From TimesOnline: "Train bombers 'funded by British businessmen'"
SOME of the main fundraisers for the terror group suspected of masterminding the Bombay train bombings are operating from Britain, according to Indian intelligence officials. The officials accuse Britain of failing to act against a number of wealthy businessmen, who they claim are using bogus charities to funnel up to £8 million a year to Kashmiri militants groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which remains the main suspect for orchestrating the synchronised bombings that killed 182 people.
Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, raised the terror link with Tony Blair at the G8 summit in St Petersburg yesterday, reminding him that India handed over a detailed dossier three years ago identifying 14 men living in Britain and was assured the suspects would be investigated.
"Since then nothing has been done, and the money still coming from Britain helps to pay for the terrorist camps where we believe the bombers were trained and this atrocity was planned," a senior Indian security official said last night.
Gordon Brown pledged that the Treasury would use new laws to shut down terrorist fundraising and ordered that the bank accounts of 54 organisations be frozen, although records show that last year Whitehall only recovered £9,318.
"Britain talks about the need for all nations to get tough together, but more money comes from the UK to Kashmiri terror groups than any other country," the official added.
But from whom in Britain, the Girl Guides?
In Canada our last Federal Government would not list Hamas as a Terrorist group and even Hezbullah fund raising was only denied a Charity Tax Status for income tax claims as a donation to a benevolant Charity.
BTW, a bit OT but I see that once again Allah and his followers attack Israel and another Tsunami hits Indonisia and Java island .
You'd think the Imams and Clerics could see the pattern of attacking jews and tsunamis and EarthQuakes killing thousands of Muslims.
Money for murder is the coward's way of murdering.
Britan is wimping out - they are not dealing with nor forcing integration of their muslim communities. They are appeasing and kissing up to them. We left the UK and moved to the US because we were sick of the direction the UK and European governments are going. If they do not start to address the tumors in their own backyard...they will have a real mess on their hands. Appeasing, kissing up, pussyfooting around is the way of the coward - which is precisely why I wouldn't vote for a democrat president here. Vicious murderers do not respect this kind of 'negotiation'. You have to come down on them with an iron fist. That's the only thing they understand. If Tony Blair and the UK government do not kick these 'terrorists' out of the UK, then they have no one to blame but themselves when they are living under Sharia law and the whole of the UK culture/art/music/beauty of life is destroyed.
ok, on this one I agree, the UK is wimping out. Although I would like some more information from the charities commission, it does read like Kashmir separatists are being funded via the UK. Or, as valid as this request is, we could be getting wrapped up in Indian-Pakistani politics. Can someone confirm the Mumbai bombings were the work of Kashmir separatists over Al Qaeda? Simultaneous rush-hour bombs are the MO of Al Qaeda.
So, how do we stop this charity? Protest? Write to elected official?
albion
At a certain level, the cells and networks and ideology of the Kashmiri terrorists become interlinked with Al Qaeda and pan Islamist networks. When the Kashmir dispute began it was a genuine local insurgency. Then Pakistan got involved and the Somalians, Afghans and Arabs started turning up there. The money raised from the UK probably is being given by British Pakistanis who think it is going to Kashmir, and in the process of transfer it is being siphoned off and chanelled in the coffers of the Kashmiri groups that are increasingly working closely with al-Qaeda.
It has reached the point of absurdity that Britain falls under the 'Bush doctrine' as a state that is a haven for terrorists.
Cisoux: When the Kashmir dispute began it was a genuine local insurgency.
Coming, as I do, from Kashmir, I am somewhat dismayed by your use of the term 'genuine'. Maybe I'm reading too much into your writing, but if by genuine you mean legitimate I totally disagree with you. There is nothing legitimate about the Kashmiri muslim demand for independence. Kashmiri muslims have been given far more rights by the Indian government than muslims get anywhere in the World, including all the Islamic States.. certainly far more than in neighboring Pakistan or Bangladesh. As for the Kashmiri muslim (note none of the other religious groups in Kashmir want to have anything to do with this movement) demand for a separate state.. this has always been tied with the pan-Islamic aim of creating an Islamic belt that goes from one end of Europe all the way across Asia. And, yes, the local Kashmiri muslims do, and always have, associate themselves with the Islamic jehadist goals, even though they often themselves suffer from the depravation of the jehadists who demand ransom money and engage in shotgun marriages to their daughters.
You are right, Razdan, but I think the main point is that Muslims want to use Kashmir as a staging ground for terrorism and destabalization in India, which they are already doing.
Hence, India MUST hold on to Kashmir for security reasons. It is a case of outright aggression today, not some long ago political dispute.
Today, the UK is a little less Dhimmi
'Groups Banned by new terror law'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5188136.stm
Benjamin (& Cisoux), I should have mentioned that I agree with everything else Cisoux wrote. It was just that one sentence, and perhaps that one word that I had problems with.
The phrase "Kashmiri separatists" is deceptive. It implies that the goals of Muslims, in Kashmir, and in Pakistan, and in India itself, are limited to making Kashmir independent. But that is not the goal. The immediate goal is a Muslim-ruled Kashmir. The ultimate goal -- as so mnay unreported terrorist attacks on Hindus and on Indian government installlations around India confirm -- is Muslim-rule throughout India.
The Brookings Institution promises a new study, "Demystifying Kashmir," by Navnita Behera, a study which, according to the ad, "breaks new ground by framing the conflict over Kashmir as a political battle of state making between India and Pakistan rather than as a rigid and ideological Hindu-Muslim conflict." "Breaks new ground"? This is the mixture as before -- the steady attempt, by Indians, to accept the phony notion that Islam has nothing to do with the Muslim harassment and murder of Hindus in Kashmir, the persecution of the Kashmiri pandits, the claims to Kashmir -- and then what would happen to Muslim claims to more territory, beyond Kashmir, were Indian-held Kashmir ever to become either a Muslim-ruled independent state, or part of Muslim Pakistan. It hardly matters, for in tierh case Muslim triumphalism would be encouraged, and more and more demands made, more terrorism, more Dawa, more deployment of all the instruments of Jihad (including the use of an economic weapon -- Arab money, and the threats, by rich Arabs, not to employ Indians and therefore to end overseas earnings, and to withhold other kinds of "benefits" supposedly important to the Indian eocnomy).
The notion that Muslim claims to Kashmir is all part of "state-making" is as hollow as the notion that the Arab siege of Israel could end if only, if only the Israelis returned to the pre-1967, i.e. 1949, armistice lines, and the Muslim Arabs would, we are told, be happily satisfied as they proceeded to "build" that Arab ("Palestinian") state as part of the "two-state solution" we hear so much about.
This view of Kashmir and Muslim claims to it is not merely false, but is the very reverse of the truth. It is the "religions aspect" -- that is, the demand for Kashmir as merely one local Jihad that is part of a larger local Jihad (that against India) which, in turn, is one of those local Jihads whose sum is the entire world-wide Jihad: that is, the effort to spread the rule of Islam, the Domain of Islam, by driving Infidels within Dar al-Islam into still greater submission or force them out altogether under threat of death (and it has worked -- look at the Hindu populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh since Partition, look at what happened to the Kashmiri Pandits), and to spread Dar al-Islam by incorporating ever more of the lands still, for now, dominated and peopled by powerful Infidels.
Hugh, as usual, you expressed everything I wanted to say, only far more eloquently than I could ever have ever done myself. The notion that there is some legitimate political grievance that initially defined the Kashmiri 'freedom struggle' is totally bogus.
"Today the UK is a litle less dhimmi"
They still haven't outlawed Hizb ut-tahrir, although there seems to have been have been a lot of argument about whether to or not in government circles. One turn up for the books is that Melanie Phillips was allowed on BBC Radi 5 for 20 mins or so to discuss her book Londonistan with Simon Mayo. It should be possible to download it soon from their website - although she was sidetracked into discussing the current flare up in the middle east for much of her appearance.
Today, the UK is a little less Dhimmi
'Groups Banned by new terror law'
The Times report of the story linked by Albion up above.
Maybe now the Brits will muster the sense to cease blaming the USA and Israel for all of the world's ills. Or maybe not.
"The two UK-based groups [that have been banned] are both believed to be offshoots of Al-Muhajiroun, the militant organisation founded by Omar Bakri Mohammed"
Big deal. The vast majority of mainstream Muslims don't overtly follow or belong to Bakri's brand of Islam, nor to his "offshoots". They are straw muslims -- easy targets by which to perpetuate the surgical detachment of small, offensive bunyons while leaving the Islamic organism healthy and functioning.
These kinds of measures will continue to leave completely unscathed the majority of mainstream Muslims. Why? Because, of course, the vast majority of British Muslims are perfectly peaceful and safe. Right!
From article above:
The Times used the apropos photo; the BBC apparently doesn’t want to offend their own. Thanks for the addendum Granny!
Actions of one of the banned groups:
“Some protesters held placards with slogans such as "massacre (Slay) those who insult Islam".
So here’s a question. Are the placard holders actually extremists insulting Islam and ironically requesting themselves to be massacred? Or are they indeed Islamic purists, offended by the violent portrayal of Muslims? How does a “moderate” Muslim respond to that? Why then, are the “moderates” not excommunicating and turning in these apostates to the authorities if their message is not shared by the Muslim community as a whole?
From albion’s post:
“Under an order put down in Parliament, it will be an offence to belong to the groups, encourage support for them or wear clothes suggesting support…Mr. Reid said the move sent a signal that the UK would not tolerate people who supported terrorism.”
Why not include a “Mandated Reporter” clause? Why is it that we can ask nations to pick sides in the effort to defeat terrorism but not our own citizens? What are we going to do with these pandering pussyfooting policy-makers that never seem to hit the target let alone the bull’s-eye?
Dhimmitude is a global problem and the US and UK are clapping with one hand with these “half-hearted” efforts to eradicate the Jihad-ideologists from our midst. Surely the UK can come up with a sweeping list. Let offended parties come forward and prove their peaceful intent and love for Britain. Better yet, let them each earn the right to be there by turning in a local terrorist.
In the U.S. (and I’m sure it happens in the UK) I hear stories all the time of a family turning in a wayward son to the authorities for acts of lawlessness. I’m on the lookout for an example of a “moderate” Muslim family turning over a radicalized son to the police. Anyone…anyone? Ibrahim?
