Jihadists assail US and its "puppets"

polls have charted the steady decline of America's image among Arabs.
well if that were true, why the hell does the arab muslim horde want to move to the West, and especially the U.S.?

Lulu asked: "... why the hell does the arab muslim horde want to move to the West, and especially the U.S.?"

TO establish a beach head in the land of the Infidel.

Once muslims can grow their demographic numbers sufficient to establish a large enough voting bloc, they'll proceed to vote into office islamic candidates whose platform includes enactment of laws consistent with the precepts of Sharia. Then the nightmare begins for the rest of us right in our own school boards, town councils, and legislatures.

Of course, the DNC and their fellow sympathizers on the Left's lunatic fringe will be doing everything in their power to facilitate the islamic rise to power.

Am I the only one who finds the civilian casualty numbers in Lebanon STUNNINGLY LOW?

poetcomic,
You are not alone.

I'll bet he'd shut up pretty fast if we'd stop giving them money, aid and buying their oil. Poetcomic you are right on.

Mahdi Al-Dajja that would be one of the answers, but mainly to get out of their hellhole muslim lands, and go to where there is prosperity. you saw that one muslim cleric cyring the blues in Lebanon, who was left Britain for the pure muslim land, now he wants back in.. in the West, with Democracy there is safefy, and he take a shower.

Re: Jihadists assail US and its "puppets"

What is creating radicalism in the region is not authoritarian regimes, mainly it is Dar-al_Islam, is more to the point in speaking truth to bs. Hezbollah looks to Iran and the Starr-Wars-Bar-Scene of Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs who pull Hezbollah's strings and Hezbollah sings..

http://sample.music.yahoo.com/radio/clientdata/624/player.asp?cid=624&iid=1<w=LaunchRadioTarget&p=6&m=0&d=0&modeInitialized=1&mode=1&resized=1&bridgeInit=1&bridgeMode=1&sids=25167371

http://sample.music.yahoo.com/radio/clientdata/624/player.asp?cid=624&iid=1<w=LaunchRadioTarget&p=6&m=0&d=0&modeInitialized=1&mode=1&resized=1&bridgeInit=1&bridgeMode=1&sids=698007

Again the same old blame game. This blame game is otherwise called Islam.

Bravo Israel. I wish the Hindus learnt the importance from the Jews.

I wish the people of Israel all the best !

"What is creating radicalism in the region is not authoritarian regimes, mainly it is American policy in the region - survey after survey shows that,"

Why is it that when I read this stuff the Muslim press puts out, I immediately think of whining children trying to avoid taking responsibility for their actions?

The Goobs, 1700 BST in Kenton, Middlesex is a bit far for me to travel, since I have sworn to myself to never fly commercially again, driving there is out of the question because of this big body of water called the Atlantic Ocean. Please keep us Yanks updated on this event.

Also be careful of the words you use, "raghead" might get your comment deleted from JWDW. Two of mine were taken off because I used a word for Muslim that rhymed with "fuzzy."

Unfortunately, we have plenty of people in the UK who, for whatever reasons - ignorance, left-wing devilment, currying to Muslim opinion - are only too eager to slander Israel in its belated attempt to protect its citizens.

The most recent and most prominent is foreign office minister Kim Howells:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5205658.stm

These people disgust me. And, since the left has imported Muslims into the UK by the boatload, and continues to do so, seeing them as assured votes, this can only get worse year by year. British Governments, like those everywhere else in Europe and North America and Australasia, will get further and further drawn into dancing with evil - merely in order to appeal to the votes of the Muslim immigrants who should never have been admitted in the first place. Jews, Christians, Hindus, and everybody else will be slandered and thrown to the wolves.

It's not the civilization I was born into. I don't recognize it. It appalls and disgusts me, and I regard the loudest and most influential voices in it - the half-educated, invicibly ignorant, self-satisfied, and malicious voices at the BBC, Guardian and "Independent" as no more than barbarians. They're dragging a whole civilization onto the dunghill and applauding themselves as they do it.

I forgot when I signed on as a commentor here, it's been almost a year. During that time I have heard THEM referred to as stupid, ignorant, cry babies, whiners, and other things. It must be understood that THEIR leadership is not made up of stupid people. THEIR comments, while sounding very stupid to our ears, are made for the consumption of the great Moslem masses. These clerics, mullas, imams, muftis, ayatollahs, and whatever, are cold, calculating individuals who know how to preach and "push the right buttons." When Ahmadinijad implies that the Jews came originally from Europe, millions of the Islamic proletariat believe him.

Pleeeeze, do not underestimate the Islamic leadership as our fathers and grandfathers underestimated the Japanese in 1941.

Am I the only one who finds the civilian casualty numbers in Lebanon STUNNINGLY LOW?

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 22, 2006 08:59 AM

No, you are not alone. Israel is falling into the same old trap (remember Arafat was 'confined' etc..?) of pussy-footing around. That the abductors are responsible for the un-specified consequnces and to strike where it hurts. And see the kidnapped victims returned overnight. Buy the way, what happened to Corporal Jilad Shalit?

