two countries were to continue to trust the General and his Pakistan, Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Dr. Manmohan Singh do not deserve the Ph.D.'s that were awarded to them. The full text of the speech is available online here.

Mimamsaka,
I believe the answer to you question is… At the birth of America we were basically alone. 230 years later things have not changed. We are now and always will be on our own. No matter what good we do in the world we will still be hated. Of course, no one hates a loser. So that is encouraging. We fought to free the slaves, something no other people of the world would have done, and it led to the almost total denunciation from the world, of slavery. We fought to rid the world of the Nazi scourge not 60 years ago but we are still the hated USA. What is wrong with this picture? In the world today, up is down, right is wrong. We can count on ourselves and no one else as always. We chart our own course or risk the perils that exist everywhere else.

tgusa,

You are NOT alone. There are plenty of people who do love the USA (and I'm not talking about just US citizens). IMHO the problem is that most countries in the World, including the USA (though less so than most other countries), have a large segment of people completely out of touch with the reality of Islam and the threat it poses to all of us. Also, most countries and their governments have had their head turned to mush by all tha PC garbage that is daily fed to them by the World press (i.e. the BBC, NYT, WP, Times of India,...). There is also the tendency of each country to view the efforts of other countries through the narrow prism of one's own perceived self-interests. I use the word 'perceived' carefully since quite often what is perceived and what is real are quite different. Quite often, the actions of one country in its fight against Islam are baffling to the other country. Most Indians, for example, are completely dismayed and horrified at the USA considering Musharraf as their 'key ally' in the war against terror... since this is the man most responsible for keeping the Islamic jehadi machinery operational against India. By the same token, the USA cannot understand why India is so tepid in its support of the war in Iraq. Similar irritants occur say between the USA and the Russians, or between Indians and Israelis.. etc etc. I think we are, however, fast coming to a stage when the World will really have to take an unequivocal stand in their war against Islam.... a real case of either you are with us or against us which George Bush spoke of after the 9-11 bombings (not like right now where countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered as key allies, when we all know that they are key centers for Islamic jehad). In any case, I hope so.