-XRDC
I don't have much hope for the Brits. Many Brits are Jew-haters and as a direct consequence, readier to excuse Islamic terrorism. Try to mention the connection between Islam and terror, and many Brits will react in knee-jerk fashion by mentioning Irgun's King David Hotel bombing. Of course, most of us here know that the King David Hotel bombing was a necessary military--not terrorist--response to British actions in favoring the Arabs in Palestine, but facts mean nothing to convinced antisemites.
Somewhat OT: I had been doing some catching up on Varsha Bhosle over the weekend, and reading Varsha Bhosle's archives, and googling her. I'm amazed at how clear-thinking she was/is. Also, I had assumed that she was a nobody who just broke into the media, and wondered how she escaped being censored in the first place, before I found out that she's the daughter of the great Indian classical singer Asha Bhosle. (Too bad I'm not remotely interested in any classical music - Indian or Western. I read Varsha's a singer in her own right.)
One of the things that struck me is that she once wrote an article for Frontpage magazine in 2002, but that was it. Does anybody familiar with Frontpage, maybe Robert, know why her stint there/contribution was only that long?
Proving yet again that London is indeed the major hub for Islamist extremism outside the ME.
Well, how about going through these "businessmen's" tax returns with a fine-tooth comb? I'd be surprised if there were not some irregularity there. This was how Al Capone met his comeuppance, as Hugh has remarked before.
Oriana Fallaci has remarked in her latest book that the eagerness of infidels to accommodate Muslim food taboos puts money in the coffers of Muslim businesses. Just how much money - including public money - goes to super-rich businessmen running chains of halal butchers I wonder.
A state that was seriously concerned not to pander to Muslims would put no public money in their hands needlessly - on civil service, police, prison etc. premises it would let them eat vegetarian or kosher. It wouldn't channel money to them to be used for ... what? Precisely what?
The British Government is not a serious government. It caused the problem - by allowing/encouraging mass immigration in the first place - it is not about to take serious steps to deal with the problem now. For a look at the problem in microcosm examine the attitudes of the senior Labour MP Gerald Kaufman:
He didn't used to be. Why is he now?
In other words, he has sold Israel out. Now he is backing Islamic terror in India. He keeps his seat, hence his personal position, by doing so.
henry wrote:
“anyone who would give his life to do 70 virgins a day is a poor misfortunate SADIST and deserves our deepest sympathy”
I don’t keep tabs on sexual offenders in my neighborhood in order to “deeply sympathize” with them. I do it to protect my family.
-XRDC
Scotland Online is reporting that Lord Levy is going to spill his guts to the Metropolitan Police about the Labour Party selling life peerages for money.
The deal worked as this: one pays gobs of money to the Labour Party, and Blair puts your name in on a list to the Queen, who appoints you a life Peer and new member of the House of Lords.
It looks like the investigation is headed directly at PM Tony Blair. He of course says he's innocent. But gee, this guy has to be really dirty.
So it looks like India Intelligence passes a list of named targets onto Blair, he says he'll take care of it, and maybe because he's getting paid off by the rich bad guys himself, nothing gets done. Now we have 180 plus dead in Mombai.
I think thats called aiding and abetting terrorists. Now I wonder about the London bombings of 7/7...did Blair stonewall any other lists of named targets? Does old Tony have British blood on his hands? Apparently, he certainly has Indian blood on his hands...
For links:
Lord Levy:
http://www.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1018992006
Tony Blair:
http://www.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=102413206
Although I do not post on here much,
This is my last posting on this site.
When I first discovered this site I thought I had discovered a place where like minded inhabit.
Looks like I was wrong.
Robert, Hugh, I am 1000% behind you and your government and people.
I'm very pissed off with this, especially at this time.
I did not get the hang of what this poster above, kencleanairsystem was trying to get across. Can somebody enlighten me ?
Arjun, I believe Ken ClearAirSystem is pi--ed off because of the criticism towards Britain. He must be having an extremely thin skin to get so easily upset. I believe no country, and that includes USA, India, Russia, France, Germany etc., has escaped criticism for the often dhimmi policies of our respective governments. As XRDC quite rightly put it Dhimmitude is a global problem.
Razdan: You speculated why Ken Clean Air decided he was going to go away. Maybe it was because of comments made against the Brit Government...but maybe it was the demon related language used to describe Muslims and Islam on these posts. I for one don't see how these 'assertive' descriptions will help us to win tactically:
You may say that you're calling it like it is, but the general population isn't relating to the language we're using.
I think a more effective strategy (than Islam personifies evil etc) is what Gingridge is saying about describing our situation as WWIII right now. Once the language is re-framed, the populous will accommodate more radical statements.
My main point is the language used on this site isn't politically connecting with the Christian core constituencies in the west.
If they do not start to address the tumors in their own backyard...they will have a real mess on their hands.
They'll have a Moslem nation on their hands, and what could be more of a mess than that.
sorry about the misspelling of Newt Gingrich's name:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/winningthefuture.php?id=16065
The clear fact is muslims are unable to live with and coexist with other religions because that's their their only identity. When they are in a majority the minority always suffer serious and real discrimination, often officially sanctioned, when they are in a minority they are quick to cry discrimination as a reflex, magnify isolated incidents and demand special priviledges and make a case for 'pure state' based on religion.
The paradox is Kashmiri hindus who are a minority are not surprisingly in a sorry state ,kicked out of their homes for long now and living in camps, they are the ones paying the price for extremism. So supporting kashmiri separatism is not supporting minority rights but the idea of a state based on religion. India doesn't have a uniform civil code, what this means is that hindus and muslims are governed by their own laws in the personal space. Hindus cannot buy property in Kashmir, the indian army did no go to Kashmir to 'fry bhajias', they are not deployed in civilian zones internally, they are not the cause of separatism but the response.
Suspect REAL reason for Blair NOT doing anything is that these 'British' Muslim Businessmen are BIG CONTRIBUTORS TO NEW LABOUR. Reckon Blair will turn out to be one of Briain's most CORRUPT politicians ever- him & his Missus are sickening hypocrites ready to be Dhimmis and sell their country out provided cash is added to the Blair Slush Fund.BOOT THE BUGGERS OUT ASAP.
This is no reflection on majority of Brits or anyone in West suffering from weak,stupid or corrupt leaders[often a combination of all three].
Thanks, Albion for your speculation on why Ken was so upset (I do wish that Ken had made his reasons clear so that we didn't have to make all our speculations) . I appreciate your point about making our message more 'palatable' to the general PC masses. Personally, I believe that Robert does a terrific job in explaining the connection between Islamic doctrine and the current turmoil we see across the World. I think Newt Gingrich's book looks at a different aspect of the puzzle and provides a useful view as well. I think there is need for both approachs. As for the JW readers, I believe each person should freely express his/her views. Are some posts going to offend others? Sure. But thats a small price to pay for the unihibited exchange of views we often have here. I'm sure we would miss lot of insights if people felt inhibited in formulating their responses.
"My main point is the language used on this site isn't politically connecting with the Christian core constituencies in the west."
-- from a posting above
But much of Western Europe is no longer full of practicing, or even believing, Christians. The phrase "Christian core constituencies" misidentifies the intended audience, and overlooks the existence of many excellent websites, on the subject of Islam, run by devout Christians.
This website is deliberately intended to appeal not to Christians alone, but to all Infidels: Believers and atheists, and if Believers, Believers of all conceivable non-Muslim kinds. Still another potential audience consists of those who, through no fault of their own, are born into Islam but, having been forced to realize that the tenets of Islam are not full of peace and tolerance, and that the teachings, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam guarantee and even insist upon hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims, and limit artistic expression, and free and skeptical inquiry, are at least willing to read about instruments, and examples, of Jihad, alert to the effects of inshallah-fatalism and the lies and nonsense that make many Muslims particularly susceptible to conspiracy theories and a skewed view of reality, and while feeling the tug, no doubt, not only of danger from other Muslims, but also a kind of civilizatonal and filial piety to stick with Islam, at least outwardly, also have come to admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and so many other apostates, and might be willing not only to recognize, but even to act upon the recognition, of the worrisome nature of Islam.
“My main point is the language used on this site isn't politically connecting with the Christian core constituencies in the west.”
-from posting above
Hugh explained it eloquently, as always.
I don’t know all of the underlying issues in other countries but as for the U.S…
This is a media problem. Believe me, the Christian constituencies want the truth more than anything and Bush’s popularity is waning not because he is losing favor with the Libs, but because he makes such anti-conservative decisions when it comes to issues that threaten our security such as the borders and dealing decisive blows to terrorist organizations and their true sponsors.
This site is not here to ease politically sensitive constituents into the truth. It is designed to be an eye-opener! Who can look at the daily activity of Jihadists world-wide and not begin to see the bigger picture? It is up to those who are made aware to pass it along to those that can make a difference. Why do you think Robert is constantly in demand by radio and news stations? He is extraordinarily knowledgeable on the subject and does not need to choose political sides to make his point.
Candidates don’t change the mind of constituents but the reverse is absolutely true. The media outlets must start telling the whole story about what is going on, show the public exactly what is making the Islamic community so upset (cartoons, freedom of speech, etc.) and compare/contrast with the rest of civilization.
The “constituents” will then be able to make informed decisions and will not choose leaders based on empty promises but on voting-records and their willingness to risk their very careers to protect the nation from harm (Tancredo, Weldon, etc.)
-XRDC
"Still another potential audience consists of those who, through no fault of their own, are born into Islam but, having been forced to realize that the tenets of Islam are not full of peace and tolerance, and that the teachings, the attitudes"
Wonderful, Hugh. I would agree. Random utterances like "kill the ragheads" or "Western man, rise up and assert your superiority!" aren't going to win over many people other than Nazis (who will then stab infidels in the back and team up with the Muslim Brothers as they usually do). Many muslims who are involved in various anti-war or "muslim civil rights" causes are NOT particularly devout, they just get frightened when they see Muslims (jihadist or not) singled out and band together as a cultural entity.
A friend of mine from high school was a mostly secular Muslim from Iran who went onto fly (his only goal as long as I knew him and an effort to show his appreciation for his new country) for the USM. He's done more to battle against jihad than most Christians or Jews on this site. Him and some of his Iranian-American buddies were the most patriotic (and some of the hardest drinking) AMERICANS I have ever met. They knew exactly what the toll of sharia was. HOWEVER, if racist skinheads or that ilk were to attack them for being "ragheads" or "camel jockeys", believe me, there were about to be some laid-out nazis on the floor pretty quick. While I understand the fears that have been expressed on this board about Muslims being in the service, the few I knew who served did so honorably.