Am I the only one who finds the civilian casualty numbers in Lebanon STUNNINGLY LOW? -Poet

Its even more stunning when you consider that the 'civilians' just happened to be in the immediate vicinity of military aimpoints. The gloves are still on.

Yeah Limes -

Did you read about Shia families with rockets in their living rooms and they give them pet names and kiss them good night and they're one of the family? I am not making this up.

The IDF are dropping leaflets warning civilians to get out, "we're going to bomb here soon." This explains the low numbers. Disproportionate compassion I call it when you consider a decade of rockets flying into Israel...

In the Second World War the German dead totalled 10.8 per cent of the population, the Japanese 3.61 per cent. The UK lost only 0.94 per cent and the US 0.32 per cent. Were the Allies “disproportionate”? What logic suggests that Israel is “disproportionate”, and since when is the aggressor entitled to suffer only the same losses as the defender ? A “just war” is not for revenge or reprisal, but to eliminate a threat.

from eloivsdiablo,
Disproportionate compassion I call it...

Excellent phrase.

I've noticed that whenever Muslims criticise their treatment by the West, one of their favorite buzz words is, "dignity". They always demand "dignity", as if it were a commodity to be doled out. But just how dignified is it, to conduct warfare by targeting civilians, hiding weapons in civilian homes, bombing public transport, beheading journalists, etc. etc. Their public demonstrations, show hoardes of skinny, illiterate, unshaven, young men, wearing ski masks and other head wrapping to conceal their faces, while shouting for Death to those who disagree with their primitive beliefs.

If you want dignity, you must act in a dignified manner. The Israelis, by giving warnings to the civilians before military strikes, are compromising their battle effectiveness, but showing true dignity as a people.

The inimitable Deborah Amos, whose every word drips with deep miscomprehension of why Israel has to defend itself, and who has organized a circus of compassion on NPR whereby again and again and again Lebanese "refugees" (Shi'a-supporter-of-Hezbollah "refugees" fleeing either Shi'a strongholds in south Beirut, or Shi'a strongholds in south Lebanon) are asked to tell their stories, which in case they are not doing enough to arouse the listener's compassion -- no wet eyes in this house -- are prompted, egged on, by the NPR interviewer, and no doubt the Arab interpreter also adds her mite, just to get the Muslim Arab view across.

Not a word, in the interview I just heard, with two "Lebanese students " as to what kind of "Lebanese" these "Lebanese students" were. Surely we had a right to know if these were Shi'as Lebanese, didn't we? Surely it might have made a difference if they were, say, not Shi'a, not Muslim at all, but rather Christians or Druse whose territories have been left unscathed except for one truck that looked like it might be a rocket launcher, moving in a Christian part of Beirut.

One of the students did let slip that a lot of Lebanes "hate Hezbollah" but it was not picked up by Deborah Amos, who passed quickly over it. I wonder why. Surely it might have been something her audience would wish to know: why do so many non-Shi'a Lebanese hate Hezbollah? And why, when one of the students told her how Hezbollah was "defending the south" did she not ask the obvious question: defending it from what? Wasn't the last Israeli soldier removed from internationally-recognized Lebanese territory (please, no more of that Shebaa Farms nonsense) six full years ago?

And why was it, in the course of this interview, and in all of the coverage, there is never a discussion of the obvious. What is the obvious? The obvious are those 12,000-15,000 missiles. What are they doing in Lebanon? Where did they come from? Who supplied them? Who brought them into Lebanon? Did no one notice them? What did the "Lebanese" think was going to happen with those missiles and all ther other military equipment? What did they think those goosestepping black-balaclaved Kalashnikov-clutching bezonians of beetle-browed Nasrallah, he of the Nazi rhetoric, and the fascist blackshirts, were going to do? Just squirrel them away, for the hell of it?

Whenever I hear anyone from Lebanon say that "everything was fine, it was all so wonderful" and now "everything is destroyed" I want to ask them how they can say, with a straight face, that "everyithing was fine" when, step by careful step, more arms and missiles were being brought in from Iran, and Syria, than are in the armories of even some European countries. How dare they say "everything was fine"? And how dare they pretend, as the Shi'a and other Muslims do, that everything was okay when the Christians have been under threat, steadiloy menaced and undermined, for the past half-century, and that undermining of what had once been a Christian-majority refuge in the heart of unpleasant Dar al-Islam, has continued right through to today.

What do they take us for? Complete idiots? NPR I mean, not those Shi'a "Lebanese" and those non-Shi'a who would defend them, and rewrite not just ancient history, but the history of the last six years, the history of the last year since Syrian soldiers were removed, the history of the last month?

NPR may not believe it. Deborah Amos may not believe it. But historical amnesia is no longer the strong suit of NPR listeners. The more outrageous the coverage, the more fury builds, and the less one wishes to support it, or to have it receive any government support whatsoever. One sees how people in England are forced to pay license fees to support the hideous BBC and its Al-Jazeerish coverage. One does not want such a situation here.

