Pranab Kumar Mukherjee, India's Foreign Minister, says that the United States linked Islam with terrorism after 9/11. But is that really true? Wasn't it Osama bin Laden and other jihadists worldwide who linked Islam with terrorism by invoking the Qur'an and Sunnah in explaining and justifying what they were doing? And didn't George W. Bush say Islam was peace and do everything he could to deny that link?
This article shows that political correctness gets you nowhere. It's better just to tell the truth. Rewriting history: "Don't brand terrorism with Islam: Pranab," from the Press Trust of India, June 15 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
KOLKATA: Union External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Sunday expressed vehement opposition to the tagging of terrorism with Islam, saying the idea, floated by the US after the attack on the World Trade Centre, was unacceptable."After the twin tower attack, the US floated worldwide the concept of Islamic terrorism. I am vehemently opposed to this." Mukherjee said at a seminar on 'Terrorism and Justice' organised by a Muslim NGO.
Describing Islam as an old religion with numerous followers, Mukherjee said clubbing the religion with terrorism could not be accepted....
India is unreliable as an ally. It cannot be counted on when the chips are down.
PMK
Depends on their government. Their current government is the Left-wing alliance. The opposition, which could come to power, was and is not only pro-US, but pro-Israel as well.
But you are right in that if a country is only pro US when it has a Right-wing government, it's unreliable as an ally.
"..when the chips are down." at the stage when chips are down then No Muslim and No Communist will be an ally .Take this as a Thumb Rule. If US wants to be blind ,so be it,sadly for the humanity. About what the Min. Pranab is saying is a Political statement meant for local Muslim votes and Not a truth.May be in private he will say different. But he should not be spreading lies that it is due to Bush after 9/11 that this connection has emerged.Or he is ignorant bstd. like his other fellow beings. When the chips are down he along with his so called non violent dynastic leaders will be found slaughtered on city roads by these very friendly Muslims. If he does not know then at least his dynastic masters should know.
Why is a Hindu making such spurious claims? Beyond disgusting. He's probably a left winger of some stripe
Yes, we should tell the truth. Exactly.
The truth is that many of us here in 'the west' are increasingly uneasy that Islamic fundamentalism in all its many forms is coming to us, brought by millions of migrant muslims, growing more aggresive and pious every day.
The truth is that we have looked into this, and we think we know the answer. Ok we know we failed to understand what Islam is all about, but we've fixed that. We checked, and it's quite simple really, now that we know.
All you have to do is take out all the bad verses from the Koran. Those ones that cause fighting and killing. I think Geert Wilders has a list. We'll deal with the hadith and sira later. Leave in the good verses, and then the koran would be a much handier size. It would even slip into a fold in your wallet. Much easier to memorize too. Then those kids in the madrassas could go on to learn something useful. And Islam would really be a religion of peace.
And to prove how fair we are, we will remove that verse in Mathew about a sword, so the NT is on message as well.
Of course if this doesn't work, then we may have to start talking tough.
He's not so much a Hindu, as much as an ass-kisser of the Nehru family
then we may have to start talking tough"...the humanity has been talking for 1400 years. But the book has been updated with modern tech. It is a Book of Pogrom / Terror for humanity protected by powerful influential mean vested interested International Thugs .Problem is this also that many people take it as a religion where as it is a political ideo garbed as religeon.And stupids give their life for this
"India's Foreign Minister: U.S. linked Islam with terror after 9/11..."
I wish that were true. An "aha!" moment, and a swift reprisal from Bush might have saved a great many Coalition lives. Instead, he continues to deny the obvious.
Exposing Islam: Mohammad linked Islam with terrorism 1400 years ago.
Surprise ,Surprise...Most people from India remember the massacre and rape of their own folks by the Muslims..
WHere did this guy come from?
"...the concept of Islamic terrorism. I am vehemently opposed to this," Mukherjee said.
==============================
Y'know, there are parts of reality that I'm vehemently opposed to, as well. This 'go out and earn money to pay the rent' thing really chaps my hide, for example. How vehemently do I have to oppose it to make it not be so?
Do you suppose if I oppose gravity "vehemently" enough (it weighs rather too heavily on me, if you know what I mean) that it will relent and I'll drop 20-30 pounds? While we're at it, I'm vehemently opposed to getting one year older each time my birthday comes around. Do you suppose we could work out a way of bypassing that one, too?
DamFool.
This fellow is a lunatic leftist dhimmi & a Muslim butt kisser. Why was this story posted under Dhimmiwatch?