OT: When IP mentioned Varsha Bhosle, I was reminded of an article that she had written earlier about the follies that the Indian Government had made when they released terrorists in exchange for airline hostages in 1999. A google search for other articles by her came up with this interesting piece, where she replies to litigation threats issued to her by some CAIR thug:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/sep/21varsha.htm
Albion
I don't know about others, but I've usually kept all criticism to governments, parties and other sub-groups/organizations - be they US, Indian, British, Israeli, Russian, Danish, et al. However, I've never made assumptions about any of the people in these countries about them being Dhimmis. Even though I'm not normally a PC person, I am willing to be deferential so that as far as ethnicities and nationalities go, the different people around the world don't get offended on that basis alone. Having said that though, I agree with Razdan - all of us are going to get offended occasionally, although if it becomes a habit, it is a genuine turn-off.
But that does not extend to showing the same courtesy to Muslims. As has been discussed ad nauseum in this site, their 'religion' is evil, and to the extent that they follow it, whether seriously or casually, they must be held morally responsible for it. This is particularly so since Islamic activists worldwide are in your face about their 1 billion+ adherents, so that given that they enable such claims to be made by belonging to this cult, it's perfectly legitimate that they be demonized.
If anybody is leaving because of the way his/her nationality/religion/ethnicity/gender/sexual-orientation/what -have-you is being slandered, I sympathize with that person. But if somebody is leaving because (s)he doesn't like our attitude towards Muslims, that person is doing it for the right reasons. Given our common cause, we should be respectful of each other. That doesn't however mean that we should be respectful towards our enemies.
NCKaffir
I don't have much hope for the Brits. Many Brits are Jew-haters and as a direct consequence, readier to excuse Islamic terrorism. Try to mention the connection between Islam and terror, and many Brits will react in knee-jerk fashion by mentioning Irgun's King David Hotel bombing. Of course, most of us here know that the King David Hotel bombing was a necessary military--not terrorist--response to British actions in favoring the Arabs in Palestine, but facts mean nothing to convinced antisemites.
I do not think I have read such hysterical nonsense in many years. Most Brits have never heard of the King David Hotel bombing and about half the victims were Jewish anyway. If you had any sense you would do well to stay clear of that period of history at this time given Irguns “Necessary military action”. When not content with hanging British soldiers in trees as reprisals it pinned abusive messages to the bodies before mining them.
As to your “many Brits are Jew haters” I would refer you to two details
1) Most of Britain’s Jewish community arrived in the late 19th century as a result of Russian programs. It is now only half the size one would expect from the number of immigrants because so many have integrated – my great-grandmother being one example.
2) In the 1960’s an Israeli diplomat wrote a book about his time in London “An Israeli at the Court of St. James”. He said that the horrors inflicted on the Jewish community in the 20th century had passed Britain’s Jewish community by and they took their place at the top in all areas of society for granted.
I would read Tom Segev’s excellent book on the British Mandate of Palestine “One Palestine Complete” in which he declares that the British were not even handed in their government – they favoured the Jews. So they could not understand why the Jews turned on them.
Finally as to not condemning Islamic terrorism, you do not know what it is like in Britain today. Speak one word against Muslims and you lose your job, prefix that word with an insulting adjective and you go to jail. This is not an exaggeration, 10 year old kids have found themselves Court and acquired criminal records for saying one word on a school playground.
"Many Brits are Jew-haters"
Posted by NCKaffir above
Prove it. Where's your evidence?
Abhishek
Is Varsha a US resident? How did she get to cross swords with CAIR?
IP,
I don't know whether she is a US resident or not - her Wikipedia entry describes her as an "Indian columnist." As far as her trysts with CAIR go, I can only guess that Rediff, being one of the more popular site with NRIs, must have caught the eye of CAIR.
NCKaffir
I don't have much hope for the Brits. Many Brits are Jew-haters and as a direct consequence, readier to excuse Islamic terrorism. Try to mention the connection between Islam and terror, and many Brits will react in knee-jerk fashion by mentioning Irgun's King David Hotel bombing. Of course, most of us here know that the King David Hotel bombing was a necessary military--not terrorist--response to British actions in favouring the Arabs in Palestine, but facts mean nothing to convinced antisemites.
Most of us here know that the King David Hotel bombing was a necessary military not a terrorist response. So I presume it was quiet alright for these freedom fighters of the Irgun and its offshoot the Stern gang to kidnap two British army sergeants and hang them in an orange grove. Not only hang them in cold blood but mine the ground round about and boob trap the bodies causing even more casualties May I ask you was that a necessary military response, or was it a terrorist response and what about all the other hundreds of British military personnel that were killed during the thirties and forties by these gangs, go and ask there widows. To me they seemed to be to be using the same techniques as the Hamas is doing now kidnapping murdering blowing thing up and with the same aim, or am I only allowed to call non Jews who do that sort of thing terrorists. Has it ever accured to you that this steady attrition of men might account for a large part for the antisemetic stance of the British Government in 1947,but then of cause as you say many us Brits are Jew-haters and facts mean nothing to covinced antisemites.
Arjun.Sevak, Razdan
Ken Cleanairsystem is a British poster, and I assume can quite happily take criticisms of our politicians being Dhimmis, as this cannot be denied.
What he, and other British posters like me do take objections to, however, are comments such as:
"Many British are Jew Haters", posted above by NCKaffir
"Maybe now the Brits will muster the sense to cease blaming the USA and Israel for all of the worlds ills. Or maybe not" posted above by Pythagoras
Both of these comments are from this thread alone.
Yesterday, there was somebody arguing that the British Empire was worse for Hindus in India than the Moghul Dynasty, which as any regular Jihadwatch regular knows, killed 60-70 million Hindus over 250 years under Islamic rule.
We also get treated to numerous posters , who seem to enjoy making comments like "Theres no hope for Britain" etc in many threads. I admit, the situation Europe is bad. Defeat, however, is not a foregone conclusion. If enough people wake up quick enough, then it is not in anyway inevitable that Europe will become Islamised.
The list of such unpleasant comments goes on. Our patience does not. I would like to point out that many of us give donations to Jihadwatch in the full knowledge that most of this funding will go to anti Da'wa efforts in America alone. We however consider this a worthwhile cause. Perhaps more appreciation of this, together with a knowledge that Islam is a threat to all infidels, and we should therefore support each other more would be a good way forward.
In Bat Ye'ors book, Eurabia, it is made clear that the Eurabian path was decided by politicians and the Academic elite alone. This is true. The average European has been, and continues to be betrayed by their Government. Most of us are not Jew haters, American haters, Jihadist sympathisers etc. Islam is extremely unpopular in Europe with the average citizen. Our Governments no longer represent us, as Fjordman has noted, and many people are beginning to realise this now. There is still widespread ignorance about Islam. But hopefully with websites such as this, things will hopefully change for the better in the near future.
The forces of Islam are trying to drive a wedge between Europe and America. They must not be allowed to succeed. However, it is apparent from the comments on this website that they have had some success not only in Europe.
Amicus, you sum the situation up well.
"Yesterday, there was somebody arguing that the British Empire was worse for Hindus in India than the Moghul Dynasty, which as any regular Jihadwatch regular knows, killed 60-70 million Hindus over 250 years under Islamic rule."
Amicus,
I pointed to the misrule and policies of the British Empire which resulted in the deaths of millions of Indians. Will you point out where I had claimed that the British were worse than the Maughls?
Please re-read my comments before you put words in my mouth.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012267.php#comments
By the way, if you are reading this Hugh, I left a post for you in the same Royal Navy thread.
Melanie Philips was discussing her book Londonistan on BBC Radi 5's Simon Mayo show today, although she ended up talking about Israel for the first half of her appearance. If you want to hear her:
Go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml
Where it says “Listen again to Simon Mayo” click on “Mon”
Then in pop-up window click on: “Listen using standalone real player”
The Melanie Philips interview is 1hr 34 mins into the programme (elapsed time shown as you drag cursor along) She ends up talking about the current situation with Israel for the first 12 mins - to hear about Londonistan ff to 1hr 47 mins. To 1hr 56 mins.
Kafir Citizen
Any comparison between the Brits, and the Muslim rulers in India is odious and despicable. I was once attracted to the hindu-holocaust website, but was quickly turned-off by there being sections on the Brits and the Portugese. The term 'holocaust' implies Nazism, which cannot be said about either the Brits or the Portugese. However, equating Islam with Nazism is an insult to the latter, since Islam can be accurately described as a mix of Nazism and Apartheid on steroids.
I know you didn't say that the Brits are worse. However, dwelling on that issue is subjecting Brits of today though a guilt trip, and what is worse, is that Pakistani immigrants in Britain get to subjugate the Brits through the same guilt trip. It's bad enough that Brits have to put up with those vermin in their country and get those harangues from them. For other Indians - Hindus or Sikhs - to pile on, thereby giving an independent source of credibility to such vicious attacks - is simply unconscionable. Since 1947, millions of Indians have migrated to Britain, which was under no obligation to take anybody from former colonies. How many Indians - even just Muslims - have had the liberty to migrate to either Pakistan or Bangladesh, even though those countries were created explicitly for that purpose?
The Brits left in 1947. The Muslims got their own countries, but never left either. British rule was a mixed bag of good and bad. Muslim rule was unadulterated evil. Those who think that 60 years later, British rule is still worth whining over - something richly done in Indian history text-books, (even while Muslim misdeeds are glossed over) are a part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Kafir Citizen,
Your first paragraph in your second post read to me as a rebuttal of Hugh's argument that Moghul rule was worse. I can still see how I arrived at this conclusion, but I accept that may not have been how you meant it. If that is the case then I withdraw my original statement concerning your post.
I would like to point out however, that this website is called "Jihadwatch" and not "Past Colonialism Watch". Regardless of whether I misunderstood your arguments, they are not linked to the cause this website is dedicated to. I therefore thought that your comments were off track, and detrimental to our common cause. Attempting to bring about guilt in the West is a tactic employed by Islamic apologists, and you and others like you are unwittingly aiding them by joining in with that sort of rhetoric. I also don't understand why you are lamenting so heavily on the past, when at the same time, you do not even mention the current appalling treatment of the Hindus in Pakistan, which has led the Hindu population in that country to fall from 15-20% in 1947 to 1.5% today.
A final point, where exactly do you think India got the idea of democracy from? Nothing to do with the British prescence at all? I accept that British rule had many shortcomings: it is a shame, however, that you seem only to see one side on the matter.
Infidel Pride,
Thanks for the back up. Is this the start of a renewed Anglo American alliance on this website, ot are you British as well?!