Disproportionate compassion I call it...
Excellent phrase. -From Above

How about 'Proportional Intent'?

Lulu says "polls have charted the steady decline of America's image among Arabs."

Well, its time the US and the rest of the infidel world stopped bankrolling Muslim countries. Let them stew in their own juice. Force them to civilize. Give them no aid when natural disasters strike. Let the evil mullahs scrabble at the rubble with their bare hands. Give them no food or medicines. Let Allah get them out of that one. Whenever we give them aid, they're ungrateful for it, and treat it as if they're entitled to it. To them, it is always "Allah willed it". Well, it is about time Allah no longer willed it. Make these barbaric and ungrateful savages face the truth about the primitive death cult they follow.

Hugh

Why do you expect anti-Jihad, let alone anti-Islamic attitudes to be refected on NPR and PBS?

Oops, should have been 'reflected'

It's not the civilization I was born into. I don't recognize it. It appalls and disgusts me, and I regard the loudest and most influential voices in it - the half-educated, invicibly ignorant, self-satisfied, and malicious voices at the BBC, Guardian and "Independent" as no more than barbarians. They're dragging a whole civilization onto the dunghill and applauding themselves as they do it. Posted by: Yojimbo

Not only are you not alone - Britain is not alone in this state sponsored barbarian takeover. Just now, am seeing demonstrations on TV in London, Paris, Sydney and Beirut against Israel. That should say it all - the first 3 cities are so de-sensitized to anti-Semitism, that they are no different from the 4th.

Americans, and other Infidels, should stop worrying, stop giving the slightest thought, to what Arab Muslims "think of them." Whatever they "think of them" is determined very largely by the Qur'an and Sunnah, and by what they are taught to think of all Infidels. To believe that Americans, or French, or Italians, can win real friendship from those well-versed in obtaining, by outward affabiity and displays of hollow warmth, whatever it is they want at that momoent from the Infidels, is to pretend that Islam does not teach its adherents to distrust, shun, hate Infidels, to not "take them as friends, for they are friends only with each other," and not to be impressed by any seeming kindnesses of those Infidels, for they are merely a means to win over, and corrupt, and ultimately to conquer, those poor, trusting Muslims.

Recognize that those who are adherents of Islam have grown up with a belief-system that is not merely a religion but an entire way of life. This belief-system affects the atmospherics of a whole society; it affects the attitudes of those, even, who do not attend mosques, who may in fact be unorthodox or lax in their faith. Only to the degree that a Believer ignores the central division of Islam -- that between Believer and Infidel -- can that Believer conceivably offer real, as opposed to feigned, and permanent, as opposed to temporary, friendship for Infidels.

There is no need to keep doing endless favors for Muslims, in a vain campaign to win them over. We need not betray our real, Infidel interests or allies. We need not surrender a jot of our own, Western laws and understandings in order to "win" favor from Muslims. We need not mute, and would obtain far better results if we were to increase, our criticism of Muslim behavior and, what's more, to relate it, to relate the failures and morally unacceptable behavior of Muslim societies and peoples to Islam itself. The connection, though seldom made, is not hard to make.

If Muslims living in the West, and Muslims in Dar al-Islam, realize that the jig is up, that their efforts to prevent a growing awareness of the tenets of Islam, of the passages in Qur'an and stories in Hadith that show the centrality of the duty to Jihad cannot be hidden or explained away (and what do the nice ones, what does Fouad Ajami, what does Vali Nasr, what the hell do such people make of Islam? Surely they know perfectly well what is in Qur'an and Hadith, they know what Muhammad is all about -- well, do they think they can permanently avoid that subject, out of embarrassment or filial piety, without ultimately rendering themselves useless to Infidels, as we get closer and closer to the unpleasant truths about Islam, its tenets and its history? How long do they think that Infidels can remain unware of these things?) -- if they realize this, it is they who will have to move heaven and earth either to somehow constrain Islam, or we Infidels will do it for them.

They, those lax or mild Muslims, who do not really observe or believe much of it but also refuse to declare themselves apostates, should expect that we will have to view them with distrust, that their freedom to visit or live in the West, the ability of their children to thrive in the Infidel lands, will be curtailed. We Infidels cannot be expected to distinguish the "real moderate" from the person who is feigning, or who is capable of changing from being a "moderate" to a most "immoderate" Muslim.

Vali Nasr, Fouad Ajami, tutti quanti -- put yourself in our place. Pretend you are an Infidel. And pretend that you, as that Infidel, have learned a good deal about Islam, including the history of Jihad-conquest and about the real status of non-Muslims under Islam. And we are not going to engage in comparative brutalities, in the mannter of Bernard Lewis, who has been a higher apologist, in his own way, for Islam, possibly because of his own horror at the treatment of European Jewry.

What do you expect us to do? How do you expect us to act to save our own, non-Muslim civiliziations, here and everywhere else? Can you blame us?