I mean it belongs at Dhimmiwatch
This is the stupidity that really is not going to solve the problem of Jihadis attacking. Islam is the root cause of terrorism. There is no other answer. If looking at terrorist groups such as the Tamil Tigers they do not go out screaming and shouting "Allah U Akbar" or quoting Islamic texts. On the other hand Islamic terrorist do quote the Koran and call out the name of Allah their blood god. This Pranad is a dhimmi and one that will continue with the congress party in charge. BJP had some balls, however India needs some hardball leadership that is not worried about the damned United Nations which is run by the UMMAH. Attack Islam for what it is and the hell with Muslims sensibilities. Stop the appeasing, apologist and obfuscation. Islam is bad news and the world needs to know it. Those who follow it need to take responsibility and weather they like it or not Islam sucks.
"Describing Islam as an old religion with numerous followers, Mukherjee said clubbing the religion with terrorism could not be accepted...."
Uh, sorry! I don't care how "old" Islam is! Or how many brainwashed sheeple it has as "followers."
It's DEFINITELY equated with Terrorism, so ACCEPT IT, Mukherjee!
Islam = "Kill the Infidels" = TERRORISM.
End of story.
"Why is a Hindu making such spurious claims?" -- dennisw
Really! What's his problem?!
Like I said, this windbag is not a "Hindu". He is as much of a Hindu as the ACLU is "Christian". He is an adherent of the negationist, pacifist ideology of "INDIAN SECULARISM", which is really the suicidal Nehru-Gandhi idea of surrender to
anti-Hindu forces, Islam in particular.
And this imbecile minister is actually one of the least offensive idiots among the Indian pseudo-secularists. One needs to be a Hindu to understand this. Indian pseudo-secularists put the ACLU, European socialist/Scandinavian dhimmis to shame - by far - if their dhimmitude is a measure.
Some people just seem to become offended by the truth. Usually from the left side of the Isle. The farther to the left, the greater the anger.
That's funny. I, nabi ZK, nabi to the mohametan trolls, who seem to have vanished but whatever, also linked islam with terror after 9/11.
nabi ZK
believe it or don't...or else...
right karyakarta92, this idiot is groveling before muslim votes. this congress lap dog will do anything for votes and money even if it means handing india over to the ummah. no hindu who utters the name of Ram or Krishna will dare give in to the forces of evil like this idiot.
Hi, Nabi ZK!
I was wondering if you fallen into a 300 year sleep in a cave, with all those dogs!
Did anything change when you woke up?
LOL!
"Discribing Islam as an old religion with numerous followers....."
Yup, the MAHOMETAN THUG CULT has indeed brought humanity 1,400 years of unrelenting THUGGERY.
".....Mukherjee said clubbing the religion with terrorism could not be accepted."
And if you try to associate Isalm with terrorism, the MAHOMETAN THUGS will KILL you.
boneshack,
Perhaps the puissant and illustrious Nabi has been down in that well in Iran talking to that 12th Imam guy about matters of philosophy.
near ground zero in manhattan, there is a car with plate # "ISLAM 1" parked on a daily basis. does it mean "ISLAM won" or "ISLAM is the #1" religion? either way, nys dmv says it is suitable for the road. i asked them to review it, once.
Another polit seeking muslim votes.
This guy's going to love Obama.
August 19, 2005
Fitzgerald: Telling the truth about India
"In sheer numbers, no group of Believers has suffered from Islam like the Hindus. It is amazing that few Indian-Americans, and few Indo-British, seem to know the history of their own ancestors and of what the Muslim conquest -- or perhaps one should say the Early Conquest and then the Later Conquest -- did to India, which Naipaul accurately described as a "wounded civilization." K. S. Lal writes of the 60-70 million Hindu victims murdered by their Muslim masters. When those Muslim masters ceased the mass killings, it was not out of any sense of mercy, but only to extort the jizya from people who would now be treated in a manner akin to Jews and Christians: dhimmis who would be allowed to live, but would be subject to a series of economic, political, and social disabilities that guaranteed a permanent status of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity.
There are those who are morally indifferent to how the Mughal conquerors ruled, or to what happened to the Hindus (or the Sikhs). One thinks of the deplorable William Dalrymple (who is apparently not deplorable enough for the TLS to cease assigning him books to review on the subject) in his popular accounts of the luxury and love-intrigue at Mughal courts, or that other, more scholarly apologist for Islam, Francis Robinson. A number of factors have contributed to the indifference of Hindu intellectuals in India, and outside India, to the real nature of Islam. For the first, there is the common desire to ape the attitudes of so-called intellectuals in London and New York. It would not do, it does not do, to be too exercised about Islam. And of course, all things pertaining to Hindutva, to a sense of Indian nationalism connected to Hinduism, is mocked in the world, though it offers not the slightest threat or menace (unlike Islam) to anyone – anyone, that is, but the Muslims who continue to procreate and "gain market-share" as a percentage of the population in India, even as they harry or persecute or murder the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan and Bangladesh and, whenever they can, in Kashmir and elsewhere in India.