Amicus
I am Indian, but close to becoming an American citizen soon. Take that as you will.
Granny Weatherwax,
Is there anyway you can get the poster named "Interested" to come back? I know you must be in contact with her, as you both write on another forum with Rebecca Bynum (the exact name now escapes me). There is nobody correcting bad spelling and grammar now, and that just simply won't do.
Infidel Pride,
Well, it might be the start of an Indo-Anglo-American Alliance then. Even better than I thought!
Amicus
To be fair to him, Kafir Citizen wasn't the one who brought up the topic. Hugh did. Regardless, any analysis of British rule in India should be a mix of the good and bad. That's something not possible with the Mamluks, Khiljis, Moghuls or anyone else who converted a prosperous civilization into an 800 year battlefield that left India permanently scarred.
To my friends here,
We all have our court of fools,
arrogant in their ignorance,
but we must remember
who gives them this power.
We also have the power to change,
for we . . . are the Free.
We have made many mistakes
by lack of discrimination,
by laziness and self doubt,
all of us, in every nation.
When we bicker and crow,
we reap what we sow
and it pleases our enemy to no end.
We have the power to change,
we are the Free.
So we must let go of the past
(is it not gone anyway?).
Today we must remember our common cause,
stand fast together, shoulder to shoulder,
let our voices grow louder, grow bolder
with the realization that united we stand,
divided we fall, one and all.
We have the power to change, to agree,
we are the Free.
I think some people view the BBC as being the worldwide ambassadors of the common Brit. Until I actually listened to BBC News with a critical ear, I wouldn't have separated the two. Perhaps therein lies one key to the misunderstanding. Folks should look at the big picture before spouting off about such assumptions.
True American patriots are fans of the UK as well. I'll let them shoot my fireworks on the 4th if they let me burn their Guy Fawkes!
-XRDC
Thank YOU poetess!
Please forgive and ingulge this off-topic response to a post above.
Abu, don't be so sure about your freinds. I knew a Lybian much like your Iranian freind. Smart, virile, heavy drinker and substance abuser, gambling whale, secularist not much interested in Islam, an airplane pilot, served in the US military--and I believe he is now deeply involved in jihadist activities. Either his was an elaborate ruse for reasons of infiltration or his Moslem roots just sprouted one day, on their own or due to jihadist fertilization by his Arab brothers, whom he often described as hostile to his westernization. Never underestimate the Islamist power to deceive, proselytize, intimidate, and subjugate. (And don't forget incinerate, detonate, decapitate, and castrate LOL).
I hope you're right, Abu, but I advise not letting your guard down. Suffice it to say I made that mistake, and it is one you may not get the chance to make twice. I intend not to squander my reprieve.
Best regards,
Haid
Poetess has hit the spot. This is a battle between lovers of freedom and all that it entails and those who are bred in repression with oppression of all humanity as their end.I see no moderate ground. Corrupt politicians in Europe do not represent the back bone of freedom loving people who have given their lives in past battles with totalitarian ideology. It is great to hear truth from British voices on this site instead of the dribel that comes from the mouth of Tony Blair and his Labour cohorts. No American should be arrogant enough to criticize his kinsmen overseas. We have some of the most pathetic, corrupt and lame politicians in the world. The Islamic thorns have not grown as big or infested itself in every aspect of our society as it has in Europe, but the seeds are certainly here and we will have a host of clowns willing to sell off our culture when push comes to shove. Thankfully, the Americans have had much more time to be educated to what they are up against and Howdy Doody presidents like Bush with their "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra won't be elected and continue making stupid, blind decisions.
Poetess, thanks for your words of wisdom. I know I haven't said this before, but I really do enjoy your poems here, so please keep them coming.
for Abu and Haid, take a look at the book, The Last Night of a Damned Soul.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802117805/qid=1151717465/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2480452-5076615?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Many Brits are Jew-haters
Many Brits are Moslem. Britain's antisemitism is taking a bit of a knock thanks to Islam's recent outreach efforts, but the obvious biases of the BBC and others in the MSM persist, and leftists and bleedin heart hippies are fueling it under the guises of PC. As Bernard Goldberg pointed out, the MSM's bias racially stereotypes Arabs just as offensively as Jews. What filters through into the popular psyche is an implicit antisemitism as part of the ambient norm. Even Alan Yentob made a fawning TV interview with Amos Oz, who somehow survived his own final solution after realising Jews don't actually exist. The latent background level of bigotry is reflected in the opinions of people like redken, galloway & ridley, their supporters, and the MSM's constant derision of "the Jewish state" as the antagonist. Even the PM's wife empathises with pally suicide bombers. Nothing controversial about that. Plenty of celebs show similar sympathies. It ain't pretty but there it is.
The Poetess,
Nice.
The reality is hard to accept. It took me a long time to accept it. To see the nature of islam for what it is, a kind of terminator, that is not going to stop until we are all dead. For a long time, I avoided the issue, until it just came up and bit me. In the form of a saudi funded mosque that came up near my home, and I had to endure the namaz summons 5 times a day. Sometimes I had to listen to propaganda being blared from mosque speakers turned on full volume. That made me read all the stuff I could find about islam. It makes one feel uncomfortable, it makes one grim. I say it again, it is very hard to accept the frightening reality.
Somethingaboutislam,
She might be in a bad shape, but her record so far is mighty impressive. Don't think the British are going to stand for that kind of nonsense from their leaders for long now.
Amicus wrote: " The forces of Islam are trying to drive a wedge between Europe and America. They must not be allowed to succeed."
I completely agree with you.
I am not going out on a limb by saying that the level of anti-American sentiment in Europe is far greater than the anti-Europe sentiment in the the U.S.
There are improving signs between Germany and the U.S. especially now that Shroeder is gone and Angela Merkel has taken over leadership as chancellor.
Amicus,
Thank you for your sum-up. There is gratuitous and generalized Brit-bashing here. Such bashing is unwise for numerous reasons. It is depressing. It is enervating. It is antagonizing. It is counterproductive to the anti-jihad.
Perhaps everyone, in particular those who type in a comment broad-brush-critical of their various allies against the jihad, could "Preview" prior to "Post" and use some wisdom and common sense? Not every thought which occurs needs to be immediately shouted out. Especially the off-topic whiney put downs of allies. Definitely nix those.
Sure there are British Jew haters. They deserve criticism. But not generalized to all the British, and constantly posted off topic.
Yes. I did preview and edit this comment.
Somethingaboutislam: thank you for your cheerful assessment of England and Europe’s current position.
While we would agree that some things are bad, it’s the attitude of ‘Europe’s doomed!’ that makes us stop and say ‘you may have given up, but we haven’t.’
I also note that you’re coming at this whole argument from a ‘citizen’ rather than ‘subject’ perspective. We’re quite happy with that actually. It does allow the elite to act broadly when circumstances require (Churchill), and when the right elite leads, global success has followed.
Rather than take insult and leave at your comments, I would much rather stay to discuss strategy about how to beat radical Islam.
Aww, I hope you blokes aren't leaving because of a few crass outbursts (ok, maybe there's a pattern).
Don't let some people's penchant for slinging defeatist mud drive you off. I'd wager to say most of here are big fans of Britain. Heck, I even lost money on the World Cup because of my fanboyism for anything "English" and "football".
Cummon Ken, stick around!
From a friend who knows his history. The following is his message responding to an email received from his friend in India. Maybe someone can translate the couple of Hindi sentences, please . Arjun Infidel pride, Crows &Cows?
I'm sharing this because not much as changed in the muslim's mentality. No matter in which countries they are now residing their methods and means may be slightly different, but their goal remains unchanged. We need to always be AWARE.
" I fully share your anguish over what happenned in Mumbai.
First it was Sarojini nagar killings in Delhi, then Varanasi, now
Mumbai. To my mind it is a continuation of the story of Muslim
atrocities of a thousand years. For almost a thousand years, starting with the Mohammed Bin Kasim's invasion of Sindh in the seventh century, India has been plundered, ravaged and brutalised by one invader after another. Some came from Afghanistan , some from Iran, some from Turkey. But they all had one thing in common, They were all Muslims.
Mohammed-bin-kasim,Mahmud Ghaznavi, Mohammed Ghauri, Babar, Nadir Shah,Ahmed Shah Abdali, Temur Lang-- ,it is a long list. They all held the Koran in one hand and a sword in the other and they all raised the same slogan of Alla-hu akbar. They destroyed hundreds, if not thousands of Hindu temples, looted India's wealth and forcibly took thousands of Hindu women to Muslim lands, to quote a British historian, "To stock their harems". Hindu women were openly auctioned in the Bazaar's of Ghazni like cattle. Even now there are folk songs in Persian that go something like "How much will you pay for the one with a red dot on her forehead ?" For hundreds of years,hordes of these marauders roamed India at will and occupied whatever part of India they felt like occupying. Then there were the Tughlaks, the Lodhis, the Moghuls. All this happened because India was seen as a 'soft state'. It was only the Sikhs who stood upto them and finally drove them out of India. The problem is that Indians don't read history. If India is alive today and has not become totally Islamic, it is because of the Sikhs, who stood up to the marauders and finally drove them out of India. India has survived as a nation because of the bravery and the sacrifices of the Sikhs. Hindu has always been a coward. The tragedy is that we don't even acknowledge the contribution of the Sikhs. On the contrary we make fun of them. Sardar ji kay barah baje hain. Barah Hinduwon kay baje hain. Koi aur desh hota toe Maharaja
Ranjit Singh aur Hari Singh Nalwa kay mandir bantae. Yeh kritaghna desh hai. Look at the Kashmir problem. How did it become Muslim majority state in the first place? It was a land of Hindu Shaivism. Then came the Afghans who occupied Kashmir for sixty years till the Sikhs drove them out of there. It was during Afghan occupation that Islam was introduced in Kashmir . Then there were large scale and forcible conversions to Islam ,and unspeakable atrocities committed on the Hindus. It was to protect the Hindus of Kashmir that Guru Tegh Bahadur, father of Guru Govind Singh sacrificed his life. He was beheaded at the sight of Gurudwara Sis Ganj near Chandni Chauk, and everyone knows the story of Guru Gobind Singh's two young sons being
bricked alive for refusing to convert to Islam. I could go on and
on.You get the idea. During the Moghul rule there was a time when Hindus were not allowed to ride a horse , or to wear a turban, they paid a tax called jazia for being a kafir. If a muslim wanted to spit in a hindu's mouth , the Hindu had to open his mouth. It was Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of the Sikhs who took out his sword to fight this Zulum and created the khalsa. Indira gandhi did a great dis-service to India by alienating the Sikhs. Sikhs have always been the sword arm of India. To injure that arm was the stupidest thing to do. But such was her Budhi.------sorry for this long outpouring, but on this subject, I always get worked up. - Fifty thousand worshippers at Somenath put to the sword by Mamud Ghaznavi, more than a hundred thousand slaughetered in Chandni Chauk by Nadir Shah. I wish more people in India would read history."