Of course, the DNC and their fellow sympathizers on the Left's lunatic fringe will be doing everything in their power to facilitate the islamic rise to power. Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajja

ROTFLMAO: Tis true ideoloques live in an alternate universe.

Lets' look at facts, the RNC and their "fellow sympathizers on the Rights lunatic fringe, just authorized the government to give to Oman control over our ports, and of course Dubai owns the Oman port business.. GWB who approved and supports an Iraqi government which has a constitution that makes Iraq an Islamic nation with Shari'a as it's law and constitution, also supports a government run by Shi'a (SCIRI and Da'WA party) which have ties to and are supported by the Mullahcracy of Iran which besides being insane and hostile to the west and Israel is the primary support of Hezbollah, which Bush calls (rightfully a terrorist organization) yet he and his neo cons and brain dead right wingers put in power and are supporting an Iraqi government supported by, created by, funded by, led by mullahs who are Iranian and Iranian origin and loyalty.

Right wingers are morons.. prolly worse than left wingers, because left wingers are consistent morons, whereas right wingers are inconsistent reactionary morons and their own worst enemies.

Infidel Pride

In Melbourne there was a demonstration in support of lebanon by the usual people of "middle eastern appearance" and their leftist supporters. BUT there was also a significant group of pro Israel supporters who argued with them and got into "scuffles" (no prizes for guessing who started them). Also on talk back radio this morning the vast majority of callers supported Israel and the actions it has taken.

Learnmore; One thing that's been bugging me is that, in our poll-obsessed media, no polls covering American public opinion on the war have been released.

I suspect that the polling data reflects overwheming support of Israel and their military push. Just look at the Democratic Party's rush to support the war effort and the silence on the part of the media.

The US public has grown pretty fat and complacent over the decades. Here's to my hope that the applications of Will and Grace, NPR, and Dan Rather haven't affected our collective backbone.

I noticed some argument by Nariz that the right is worse than the left on appeasement and immigration issues. & the problem is that I haven't read a good intellectual history of what went on. It's probably my fault as I even bought "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" by Bat Ye'Or, but have feared that reading it would just upset me too much. What I do know is this: Charles de Gaulle set much of the Arabization of Europe in motion and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing helped grease the wheels. They were both nominally of the right, but de Gaulle had a curious love for the Stalinist "intellectual" Sartre. In contrast, the pro-immigration bill that did much damage to America was sponsored by Ted Kennedy on the left. If we had been unlucky enough to have muslims to our south, Kennedy and his ilk would not have cared about the implications of that. I suspect that the best we can say is that this pro-immigrant sickness is problem that transcends left and right. I would suggest modeling it as one does anti-environmentalism: an absolute refusal to take responsibility for how your political decisions will affect your children.

suspect that the best we can say is that this pro-immigrant sickness is problem that transcends left and right. I would suggest modeling it as one does anti-environmentalism: an absolute refusal to take responsibility for how your political decisions will affect your children.

Posted by: nakhla victim at July 22, 2006 11:36 PM

The pro-immigration sickness does transcend left and right, but their motives differ before they converge. The left sees third-world immigrants as potential Democrat voters, since they will naturally be drawn to the party that promises free health care, welfare payments, special privileges for minorities, and all the other entitlements that threaten to turn America into a total social welfare state. The right thinks that immigrants, illegal and legal, are good for the economy because they provide cheap labor.

I seldom agree with Nariz about anything, but I must concede that he is right about this:
Right wingers are morons.. prolly worse than left wingers, because left wingers are consistent morons, whereas right wingers are inconsistent reactionary morons and their own worst enemies.

Many Republicans, including President Bush and his advisors, Cabinet, etc., are not Conservatives. The only issues that separate them from the Democrats are opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and the war in Iraq. Bush's war on terror has been derailed by the scourge of political correctness and the necessity of kissing up to the Shi'ite government in Iraq, and the administration's pathetic ignorance of Islam and jihad. I don't think Condi or GWB have a clue who the "enemy" is and while they're pandering to American muslims and trying to "win hearts and minds" in muslim countries, our borders remain wide open. The enemy within is plotting our destruction and the homeland is a vulnerable sitting duck, threatened by the jihadists that the stupid multiculturalists have eagerly encouraged to invade our country, and those who can easily stroll right in through our unprotected borders.

Bush is an internationalist, multiculturalist, one world government advocate and one cannot support that agenda and call himself a Conservative. I voted for him twice before I realized the extent of his betrayal to Conservative values, but he has violated his Constitutional oath to defend this country by not protecting our borders. That is an impeachable offense. If the Democrats want to impeach him, they have adequate grounds but they won't use the most obvious because they want the borders open too. Both parties want to remake America and their ultimate goals for our great country are strikingly similar and equally hideous.

Easy answer: Have your Representative/Senator sponsor the following legislation:

'Immigration applications from citizens of Countries identified as 'State Sponsors of Terror' shall be denied.'

Let the chips fall where they may.