The astounding ignorance of Indian history that one finds in the Western world, and the supplanting of that history by the ooohing and aahing over Mughal emperors, should stick in everyone's craw. And some sympathetic attention to the claims of Hindus to Hindustan, and to the other non-Muslim populations in that most naturally tolerant of civilizations, should be given in Western universities and in the Western media. Even those newspapers in the Western world that are aimed at an Indian immigrant audience tend to pull their punches about Islam, or perhaps ignore the subject altogether (save in a few cases where the readership is definitely Hindu or Hindu and Sikh). This is done, one supposes, because the newspaper owners do not wish to alienate Muslim Indians in the West who might also read the paper, even if it means ignoring the major issue of our time and possibly of our century: the issue of the world-wide Jihad, from which Indian civilization suffered, and from which Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India itself (including Indian Kashmir), and now in Great Britain, also suffer. Hindus and Sikhs in Britain, having come to the West with its freedoms and opportunities, and who once here have not given any occasion for alarm or offense, now find themselves, thousands of miles from India, subject yet again to the implacable hatred and menace of Islam.
Whenever an Indian (Hindu or Sikh) intellectual becomes known outside of India, he is quick to demonstrate his abhorrence of what is called "communalism" (which always means: those silly Hindus, and Sikhs, who may be too much attached to their own traditions and faiths, and of course are to be regarded with lack of sympathy should they dare to demonstrate any lack of sympathy themselves for Islam). One can see the phenomenon, for example, in the attitudes and rhetoric of Amartya Sen, who has written about the "democracy" within Islam. Sen’s is an entirely ahistorical piece that makes one wish to insist that this particular shoemaker should stick to his last profession, though now he appears to have decided to make shoes for the whole wide world.
Readers should go to the historians of India -- K. S. Lal, Sir Jahundath Sarkar, those who contributed to the 19th-century volume edited by the Englishmen Dowson and Elliot -- as well as to the modern non-Indian scholars Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier. They will be surprised what they will learn about the history of India. They might even begin with that book with the old-fashioned title "The Wonder That Was India," about pre-Islamic India, written by A. L. Basham. Others might choose to look at the grim list of Hindu temples, thousands of them, destroyed by Muslims, a list compiled by Sita Ram Goel (another author, who along with Ram Swarup is regarded by many Bright Young Indian Things as simply beyond the pale -- and they make this judgment without ever having bothered to read his works), and published in two volumes.
Among those of Indian descent well-known to the outside world, and who cannot be ignored as "Hindu fanatics" (a term thrown around a good deal, even though the most fanatical of Hindus would not come close, in the menace that his worldview would present to non-Hindus, to what the mildest and most "moderate" of Muslims presents to non-Muslims), the only one to tell the truth about Islam has been V. S. Naipaul.
There should be many more.
[Posted by Hugh at August 19, 2005]
This is not surprising. There are many Hindus like this character. You failed to mention that India and Hindus were ruled by Muslims for 1000 years. In that time, they became very afraid of them (like battered wife syndrome, I suppose). The reason Muslims were able to rule (and I've said this before in the comments) is that the elites in India were co-opted by Muslims. Rajput Hindu families often married their daughters off to Muslims to form alliances (a one-way 'trade', as no Muslims married their daughters to Hindus). Brahmins maintained their 'high' status, while the common person was put under the screws of Islam.
Some, like the Sikhs, opposed 2nd or 3rd class citizenship under the Muslims and celebrate their martyrs and victories against Islamic rule. Hindus and Muslims who opposed Islamic rule converted to Sikhism in the North.
The best thing for India is to separate into multiple countries so that the central appeasement agenda doesn't allow the various regional ethnicities and nations to succumb to a conquest by the womb. Indian nationalists refuse to consider the merits of such an idea however, to their detriment.
There are already 'no go' areas in cities like Mumbai for Hindus. Oddly enough though, Sikhs don't face the same hostility in many instances. At least that's been my experience in Mumbai when interacting with Muslims in areas under their domination.
Jalandhar - your remark about how Indian elites were 'co-opted by Muslims' during the centuries of Jihad assault on India, contains a solemn warning for all kafir everywhere.
After all: Bat Yeor in 'Eurabia' has documented modern European elites essentially betraying their societies to Islam by a very similar process - giving way to Muslim threats and bribes and swallowing Muslim lies and feigned blandishments.
Bat Yeor's and Bostom's books show what happens after the leaders of a non-Muslim society have either converted, or opened the gates to the Muslims: once inside the gates, the Muslims devour first those who have aided them, or reduce them to puppets, and proceed to devour and ruin everything in sight.