Del wrote: " There is gratuitous and generalized Brit-bashing here. Such bashing is unwise for numerous reasons. It is depressing. It is enervating. It is antagonizing. It is counterproductive to the anti-jihad."
Ken Clean Air System wrote: " This is my last posting on this site. When I first discovered this site I thought I had discovered a place where like minded inhabit. Looks like I was wrong."
Lighten up Brits. Develop some thicker skin.
We still love you over on the other side of the Atlantic.
Remember that you are our friends.
We only want to see less Islamization on your streets and more courage by your leaders.
Yes, there are a few posts here that are pessimistic and even gloomy about the future of Britian.
But we don't all think alike here on jihadwatch.
Open debate about topics that relate to Britian should be tolerated and not scouraged like sensitive guys such as Ken Clean Air System, who has completely abandoned jihadwatch for other "cleaner" pastures.
Perhaps Ken's Jihad air filter is a little too dirty for him to handle on Jihadwatch.
"A moderate Muslim is one who is so out of it he does not yet realize that if he is to truly become "moderate" he and his family will be murdered. There are virtually and in reality NO MODERATE MUSLIMS."
I disagree. There are many places in the world where islamic fundamentalism is not strong enough to cow (or even murder) moderate or non-enthusiastic muslims. And let's face it: we're not going to convert large numbers of muslims, so strengthening secularist muslims is our only hope.
I think it is extremely important that we all think before we write and 'mind our language'.
Driving people away through unfair generalisations is not helping us battle against islamism. I'd include in that both accusing whole countries of anti-semitism and claims that all Israel's military actions have always been correct. Come on - what country's military actions have always been so? Such a nation never existed and never will exist.
However, to Holger and other people who bring up past wrongs of any country, I say: this site is about the current threat of islamism. One of islam's favourite tactics is to divide and distract by historical cherrypicking and lies. We need to keep our focus.
BTW, Henry: please don't post all in capitals, it's awfully hard to read :)
from www.rediff.com
Terrorists have no religion: Modi
Sumit Bhattacharya in Mumbai | July 17, 2006
In Mumbai to address a Bharatiya Janata Party anti-terrorism public meeting, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi said on Monday that "terrorists have no religion."
"Jihadi terrorism is not Islam. Jihadi terrorism is an international threat," the senior BJP leader insisted at a meeting to condemn the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last Tuesday that killed 200 people and left about 700 people injured.
In a speech that was more like a mature statesman and less like a firebrand right-wing politician -- the Press Trust of India reported that the Maharashtra state government had warned Modi not to make any 'objectionable' statement -- the senior BJP leader emphasised the need for strong laws to tackle terrorism.
"If you (the United Progressive Alliance government) cannot enact POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act), allow the states to do it," Modi said, adding that he had sent the proposal of a law for Gujarat on the lines of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act in 2004, and that Union Home Minister "Shivraj Patil has been sitting on it."
Modi pointed out that the United States -- which he called "the drum-beater of human rights" -- had introduced the Patriot Act, the Financial Anti-terrorism Act and the Homeland Security regime after 9/11, and that France and "even Japan" had enacted special laws to deal with terrorism.
Modi -- who was equated to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and hailed as the only Indian leader to have fought terror by each and every speaker at the meeting from Maharashtra BJP unit chief Nitin Gadkari (second from left) to former Maharashtra deputy chief minister Gopinath Munde (fifth from left, beside Modi) -- questioned the UPA government's "will to fight terrorism."
The Gujarat chief minister insisted that POTA -- which the UPA government scrapped as soon as it came to power in 2004, saying the law was 'draconian' and a 'weapon' to target the minority community -- would boost the morale of the security forces, and send a message to the terrorists that the government was "serious about the serious issue."
"These people (the Congress-led UPA government) cannot send a strong signal to terrorists, let alone fight them," Modi thundered to rousing applause from the 3,000-strong crowd at the Shanmukhananda Auditorium.
He launched a scathing attack on what he called "five-star activists" and people "brought up with foreign values," saying, "they paint as communal whoever speaks up against terrorism."
Modi, dressed in all white, wondered when India would be "like Israel, where everyone has a fire inside him. A dream of fighting for the country."
His 90-minute speech also focused strongly on those killed in the terrorist attacks on Mumbai.
"I have come to Mumbai with a heavy heart," the chief minister during whose reign over 1,000 people were killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots began.
Towards the end, he said, "I cannot watch 200 people die. It's not what my politics is about."
freetoBEfree,
Agree with what your friend says.Loosely translated,.."Sikhs' mighty contribution has been forgotten by the people and they are being ridiculed instead.Any other country would have acknowledged the Glory of people like Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Sri Hari Singh Nalwa by building monuments for them....".
Very true.Read K.P.S.Gill's article "Where is the political will?".All the Sikhs who effectively rooted out terrorism from Punjab were subjected to unfair witchhunting that many were driven to end their lives by suicide.As in the case of haditha deaths.The muslim gulzar(film maker)projected the Sikhs as terrorists in his movie (maachis)and predictably there was no whimper of protest.
It is the same people of India(read Hindus)who would shamelessly hobnob with muslims in the name of "secularism".Estranged- brother bug bitten zombies.Just the same way our history books teach us tipu sultan was a great patriot(sic)!!
Grate all our marxists written history books.
Crows&cows,
'Maachis' was one movie that DID NOT portray the Sikhs as terrorists. I am sure many posters here know that. Either you did not get the hang of the movie, or it is something else.
Lili posted
"And let's face it: we're not going to convert large numbers of muslims, so strengthening secularist muslims is our only hope."
Secularist muslims?
C'mon Lili............
The dhimmi Congress ruled Maharashtra Gov. had warned Modi not to make 'objectionable' statements.
kow tow to the muslims, don't call a spade a spade, don't call black as black, don't call white as white. Find some other word to call them by.
POTA targeted 'minorities'.
Specifically, POTA targeted muslims. This is the community that promotes terror. We also have a Christian, Buddhist, Persians, and a small number of Jews. None felt threatened by POTA. Among the people who wanted POTA to be withdrawn, were the chief mullah of India, imam bukhari, of the jama masjid in New Delhi.
Crows&Cows,
All I know, and feel in my gut is that this subject, the dream of muslims taking over the world, cannot be forgotton, or put aside until the next, and the next explosion somewhere in the world. We must all keep on beating the drum, and not forget history, because it is being repeated daily, and kept current by the muslims, somewhere on earth ( even as we speak )
freetoBefree,
Don't read too much about the jokes about Sikhs. There are jokes about every community and caste. They take them sportingly, as anyone should. And Sikhs are respected. You might not call a Thakur as Thakur Sahab, but you will address a Sikh as "Sardarji". The "ji" is always there, and the word "Sardar" is a word of respect in itself.
You know, in the Chambal range, what they call the Thakurs, the Kshtriyas of Chambal ? They call them "thasbuddhi". Meaning they are empty in the head and ready to brawl with all and sundry. The Thakurs take this sportingly. It was one Thakur who himself told me, that Thakur is, "Thus", "Kukarmi" and "Rasiya". Write Thakur in Hindi and see what you get. It is not an issue at all.
Hi Arjun,
I was asking for help in translating the Hindi quotes. Thank God, we can take all this lightly - except one group, and we know who that is.
Just read the following about their "youths" - Gujrati??? hmmmm...
Mumbai Blasts
Eight Gujarati youths detained
Press Trust of India
Posted online: Monday, July 17, 2006 at 2031 hours IST
Updated: Monday, July 17, 2006 at 2036 hours IST
Agartala, July 17: Eight Muslim youths from Gujarat have been detained at Udaipur in south Tripura district for questioning in connection with the serial Mumbai blasts, police said.
? They were staying in Chhanban Masjid at Udaipur. "We detained them on Saturday night on a tip-off," sub-divisional police officer, Udairpur, Pinaki Samanta said.
The youths were brought to Radhakishorpur police station for interrogation. However, police did not find any evidence of any subversive activity from them, he said.
They identified themselves as activists of Tablgh-e-Jamat, a religious organisation preaching Islam.
Samanta said they entered Udaipur on June 22.
Two of them have passports and had visited different countries. Meanwhile, the date of arrival of a special team of Maharastra police to interrogate the 11 Muslim youths, who were detained on July 13 from a Masjid at Sonapat, a village near the Indo-Bangla border, was yet to be finalised, police sources said. They are from Thane district in Maharashtra.
freetoBEfree,
They got 17 muslims as far away as Tripura. The total number of arrests has exceeded 500.
arjun,
That is amazing! Hopefully some are talking, or should I say, hopefully someone is paying attention.
Yet more sectarian violence in Iraq.
Yesterday the bombing of a market, today a car-bombing at a Shia shrine.
However, when police arrived, it is reported that they were attacked:
Car bomber hits Iraqi labourers
Actually the modifier to "Shia cleric" is unnecessary to the story. It seems to be a way for the BBC to imply, without saying, that this cleric and his supporters are somehow atypical, although they adduce no evidence to show that.
On the other hand, "radical" is a fairly appropriate label, bearing in mind the original sense of the word:
These stone-throwers have returned to the "root" of Islam, namely, violence.
Amicus, you are thinking of here.
I will pass on your greeting.
poetess
You took the words out of my mouth. Thank you
the hindu
Arjun,if so, happy to know that.
Posting Praful Goradia in Pioneer:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2
"Reluctant rulers
Prafull Goradia analyses why India is soft towards Islamist terror, while Israel leaves no stone unturned to retaliate against jihadi violence
Having arrived in Mumbai from London on July 5, 2006, Isaac Armstrong, professionally a computer expert, flew into Delhi on the night of the terrorist carnage on Western Railway. We happened to meet on the following day. Being half Jewish, he had interest in Islamic affairs and got talking without my posing many questions. The way to handle them is shown by Israel. In order to recover one abducted soldier, eight ministers and 20 legislators, including the Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister have been captured.