As poetcomic points out, the civilian casualty rate is very low. Further, the hizbullah probably hides the numbers of its own losses. And we know that they deliberately put rockets and launchers in civilian homes, which makes these places legitimate military targets, whether the civilian inhabitants have been warned to get out or not.
That brings me to the loathesome kim howells, UK deputy foreign secretary [or some such title]. He is yapping about a disproportionate Israeli response and all the civilian dead, which are relatively few as said above. Does he recall the British air attacks on Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin during WW2? Just how did the Nazis get defeated? Most of Beirut is untouched, which the journalists don't say? Israel was focussing on military targets, even if in civilian guise. In this vein, Israel tv and Fox reported that our troops found a cache of weapons in a mosque in Maroun al-Ras village. So much for civilian targets and "civilian infrastructure." Bridges, roads, power stations, cellular phone systems can serve an army in times of war. So they are proper targets. I can't stand these UN and EU and bbc hypocrites moaning and whining about the damage to the poor, wretched, peaceloving bridges and roads mistreated by us horrible Jews.
Now, Jan Egeland, a UN "humanitarian" official is whining about --or better said, insinuating-- "possible" Israeli violations of "international humanitarian law." How come he doesn't complain about hizbullah bombing the Israeli civilian population [two more people were killed in Haifa today]? The law of war [check Amsterdan, Hague, Geneva conventions] states that the presence of "protected persons" [unarmed civilians] does not protect a place from attack if a military target is in the same place. So the UN official Egeland is misrepresenting international law, again. Again we see the danger that the UN represents for the future of civilization.

Thanks, Rajagopalan.

Sheikh al-Maswari [Masrawi, more correct?] in Sana`a Yemen complains that "Our brothers are being killed in Lebanon..." Funny that he mentions only those killed in Lebanon. I heard on the radio today that 37 Shi`ites were slaughtered in Bagdad today by fellow Muslims, added to the thousands slughtered in Iraq in the past few months. Yet the Muslims slaughtered in Baghdad are of no importance to him.

Lastly, the royal shoemaker [el Senor Zapatero], who has risen to the state of primer ministro de Espana, and his moronic foreign minister Moratinos, continue to insult decency and justice and truth. Zapatero was recently photographed wearing an Arab kaffiyah, symbolizing his criminal solidarity with Arab Judeophobic mass murderers.
Moratinos showed his stupidity quite notably a few years ago when, serving as EU [!!!] special envoy to the Middle East, he came to Israel from Syria, stating that he had heard "the drums of peace" in Damascus. Now, it would be hard to find a more inappropriate metaphor for a desire for peace than "drums of peace." Peace is symbolized by soft melodious music, not by drums which represent war. Therefore, moratinos is an insenstive thug and his latest anti-Israel remarks are of a piece with his thuggishness, crudeness, estupidez, whatever you like to call it.

Now, during the Spanish civil war, Franco's general Millan Astray led a war chant in Salamanca [in the presence of Unamuno], basically summed up as: Viva la muerte! [long live death]. Today, the hizbullah and hamas and other Islamomaniacs worship death quite frankly and openly. Zapatero y Moratinos, who would like to consider themselves anti-fascist, anti-Franco, now place themselves on the same side as those who share Millan Astray's values.

Jihadis and their American Puppets

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/21raman.htm

July 21, 2006
There has been considerable disappointment in India over what is perceived as the continuing US reluctance to act against Pakistan for using terrorism against India.
The negative attitude of President Bush and the US State Department in the wake of the Mumbai blasts of July 11 is nothing new. Protection of Pakistan from the consequences of its wrong-doing against India has been a consistent element in US policy-making towards India and Pakistan ever since our independence in 1947 -- whichever party was in power in Washington, DC.

To illustrate this, I am giving below instances, which were within my personal knowledge as an officer of the Intelligence Bureau from July 1967 to September 1968, and of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) from September 1968 to August 31, 1994:

The Sino-Indian war of 1962 brought out the serious inadequacies in the IB's capability for the collection of technical intelligence about China. After obtaining then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's approval, the IB sought the assistance of US intelligence for strengthening its TECHINT capability.

US intelligence, with the approval of John F Kennedy, then the US president, agreed to supply the required equipment and train IB officers who would be using this equipment. However, it imposed a condition that this equipment would be used only for the collection of TECHINT from China and not from Pakistan. When R&AW was formed in September 1968, with the late Rameshwar Nath Kao as its head, the division handling this equipment was transferred to R&AW.

In the 1970s, Kao visited Washington, DC at the invitation of the then director of the Central Intelligence Agency to discuss Indo-US intelligence cooperation.

Some years later, Kao told me that during his discussions in Washington DC, the CIA chief told him as follows: 'Ramji, we all cheat in this profession. I know R&AW will cheat and use the equipment given by us for the collection of TECHINT about Pakistan. Make sure our State Department does not come to know of it. If it does, the State Department will demand that we cancel our cooperation with you and withdraw from you the equipment given by us. I will have to do this.'

Between 1981 and 1984, Khalistani terrorists hijacked a number of Indian Airlines aircraft to Lahore. When one of these aircraft landed in Lahore, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence found the hijackers had no weapons.