For the Lebanese seizing two soldiers, Israel has invaded their country. But for the strong will of its rulers, a small country like Israel could not have survived on the huge Arabian landmass. Mr Armstrong confessed that had they possessed the same will power earlier, the Nazis could not have slaughtered six million jews.
My interest was in Mumbai of July 11, for which Mr Armstrong had an unusual diagnosis to offer. He said that the carnage was a continuing conflict between sadists and masochists. Islamists take relish in maiming people and bloodshed whereas the Hindu ruling class gets pleasure when pain is inflicted on its people. As an example, how else can one explain the Indian Prime Minister, in his first reaction, being worried about Lashkar-e-Tayyeba raising the tempo of communal violence?
Evidently what he had in mind was the fear of a Hindu backlash. The pain of those who suffered the bomb attack and the tragedy of the innocent killed was a lower priority. Home Minister Shivraj Patil was also concerned about the terrorists dividing the society.
Mr Armstrong expressed the hope that Hindus will eventually change just as Jews did after World War II. Think of it, India has not taken a single preemptive or deterrent step against the terrorists even after Parliament was attacked. Contrast that with the US retaliation to 9/11 and the disappearance of terrorism from the American continent. It is the same story after the UK took steps on the morrow of 7/7. Islamists continue their attacks because they interpret the signals from India as "you are welcome".
Soon after meeting Mr Armstrong, I went to see a friend of mine whose name is Agha Anwar Mirza. His explanation was lucid. The struggle is on to turn India into a dar-ul Islam where the writ of the sharia' would run. That would have happened earlier had there been no Partition. Undivided India would be already 40 per cent Muslim. Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah spoilt it all. By now a popularly elected sultan would have been ruling in Delhi.
In answering my question, Mr Mirza said that a true Muslim cannot condemn what he perceives as a holy war. Not only in India, but also in many other countries, jihad is on; be it Chechnya in Russia, Kosovo in Serbia, Pattani in Thailand as well as for the southern islands of the Philippines. What about England, France, Holland, Scandinavia, the US? The reply was that shorn of details, true Muslims there would like sharia' to be the law applicable to their community. If that has not been declared as the objective, it could be for tactical reasons.
Why kill innocent Hindus? "That was to soften the will of the governments across India. Already you can see," Mr Mirza pointed out, "that the Congress-led ministries are offering reservations to Muslims." According to him, the Hindu will is soft. Should not then we Hindus be worried? He said no. They were happy under Muslim rule for centuries. It is the British policy of divide and rule that made Hindus raise their head. Now that the white regime is over, the traditional Hindu-Muslim equation must be returned.
Mr Mirza is a drawing room Marxist; he did his doctorate at Humboldt University in what was East Germany. He has a wide range of interests and thinks up a variety of theses. One of them is that the Hindu per se is not comfortable at governing. He is unconsciously on the look out for someone to hand over the reins of power. Be it the Mughals, the Lodhis and the other sultanates earlier, be it the British, be it the Nehru-Gandhis. Even the Kshatriyas lack the passion to rule. Look what Mr VP Singh did and what Mr Arjun Singh is doing now. They are all reluctant princes.
Mr Mirza took me back to the age of the Mahrathas. They had a glorious opportunity to fill the vacuum created by the decline and break up of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb. Their armies had gone across to most parts of the sub-continent. Instead of establishing a permanent rule, they preferred to visit and revisit their territories merely to collect chauth or one-fourth revenue. "Were'nt they reluctant rulers?" he exclaimed.
When I encouraged him to go on, Mr Mirza's mind flew to Beijing - the favourite of many a Marxist. See, he said, how China dealt with Tibet and what New Delhi is doing in Kashmir. Did you know how Mao Zedong brought back the seceded Xinjiang into China in 1951, he asked. He invited all the political leaders of the then independent country for a friendly conference between neighbours. He sent an aeroplane to bring the guests to Beijing. They were wined and dined for several days and sent back in the same plane which, however, crashed on the way.
Two of the Xinjiang leaders, who had excused themselves from the conference on account of ill health, elevated themselves to power and declared that their country's merger with the People's Republic of China.
In sum, Mr Mirza contended that rulers must not only know real politik, but also have the stomach for ruthless action. The least they need to practice is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the old Jewish adage which was openly adopted by Islam and implicitly put to use by Christian rulers.
What the Marxist friend implied was that without this dose of deterrence, no government can govern. For every citizen killer, the state government must claim at least test terrorist lives!"
My main point is the language used on this site isn't politically connecting with the Christian core constituencies in the west.
Driving people away through unfair generalisations is not helping us battle against islamism.
Well then, here’s a fair generalization, one spoken by God himself in the Koran chapter entitled The Combined Forces: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. [33:21]
In other words, these moderate Moslems before whom you would shuffle your feet, hat in hand, watching your words and biting your tongue, these Unicorns by self-definition adore a murdering, raping, thieving, enslaving, pedophilic megalomaniac.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1504 * 1526 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
It is Moslems who should be apologizing for their words: They should apologize for the words of their priests, for the words of the original Moslems, for the words of all Moslems who have lived since, for the words of their prophet, and most especially they should apologize for the rotten gut-stinking words of their so-called God.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
What’s an “unfair generalization” about telling the plain truth?
Islam is an awful thing; Islam is the worst thing in human history. Anybody who practices Islam owes me a personal apology and a promise to quit immediately.
To accommodate Islam by calling it half-good is to self-subjugate, a tactic that has been tried for the last 1,383 years with zero success. Read the history before going into the business of censorship. Take a gander at those two dumbasses at G8 and then go ask 80 million Hindus how well accommodating Islam works.
I’ll not be censored by any Moslem, nor by any reproachful Infidel. The only way out of this mess is by way of the truth, however awful that is.
"What’s an “unfair generalization” about telling the plain truth?"
Nothing. Let's just stick to that plain truth - that's what I'm saying. Nobody is trying to censor you, Mr Pig Farmer - I don't even recall commenting on your posts in particular, or saying that islam is 'half-good'. But you can hardly doubt that when posters call a whole country anti-semitic or (on an earlier thread) gloat over civilian muslim deaths, many people will be put off reading the threads and learning about islamism.
Is it such a great idea for a few posters to let off steam in public and turn this into the hate site that some people already label it as? I guess everyone will have to make that decision before posting.
Dear JW/DW readers
Going by recent postings, I can't but help to notice a rising animosity between posters and a tendancy to write people off due to their religion,race or nationality.
Folks. Is that what we are here for? To argue who is getting sc***ed the least when all of us are facing the same problems.
Robert, Hugh, I hope that you have been noticing these posts. While there are many posters that do present and balanced viewpoints, there are others, who in Hugh's own words, choose to ride their "hobby horses" all over the place untethered. JW is a popular site because it represents a balanced universal forum, in which we all striving, equal partners, to remove an idealogy that prescribes narcissist and despotic ideals as its prominent goals.
My admirations and thanks to those who believe and continue to promote these values that are behind JW.
for a free world
the hindu
"An objective analysis of history shows also the failure of nonviolence as a political tactic. There are times when violent methods have to be used to counter violence. There is a famous Sanskrit line: ahimsa paramo dharmah, dharma himsa tathaiva ca — "Non-violence is the highest principle, and so is violence in defense of the righteous." Pacifists are fond of quoting only the first part. Its real meaning is that in order to establish peace one should be prepared to use force to defend dharma. Mindless attachment to pacifism inflicts untold suffering on the innocent, while sheltering cowards and opportunists . Recognizing this, John Stuart Mill wrote long ago:
War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The ugliest is that man, who, holding that nothing is worth defending or worth fighting for would let better men than himself protect him.
And Sri Aurobindo said:
The sword of the warrior is as necessary to the fulfillment of justice as the holiness of the saint. To maintain justice and to prevent the strong from despoiling, and weak from being oppressed is the function for which the Kshatriya was created. Therefore, says Krishna in the Mahabharata, God created battle and armor, the sword, the bow and the dagger.
This is actually good news.
The UK media especially the guardian,independent and the bbc are quick to talk of discrimination against "asians" what they mean is moslems but are too PC to say so.
Some time ago I received an e mail with an attachment from someone who was of Indian decent and recomending this website.The attachment was a article from moslem news by a labour mp mike obrien "labour and british moslems can we dream the same dream"
I have started copying it and circulating to anyone who is sikh/hindu etc.
My Indian friends are quite furious with it.
If any body here is interested contact me on
heathen_henry@hotmail.co.uk
I will e mail it back to you and you can start giving it out to people.
Labour think they can have a cosy relationship with the moslems and the Indians here at the same time.
Thats why when they invited that bangladeshi iman in who described hindus as Sh!$ it must have caused offense I think we must let as many Indians know as possible.
Print it out and give it to any hindu/sikh you know post it to the local hindu/sikh temple C/o The President or General Secretary.
Nice quotes, Crows & Cows. It is a pity that most of us Hindus have lost touch with our religion which has a very clear-cut answer on how to deal with injustices such as that wrought by Islam. To a large extent folks like Gandhi have completely defanged the Hindu religion to make it a completely pacifist religion... which Hinduism is anything but. People seem to forget that one of the key and most powerful sermons in Hinduism was made on a battlefield, i.e. the Bhagvad Gita, where Lord Krishna exhorts the warrior Arjuna to engage in battle.
Than God, Israel, and to some extent(stymied by PC & MSM)America, are applying the principles of Bhagavad Gita.
Hindus recite them in sing-song voice followed by *prasadam* gorging.No assimmilation,no application.No steady ABIDANCE in Truth.Such supine apathy.
Razdan,
Read the poem posted:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012250.php#comments
Crows&cows,
This interests me much more.
"Israel Presses For Oil From Shale"
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2006/gb20060705_516609.htm?campaign_id=alerts
We need to get off crude, this will reduce funds for jihadis substantially.
alarmed pig farmer: I notice you quoted me 'My main point is the language used on this site isn't politically connecting with the Christian core constituencies in the west.' but you didn't answer my point.
Even though the vast majority of voters have not connected the dots between koranic verses and radical Islam's actions, I think the posters on this site have. Likewise, voters are not describing Islam as evil. So there is a disconnect between the radicalism shown on this site, and the perceptions and actions of voters.
The 'kill them all and let god decide' crew may have a point, but it will not find legitimacy until a catastrophic WMD or other act is perpetrated.
I too believe that the Koran provides radical instruction that leads Muslims to commit terror, but I'm more interested in how we politically radicalize the west, and how we tactically beat the Islamic propagandist in the west.