They had intimidated the pilot into flying to Lahore by claiming that they had a weapon which they would use if he did not obey their instructions. The ISI gave the hijackers a German-made revolver. They used that revolver to intimidate the pilot to take the plane to Dubai. The Dubai authorities terminated the hijacking, seized the revolver from the hijackers and handed it over to the Indian authorities.

R&AW sought the assistance of the then West German intelligence to find out who this revolver was sold to by the German company that had manufactured it. After making enquiries, the West German intelligence replied that the revolver seized by the Dubai authorities from the Khalistani hijackers was part of a consignment sold by the West German company to the Pakistan army.

The State Department was not prepared to accept this as adequate proof of Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against India.

After the Khalistanis took to terrorism in 1981 with the ISI's assistance, the IB and R&AW collected a lot of intelligence regarding ISI training camps in Pakistani Punjab for the terrorists, the arms and ammunition supplied by the ISI to the terrorists etc.

Whenever we produced this intelligence before the US authorities and requested them to act against Pakistan, they would reject it on the ground that the intelligence was gathered during interrogation of suspects, who must have been tortured by the Indian police.

When we produced technical intercepts, they would reject them on the ground that it was difficult to prove their authenticity.

After the blowing up of Air India's Kanishka off the Irish coast on June 23, 1985, Western intelligence agencies got worried over the activities of the Khalistani terrorists. Many of them started monitoring the activities of the terrorists. They collected valuable technical intelligence regarding the ISI's assistance to the terrorists.

One Western agency even collected intelligence that the ISI had given shelter in Pakistani territory to Talwinder Singh Parmar, the leader of the Babbar Khalsa in Canada, who was actively involved in blowing-up the Kanishka.

These agencies (not those of the US) shared with R&AW all the intelligence collected by them about the links between the ISI and Khalistani terrorists. I was asked to visit the headquarters of these intelligence agencies, meet my counterparts and request them to share with the CIA the intelligence collected by them regarding the Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism.

I did so, and told my counterparts: "Look, I have not been able to convince the CIA about the Pakistani sponsorship. Every time I produce any intelligence, the CIA rejects it on some ground or the other. You have collected your own independent intelligence. If you share it with the CIA, it would find it difficult to reject it."

All my interlocutors gave me identical replies: "We know the CIA has more intelligence regarding the Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against India than all of us together have. The CIA was convinced a long time ago about the ISI's sponsorship of terrorism. The problem is not with the CIA. It is with the State Department, which does not want to act against Pakistan."

In the early 1990s, Lal Singh alias Manjit Singh of the International Sikh Youth Federation clandestinely came to India from Pakistan. The Gujarat police arrested him. He was wanted in a number of cases in India, the US and Canada.

I informed my counterparts in the Canadian and US intelligence that they could send their officers to interrogating him. I assured them that no Indian officer would be present during the interrogation. The Canadians availed of the offer and sent a police officer to interrogate him. The US agencies decided not to avail of the offer.

I came to understand later that the State Department advised them not to send anybody to interrogate him. It was apparently afraid that if Lal Singh gave the US interrogator details of the ISI's role, it would find it difficult to reject his evidence as possibly obtained through torture.

In 1992, under the instructions of (then prime minister P V) Narasimha Rao, the IB, R&AW and the ministry of home affairs mounted a coordinated campaign to make the international community and US political and public opinion aware of the Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against India.

The IB and R&AW prepared a detailed dossier giving details of all the evidence collected by them against the ISI. A team consisting of two officers of the home ministry and one from the IB was sent to Washington to hand over copies of this dossier to the US authorities and request them to declare Pakistan as a State sponsor of terrorism.

After doing so, they also presented the dossier at a press conference at the Washington Press Club. The State Department summarily rejected the dossier.

In 1992, terrorists belonging to the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front attacked a group of young Israeli tourists, who had gone to J&K. They killed one of them and kidnapped another, who was subsequently released. Following this incident, Jewish circles started criticising the unsympathetic attitude of the US towards India's complaints against Pakistan.

Just before the presidential elections of November 1992, President George H W Bush, the father of the present president, reportedly ordered a second look at the dossier against Pakistan submitted by India.

The officials, who did so, reportedly recommended that instead of declaring Pakistan a State sponsor of terrorism, it could be placed in a list of suspected State sponsors of terrorism. Bush, who lost the election to Bill Clinton, did not act on the recommendation. He left the decision to his successor.

After assuming office in January 1993, Clinton placed Pakistan on a list of suspected State sponsors of terrorism. The weighty nature of the Indian dossier played a role in this decision, but there was a more important reason. The CIA had developed a strong dislike of Lieutenant General Javed Nasir, the then director general, ISI, for not cooperating with a drive launched by it to persuade the Afghan mujahideen to sell back to the US their unused stock of Stinger missiles, given to them for use against Soviet troops.

The US used the Indian dossier to force then prime minister Nawaz Sharif to remove Javed Nasir and some other ISI officers, whom it looked upon as uncooperative in its efforts to buy back the Stinger missiles. Nawaz Sharif complied.