I do not advocate pogroms, or strategic support for Fascists (BNP etc). And this is our problem, we have no manifesto, no political organization, and no broad base of support.
Can you get into this Shale Oil business faaast, and start exporting - to US, India, China and all other Infidel countries? We'd rather make you rich, rather than those Sheikhs in the Gulf. You can use that cash anyway you wish - sea water filtration systems, canals to the Dead Sea, nuclear plants, more semiconductor fabs in the Negev, palaces in Marbella, solar car projects, laying fiber cable all under Israel, kibbutz's and synagogues worldwide, cradle to grave welfare for socialist Israelis,... anything! Some of these suggestions are worthier than others, but any of them sure beats mosques and madrassas mushrooming up all over the world.
Lili posted, "many people will be put off reading the threads and learning about islamism."
Many postings here, teach the TRUTH about islam, because the posters have first hand knowledge of this cult. Hugh and Robert are a great source of learning. Many have the experience, and are living in the midst of them, and hopefully, others will benefit from that.
Letting off steam about this subject on this forum is freedom of speech too.
Not being a Brit I cannot give an acurate opinion about Blair of what is being done in Britain.
But if I look at the US for an example. Bush went after terrorism hard.
Tapped phone lines to reveal terrorist activities.(found unconstitutional by cogress)
Congress refuses to allow CIA to operate on US soil. Leaving to FBI and Homeland Security the responsibility of protecting America.(neither of which have enough experience with the opposing forces to be effective)
Congress found the treatment of the captured insurgent forces uncostitutional. (extending constitutional rights to those who oppose it)
Our worst interrogation tactic used by US forces is sleep deprivation. It is limited to the interogator has to stay awake as long as the detainee. If interogators use more effective means they face charges and prison. While US Troops taken captive have been starved, beaten, tortured, mamed, decapitated, executed, along with numerous other atrocities. (tell the families of the fallen US troops they died for the rights of their killers)
Reminder: Terrorist groups are deadly criminals with no regard for human life. Their forces are comprised of many nationalities.
I feel before we condemn the President and Prime Minister westep back and look at the government systems as a whole.
As all Americans know our Congress, bases its decisions on personal advantage, and special intrest groups. The whole time they are voting on giving themselves cost of living raises, bouncing checks, commiting fraud, driving drunk, avoiding traffic tickets, and god knows what all. (THIS IS ALL DONE UNDER PROTECTION OF ARTICLE ONE SECTION SIX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES)
As long as Bush and Blair have to answer to Congress and Parliament, their actions are limited.
The Islamic terrorist groups resposible for the deaths of innocent civilians operate under the protection of religious rights and descrimination accusations.
We as a whole need to open our eyes and look at the big picture.
Infidel Pride,
"I was once attracted to the hindu-holocaust website, but was quickly turned-off by there being sections on the Brits and the Portugese."
Why? Were their lives worth any less if they weren't killed by Muslims? The Hindu Holocaust sites document the number of people killed; they don't equate Muslims with the Brits or anyone else.
"However, dwelling on that issue is subjecting Brits of today though a guilt trip, and what is worse, is that Pakistani immigrants in Britain get to subjugate the Brits through the same guilt trip. It's bad enough that Brits have to put up with those vermin in their country and get those harangues from them."
I take no responsibility for the actions of the Pakistanis. Muslims and their leftist allies will find some other way to milk the infidels (as in Denmark and Sweden with no colonial history). That dosen't mean that I or anyone else should be asked to bury the truth. We can criticize each other openly, and that freedom distinguishes us from the Muslims.
As far as history books are concerned, I believe in teaching the children truth, not in covering up the past for present politics, whether it concerns the Muslims, Brits, or anyone else.
Amicus,
"I would like to point out however, that this website is called "Jihadwatch" and not "Past Colonialism Watch". Regardless of whether I misunderstood your arguments, they are not linked to the cause this website is dedicated to. I therefore thought that your comments were off track, and detrimental to our common cause."
As has been pointed out by Infidel Pride in his second post, I did not bring up the point, I was responding to Hugh. I believe in infidel alliance, but that shouldn't stop up from having free and frank discussion. Alliance against Islam does not mean that we should have uniform views on everything.
"A final point, where exactly do you think India got the idea of democracy from? Nothing to do with the British prescence at all? I accept that British rule had many shortcomings: it is a shame, however, that you seem only to see one side on the matter.
Let's not justify past misdeeds with the argument of white man's burden. I weighed the good and bad of the British enterprise in India, and my scale leans towards the bad. I don't blame you or any one in the present generation for what your ancestors did, but is it too much to ask that you recognize the terrible things done in the British Empire?
Infidel Pride,
"I was once attracted to the hindu-holocaust website, but was quickly turned-off by there being sections on the Brits and the Portugese."
Why? Were their lives worth any less if they weren't killed by Muslims? The Hindu Holocaust sites document the number of people killed; they don't equate Muslims with the Brits or anyone else.
"However, dwelling on that issue is subjecting Brits of today though a guilt trip, and what is worse, is that Pakistani immigrants in Britain get to subjugate the Brits through the same guilt trip. It's bad enough that Brits have to put up with those vermin in their country and get those harangues from them."
I take no responsibility for the actions of the Pakistanis. Muslims and their leftist allies will find some other way to milk the infidels (as in Denmark and Sweden with no colonial history). That doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be asked to bury the truth. We can criticize each other openly, and that freedom distinguishes us from the Muslims.
As far as history books are concerned, I believe in teaching the children truth, not in covering up the past for present politics, whether it concerns the Muslims, Brits, or anyone else.
Amicus,
"I would like to point out however, that this website is called "Jihadwatch" and not "Past Colonialism Watch". Regardless of whether I misunderstood your arguments, they are not linked to the cause this website is dedicated to. I therefore thought that your comments were off track, and detrimental to our common cause."
As has been pointed out by Infidel Pride in his second post, I did not bring up the point, I was responding to Hugh. I believe in infidel alliance, but that shouldn't stop up from having free and frank discussion. Alliance against Islam does not mean that we should have uniform views on everything.
"A final point, where exactly do you think India got the idea of democracy from? Nothing to do with the British prescence at all? I accept that British rule had many shortcomings: it is a shame, however, that you seem only to see one side on the matter.
Let's not justify past misdeeds with the argument of white man's burden. I weighed the good and bad of the British enterprise in India, and my scale leans towards the bad. I don't blame you or any one in the present generation for what your ancestors did, but is it too much to ask that you recognize the terrible things done in the British Empire?
Infidel Pride,
"I was once attracted to the hindu-holocaust website, but was quickly turned-off by there being sections on the Brits and the Portugese."
Why? Were their lives worth any less if they weren't killed by Muslims? The Hindu Holocaust sites document the number of people killed; they don't equate Muslims with the Brits or anyone else.
"However, dwelling on that issue is subjecting Brits of today though a guilt trip, and what is worse, is that Pakistani immigrants in Britain get to subjugate the Brits through the same guilt trip. It's bad enough that Brits have to put up with those vermin in their country and get those harangues from them."
I take no responsibility for the actions of the Pakistanis. Muslims and their leftist allies will find some other way to milk the infidels (as in Denmark and Sweden with no colonial history). That doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be asked to bury the truth. We can criticize each other openly, and that freedom distinguishes us from the Muslims.
As far as history books are concerned, I believe in teaching the children truth, not in covering up the past for present politics, whether it concerns the Muslims, Brits, or anyone else.
Amicus,
"I would like to point out however, that this website is called "Jihadwatch" and not "Past Colonialism Watch". Regardless of whether I misunderstood your arguments, they are not linked to the cause this website is dedicated to. I therefore thought that your comments were off track, and detrimental to our common cause."
As has been pointed out by Infidel Pride in his second post, I did not bring up the point, I was responding to Hugh. I believe in infidel alliance, but that shouldn't stop us from having free and frank discussion. Alliance against Islam does not mean that we should have uniform views on everything.
"A final point, where exactly do you think India got the idea of democracy from? Nothing to do with the British prescence at all? I accept that British rule had many shortcomings: it is a shame, however, that you seem only to see one side on the matter.
Let's not justify past misdeeds with the argument of white man's burden. I weighed the good and bad of the British enterprise in India, and my scale leans towards the bad. I don't blame you or any one in the present generation for what your ancestors did, but is it too much to ask that you recognize the terrible things done in the British Empire?
Sorry, but something is wrong with my Post button. I press it once and it doesn't do anything, when I press it again I get double posts.
kcooper: Islamic terrorists are infinitely WORSE than common criminals. Although terrorists are committing what technically amounts to crimes according to our legal codes. It is the sheer quantity and inhumanity of these crimes they are doing that is so profoundly disturbing.
Islamic terrorists are doing something infinitely more sinister than merely committing 'crimes': they are using our people as fodder for human sacrifice and they are committing their literally innumerable crimes (usually multiple first-degree murders) in order to systematically and completely destroy our civilization and cultural values. Mere criminals do not behave like this!
Human life and human rights amount to nothing in the political totalitarian system mistakenly referred to as the 'religion' of Islam. No person is seen as an individual by Muslims, unless it is the likes of Ousamah bin Laden or some other hideously perverse public figure that wields power within the Islamic political superstructure.
Our only real defense is all-out war against Islam and Islamic nations and to destroy their war-machine apparatus (which by the way, thanks to China and Russia, is now vastly larger than most western democracies' citizenry would ever imagine and certainly IS a threat to the western democracies' survival).
Muslims see the world as a battle field and themselves as soldiers of al-lah. YOUR life means nothing nor does mine. All life is disposable to Islam. ANd neither do Muslims care about any rights the west accords them--except as a weapon to be used against us (which they are already doing). And what about OUR rights? Who is going to protect our rights to live free from Islam and the threat of Islamic-perpetrated violence and mayhem? Since Europe is of no help in this matter of defending our rights against Islamic aggression, I will look elsewhere (and ignore their generally worthless criticisms of the Bush Administration). I will not let anyone, European or otherwise, tell me I must accept Islamic-sponsored violence, aggression, and creeping totalitarianism for any reasons. If Gitmo helps save our people from Islam, Gitmo gets my support (Europe be damned). I make no apologies for refusing to accept any part of Islamic ideology--and/or combating it.
"Secularists and persons of all faiths must act together before it is too late." Serge Trifkovic, THE SWORD OF THE PROPHET. Europe had better get with the program ASAP because this man is the REAL authority on this subject (foget anyone at the UN et al).