Benazir Bhutto, who was then the leader of the Opposition, rang up Peter Galbraith, son of former the US ambassador to India J K Galbraith, and some other university mates of hers, who were close friends of Clinton, to request them to see that Pakistan was not declared a State sponsor of terrorism.

She told them she expected elections to be held in Pakistan later that year and that she was confident of coming back to power. She assured them that if she came back as prime minister, she would stop the ISI's use of terrorism against India.

In July 1993, Warren Christopher, the then secretary of state, announced that the US had decided to remove Pakistan from the list of suspected State sponsors of terrorism for want of adequate evidence. Benazir Bhutto won the elections in October 1993, and returned as prime minister. But she did not ask the ISI to stop the use of terrorism against India. R&AW must have in its archives the transcripts of Bhutto's telephonic conversations with Peter Galbraith and others.

During the investigations into the serial blasts of March 12, 1993 in Mumbai, the IB and R&AW collected the following evidence regarding the involvement of the ISI:

Photocopies of the manifests of the Pakistan International Airlines regarding the travel of the perpetrators from Dubai to Karachi for training and their return to Dubai after the training;
Their traveling with visas on plain sheets of paper issued by the Pakistani consulate in Dubai so that their Indian passports did not carry any entry of their visit to Pakistan;
Evidence of their being received at Karachi airport and driven directly from the tarmac into the city without having to pass through immigration; statements of the perpetrators in which they gave the details of the training and arms and ammunition given to them by the ISI;
Evidence that they fled to Karachi via Dubai or Kathmandu after the blasts and from there were taken to Bangkok and kept there for a month by the ISI.
All this evidence was rejected by the US as falling short of proving Pakistani complicity.

The police recovered from the blast site some hand grenades of Austrian design and a timer. Austrian experts flew to New Delhi, examined the hand-grenades and certified in writing that these grenades were of Austrian design and had been manufactured in a Pakistani government ordnance factory with technology and machine tools sold by an Austrian company to the Pakistan government.

They said the Government of India could use their report for any purpose it desired.

American counter-terrorism experts, who visited Mumbai at our invitation, saw the timer and said that it looked like timers manufactured in the US. They wanted to take it to the US for forensic examination. They promised they would return it after the examination. I agreed to it.

After some days, they sent me an unsigned report on a plain piece of paper that the timer had been manufactured in the US and was part of a consignment given by the US to Pakistan in the 1980s.

I pointed out this was the smoking gun which they had been asking for and said they should now be able to declare Pakistan a State sponsor of terrorism.

They said this was not sufficient evidence against the government of Pakistan. They claimed that there were instances of leakage of arms and ammunition from Pakistan government stocks into the hands of arms smugglers and contended that the terrorists could have procured it in the smugglers market. They also said their report could not be used by us in a court of law.

When I asked them to return the timer, they claimed their forensic laboratory had destroyed the timer by mistake and that they were taking action against the lab for negligence.

After my retirement, I used to narrate to Kao and others how the Americans cheated me by destroying the timer. Once, Kao asked: "How were you so naive in trusting them and handing over the timer to them? One should never trust the US in matters concerning Pakistan. The US will never act against Pakistan for anything it does to India."

This is as valid today as it was in the past.

B Raman

Here is short item from Il Foglio about Zapatero wearing a kaffiyah. Note that Moronic Moratinos rejects any accusation of Judeophobia. I repeat that Zapatero's friends in Hamas and hizbullah have a great deal in common with General Millan Astray, the fascist, who frankly and happily expressed his love of death.

7-21-06 Il Foglio [21 Luglio 2006]
Zapatero fotografato con la kefiah palestinese al termine del suo intervento al Festival internazionale della Gioventש socialista di Alicante. “Il governo spagnolo non tollererא alcuna accusa di antisemitismo contro il premier”, ha detto il ministro degli Esteri, Moratinos. “Una foto infelice”, dice Gustavo de Aristegui, portavoce dei popolari.

The interesting account by the Indian intelligence official is more proof of a consistent pro-Muslim State Dept policy. Indeed, the State Dept thwarted efforts to save Jews from the Holocaust during WW2 before reestablishment of Israel. The British Foreign Office did likewise.

On the State Dept, see among other sources, Joseph Schechtman, The United States and the Jewish State Movement [New York, Yoseloff pubs].

On Britain and the Holocaust, see:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/bbc-holocaust-was-it-reported-or.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/britain-bbc-holocaust-suicide-of-shmul.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/in-despair-over-bbc-official-british.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/warsaw-ghetto-uprising-zigelboyms.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/more-on-bbc-and-holocaust.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/british-governmental-guidance-of.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/british-troops-told-to-stand-aside-as.html

Eliyahu: "I heard on the radio today that 37 Shi`ites were slaughtered in Bagdad today by fellow Muslims, added to the thousands slughtered in Iraq in the past few months. Yet the Muslims slaughtered in Baghdad are of no importance to him."

Personally, I don't think this point can be emphasized enough. Do Muslims think that it hasn't escaped much of our notice that Muslims have been slaughtering Muslims by the thousands and thousands lately - in Iraq, in Sudan, in Pakistan - not to mention the terror attacks against Muslims in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

Has any of this brought Muslims out into the streets across the world in protest?

No. Obviously Muslims couldn't really care all that much about Muslims getting killed. Life is incredibly cheap for them. Hell, they murder their OWN women all the time - fathers and brothers stabbing their own wives and daughters to death all over even western Europe for supposedly dishonoring the family. (Even stabbing them multiple times in the face and neck, while even a Muslim mother stands by and watches her daughter undergoing such a horror!)

But now some 300 Muslims have been killed in Lebanon - who, as you point out, have primarily been killed because they are providing human shield cover for Hezbollah and the world's Muslims are marching in the streets and the bleeding heart westerners are wringing their hands over every dead Muslim body that Hezbollah and its supporters parades before the gullible western press?

I hate to be blunt about it – but cry me a river. I remember the anguish I felt right after we went into Iraq (and after I was overjoyed to see the Iraqi’s celebrating in the streets) when the very first American soldier opened fire on an Iraqi car speeding towards a checkpoint, killing civilians. That was a very long time ago and after observing the Muslim on Muslim carnage throughout the world since then frankly, the Lebanese deaths at the hands of Israel (knowing as I do the pains Israel is taking to avoid them) – leave me utterly unmoved.

Coming back to the original article:

"The tone of the sermons underscored how the lack of a cease-fire in Lebanon is both further tarnishing the image of the United States in the Arab world as being solely concerned with Israel's welfare and making its allied regimes look increasingly like puppets."

"Tarnishing the image of the United States"?

Is this supposed to be a joke? Especially when combined with this howler:

"What is creating radicalism in the region is not authoritarian regimes, mainly it is American policy in the region - survey after survey shows that,"

Do these people think we have short attention spans or something? I happen to recall quite clearly when it was supposedly our very SUPPORT for authoritarian regimes in the region which supposedly fueled anti-American sentiment! That support was cited by Bin Laden himself as one of the “grievances” justifying the 9/11 attacks. So we went in and removed one of the most authoritarian and brutal regimes in the region and some thanks we got. What we got were millions of Muslims cheering on Muslims slaughtering other Muslims in the name of “resistance”.

Message to the “Arab street”: We’re on to your game! Apparently none of you have heard of a little fable titled “The boy who cried wolf”. You seriously think many of us are wringing our poor hands at this point over our image on the Arab street?

Apparently you folks are so narcissistic that it never once occurred to you that you are NOT the center of the universe. I suggest YOU start worrying about the American street, and the Israeli street, and the Indian street and in short, the worldwide Infidel Street which outnumbers the Muslim street by 4 to 1.

Oh and by the way – I AM solely concerned with Israel’s welfare in this conflict. You Muslims have proven without a doubt that your own life is cheap TO YOU! (Of course it already goes without saying that infidel life is utterly WORTHLESS to Muslims). So why in hell should I value Muslim life more than you do? Plus, Muslims side with Muslims NO MATTER WHAT! Now we even have Lebanon threatening to side with Hezbollah should Israel stage a ground invasion. So much for the notion that Lebanon was an innocent bystander held hostage to Hezbollah! Muslims side with Muslims UNAPOLOGETICALLY. Why then shouldn’t infidels do the very same thing? Side unconditionally with eachother and without apology? Especially since all infidels are facing the same GENOCIDAL IDEOLOGY?

Oh and the puppet thing? Bring on the puppets. I WANT western puppets in the region. I didn’t use to feel that way. I used to feel sorry for the poor Muslims under the yoke of western puppets. No longer. I now understand that Muslims need and desire strongmen to control their savage impulses. Those strongmen leaders might as well be western puppets. Muslims aren’t capable of the kind of self-governance that respects all human rights of the sort that westerners enjoy. Remove the strongman or the western puppet and Muslims' true savage and barbarian tendencies are released and pose a direct threat to infidels everywhere, not only within their own territories but across sovereign territories as well.

Well said, Caroline.

Thanks Eisenhund. I consider that a compliment coming from you. The truth is that I always have been a bleeding heart liberal. Quite easily emotionally manipulated really (my personal life would give ample testimony to that fact). The fact that someone like me feels the way I do at this point ought to be a wake-up call to the Muslim "street". I am pretty sure that my sentiments represent the "canary in the coal mine", as it were, for any Muslims bothering to pay any attention to the sentiments of westerners. And I would strongly suggest that Muslims OUGHT to start paying a bit of attention to the “infidel street” instead of spending so much narcissistic time wallowing in self-pity and trying to put the onus for their collective suffering on others. Their collective attempts at emotional manipulation simply aren’t working anymore.

Press on Israel! Know that many westerners are now immune to these attempts at emotional manipulation, including, it would appear, even the BBC (via LGF):

http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=108122