What the Bush Administration has attempted to do so far barely registers as a 'blip' on the radar! In other words, they didn't go after Islamic terrorists nearly hard enough!!!
But you can hardly doubt that when posters call a whole country anti-semitic or (on an earlier thread) gloat over civilian muslim deaths…
I’ll concede your point on the death-gloating. I can think of only one group on Earth that routinely imbibes in that, and Moslem deaths would be the last thing they’d gloat.
However, why not a whole country of anti-Semites? The first and lowest-laid stone at the foundation of Islam is world conquest, as set forth in lines 6 & 7 of chapter 1 of the world’s worst book, the Koran. The next stone up is anti-Semitism, dangled throughout the Koran and the Sunnah as red raw meat to get the salivary glands flowing towards world conquest. So, if Arabia is not a nation of anti-Semites, what is it? Pakistan? Iran? Yemen? The UAE? How about Chechnya?
What are these nations but Islam, and what is Islam but anti-Semitism and then some. Yes, I understand that there is complexity (MINOs, Zoroastrians, even a few beleaguered Persian Jews, et al) but I’ll betcha a dollar to a doughnut that Jew-hatred runs through the veins of, oh, let’s say about 98% to 99% of all Saudi Arabians.
So calling Saudi Arabia a nation of anti-Semites is telling the plain truth, and should be stated without apology wherever possible, especially on national TV.
alarmed pig farmer: I notice you quoted me “My main point is the language used on this site isn't politically connecting with the Christian core constituencies in the west.” but you didn't answer my point.
I performed an experiment recently in the form a document, which matter-of-factly listed Mohammed’s misdeeds from the beginning: The caravan robbery threats and death threats from the streets of Mecca, the Satanic Verses, the Expedition to Naklah from Medina with its murder, kidnapping and robbery, then Abu Afak, then Asma Marwan, then when the oasis farms and villages of Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuga were stolen lock stock and barrel, then The Letter, then the rapes and sex slavery, then the mass Jew-murder in Banu Qurazay, and on from there. All acceded to by Moslem authorities.
I distributed this list to a reasonably large number of Americans of all stripes: Doctors, flight attendants, lawyers, software engineers, truck drivers, multimillionaire businessmen, newspaper columnists, you name it. Two groups took shape:
1) Those who wondered why in the hell they had not been told these things in the 1st grade, and
2) Those who simply refuse to believe any of it, or to crack a book and find out for themselves.
Plain, factual, certifiable, undeniable Truth. This is the only way out. It’ll be unpleasant, but our Moslem neighbors have already made the world that, so what the hey.
"Not being a Brit I cannot give an acurate opinion about Blair of what is being done in Britain."
Posted by kcooper, above
Yes, you can. As a British person, I can confirm that Blair's idiotic policies have been laid out very accurately on JW/DW. If you have been following the articles for a couple of months, you will be in a very good position to comment, even if you've never left your home town in your life.
One of my earlier points is that these policies have far less support in Britain than some posters here seem to realise, which led to some rather innacurate and unpleasant generalisations about the British as a whole. However, by all means criticise our Government; they are acting like subdued Dhimmis after all. The main problem now is that the Conservatives seem to be going this way as well.
Some kind words from some American posters above, so thank you. I would find it hard to go elsewhere anyway; where else would I go to keep informed about Islam? Certainly not on the websites of the Guardian or the New Duranty Times.
"but is it too much to ask that you recognize the terrible things done in the British Empire?"
Posted by Kafir Citizen
"I accept that British rule had many shortcomings"
Posted by me, above.
I have already acknowledged it, and I never disputed any of the historical facts you gave.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you are coming from now.
Kafir Citizen
Nobody is asking for the truth to be buried, or the crimes of the Brits and the Portuguese to be condoned. You miss the point - the word holocaust means wholesale destruction. The Jews, for instance, were subjected to a variety of pogroms throughout history - from the Romans through the Spanish Inquisition to the Russian pogroms and Stalin's gulag. But when they mention the holocaust, they specifically limit it to the 6 million killed by the Nazis; that doesn't mean that they practice negationism with the rest of their victims. The English, for instance, at around 800AD, were subject to rape and pillage by the Vikings. They don't equate that with the Blitz.
While Hindus have suffered from the time of Cyrus the great right down to the Brits, and from a variety of foreign sources, the term 'holocaust' in this case should be used on those who made the extermination of Hindus their central goal - something that wasn't true about the ancient Persians, the Macedonians, the Portuguese or even the British.
On the other hand, it's always been the goal of Muslims. From Mohammed bin Qasim. To this day.
The article (a reader's response) below shows that some in Mumbai are waking up against whatever that afflicts them adversely. However the sentiments could easily precipitate into a Civil War in India, which I think would be unpleasant but perhaps a necessary catharsis.
This article is copied from the Indian Express in the Reader's Column.
Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal
**************************************************
The Outrage of a Mumbaikar
Somak Goswami/Reader
Posted online: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 at 1420 hours IST
Updated: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 at 1934 hours IST
July 19: The tragic Mumbai bomb blasts will be followed by an all too familiar process now for a week. Interim investigations will ‘reveal’ the hand of Lashkar/Jaish terrorists or the infamous ‘foreign hand’; the US will condemn the blast and advice India to show restraint in this ‘hour of crisis’ (translation: back off from our partner in the "war on terror" and let us handle that end); committees, whose reports will never see the day of light, will be formed to see how security can be "beefed up"; politicians and babus will be shown on TV, looking important, as they come in or go out of endless ‘meetings’ whose net outcome will be 0; the police will be seen patrolling the streets ; the ‘spirit of the Mumbaikar’ will be praised by politicians (translation: good thing Mumbaikars help each other out and know not to expect anything from us. We are busy with dance bars and 2 bit attention seekers like Rakhi Sawant); Sonia Gandhi and her troupe of jokers will pay lip service along the lines of, "the perpetrators will not be spared" even as the evil doers, safe across the border, plan the next attack; cash compensation will be announced but even this meagre amount will be never received, because 90 per cent of it will make its way into the pockets of politicians and babus.
After the week is up, news channels will move onto some new issue, the police on the streets will go back to protecting alleged VIP's, the average Mumbaikar will lose interest knowing he's helpless to do much, India will continue ‘talking’ and sending buses to Pakistan and undertake other "confidence building measures" like presenting them with a list of wanted terrorists that Pakistan will deny are in their country, politicians will be glad they rode out the storm without lifting a finger- in short, life will go on till the next blast happens, and the same events outlined here will repeat itself.
Indian Governments through the years have shown that they are most unwilling to take stringent action against terrorists. This is not an isolated incident. Bangalore happened just a few months back, as did Varanasi, and the wounds of Akshardham are still raw. Bombings in J&K are a regular occurrence. The terrorists, and their home country, have realised that India might be have a huge arsenal of weapons, but they don't have the courage to use it because that courage, unfortunately, cannot be bought.
The only time India acted, when the Army was sent to the border, was when the politicians’ own backyard was attacked. So long as their kin are not the one's dying, the politicians are least bothered about what happens to the average taxpayer. The soft underbelly of India has been exposed time and again, and successive governments have done little other than pay lip service to how "terrorists will be defeated", while terrorists from across the borders seem to be able to sneak in at will to do their dastardly deeds.
Why only terrorists? Even a non-entity like the Bangladeshi border guards can apparently come in, kidnap our BSF men, carve them up like turkeys and deliver the carved bodies, gift wrapped, while the Indian government is perennially busy "taking up the issue" with Bangladesh. It is a certainty that even if the ISI's hand in the blasts is proved beyond a doubt, India will not do a thing-just as it hasn't in all the previous bombings.
Just why do we fear to strike at terrorists when they show no fear in killing Indian citizens? What are we trying to prove to the world, and at what cost? That we are this great peace loving country that is willing to sacrifice the lives of citizens while letting terrorists run amok? Ironically enough, the very countries whose praise and accolades we are trying to win, at great cost to the taxpayers’ life and limbs, are busy running a Guantanamo Bay and designing vigilance policies to keep a close watch on Muslims. It is outrageous that Indian politicians beg us for votes and take their orders from America or Britain. We must realise that the world recognises power and bows down to the powerful. Nobody is going to help us. Britain and America have their own problems and are least bothered about Indians dying. The misfortune of Indians is that our own government, perhaps, holds a similar opinion of us.
If we are to move forward, certain things need to be done. It is about time that our ‘secular’ country realised that the protection of its citizens comes first and foremost. There is no doubt that though outsiders may have brought the material and money for the blast, the meticulous planting of the bombs was done by local Mumbaikars, just as it was in 1993.
Another thing that needs to be done is overhauling of the intelligence. Just muttering "we knew something was up but didn't know exactly what and where" is simply not good enough. To make the intelligence departments more efficient, along with an increase in the budget, the red tapism must go. Indian intelligence officials have to inform a thousand different babus and politicians, to make these inept creatures feel important, before they can do a single thing. This is a cardinal waste of time. Compare this to the FBI and the CIA which can, short of deploying the army, do pretty much anything else by informing just a few people. The Mossad is equally efficient. Why, even the ISI seems to be far more organised than IB/RAW, judging by the number of times they have outwitted the IB/RAW.
The citizens also have a major part to play. It is about time that we, the citizens, realised that there are some issues more important than putting food on the table, for there might come a day when we won't be around to put food on the table, like it happened to the victims of 11/7. Citizens must get together as one, and use the Right to Information Act to see the status of investigations into previous blasts in Mumbai, what the government has done so far to bring the perpetrators to book, how many police officers are on the job etc. Armed with this information, citizens should go to the Supreme Court for justice, because it is patently obvious that unless politicians suffer losses to their near and dear ones, they will do nothing. So, a higher body has to order them to get their house in order. Lawsuits against the Indian State for regularly failing to discharge its duty of protecting the Indian citizens would be a start.The only way we can cut down on terrorism, instead of constantly having to see 11/7 repeated with alarming regularity in different parts of the country, is for the citizens to take an active role in the administration of the country, for an apathetic citizenry deserves an apathetic government like the one currently in place.
At the very least the British have apologized for THEIR past wrongdoing. No society is free of past wrongdoings or operates with entirely clean hands. That is human nature which we cannot change.
You apparently have failed to realize in your analysis Britain DID provide India with institutions such as Parliamentary government that has provided India with the means to remake itself into a great nation, which it otherwise would not have been able to do. I recommend you contemplate what India's future might portend without these institutions.
I maintain that India is much better prepared for the future as a result of the British occupation there! And, no, you don't have to agree with me!