U.S. to Pakistan: "You can't pretend any longer that this is not going on"

Is Pakistan's double game wearing thin? Or will business as usual return once the attention on the Times Square bombing attempt fades? "U.S. Urges Action in Pakistan After Failed Bombing," by Jane Perlez for the New York Times, May 8:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The Obama administration has delivered new and stiff warnings to Pakistan after the failed Times Square car bombing that it must urgently move against the nexus of Islamic militancy in the country's lawless tribal regions, American and Pakistani officials said.
The American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, met with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, at his headquarters here on Friday and urged Pakistan to move more quickly in beginning a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in North Waziristan, Americans and Pakistanis familiar with the visit said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of continuing diplomatic efforts here.
The Pakistani-American man who admitted to the Times Square attack, Faisal Shahzad, 30, told American investigators that he had received training in North Waziristan, the main base for the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.
The new pressure from Washington was characterized by both the Pakistani and American officials as a sharp turnaround from the relatively polite encouragement adopted by the Obama administration in recent months. And it comes amid increasing debate within the administration about how to expand the American military's influence -- and even a boots-on-the-ground presence -- on Pakistani soil.
Though the bombing in Times Square failed, Mr. Shahzad's ability to move back and forth between the United States and Pakistan has heightened fears in the Obama administration that another attempt at a terrorist attack could succeed.
"We are saying, 'Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act' " within Pakistan, one of the American officials said.
That issue has been a source of growing tension between the countries. Pakistani officials, already alarmed by the increase in American drone aircraft attacks against militants in northwestern Pakistan, have been extremely sensitive about any hint that American ground troops could become involved in the fight. And attempts by the United States to increase the presence of Special Operations forces there even in an advisory or training role have been met with great resistance by the Pakistanis.
The Pakistani military has stepped up its campaigns against militants in the past year, including an offensive in South Waziristan that has been praised by American officials. It has said that it is preparing to take up the fight against militants in North Waziristan. But Pakistani officials have insisted that the expanded campaign will happen completely on their own terms, and they have warned the Obama administration not to push so hard that it uses up the good will it has tried to foster here.
But the Americans' urgency has been increasing on multiple fronts. With an intensified American military campaign raging against the Taliban next door in Afghanistan, and now with the renewed evidence of Pakistani sources for plots to attack on American soil, it was clear the Pakistani government had to do more, and more urgently, a senior American official said Saturday.
General Kayani, with whom General McChrystal has forged a positive relationship, was essentially told, " 'You can't pretend any longer that this is not going on,' " another American official said. " 'We are saying you have got to go into North Waziristan.'"...
| 82 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

82 Comments

| Leave a comment

The US of A has chosen to be fooled by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan out of its own sweet will. This has been going on since last 60 years. In recent times, every time US has got a hint of Pakistan's involvement in a terror attempt on its own soil, it has responded by tripling the grant to Pakistan.
We, in India are very sure USA is going to do just that this time too. In fact we feel USA is at least going to quadruple the grant.

I agree with Singh above.
USA will talk tough for a while and then it will grant another billion pounds to pakistan to supposedly fight the terrorists.
And specially with obama (the muslim-appeaser)at the helm things will be worse than before so far as dealing toughly with pakistan is concerned.

Obama needs them to leash up their mobots until after the election at least.
He's worried about staying in control so that he can continue to destroy the economy by overloading it with entitlements to advance Socialism. He wants to be able to continue to weaken our military, give amnesty to illegal aliens who have no connection to or understanding of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. No understanding of the Liberties that flow from those documents or connection to the blood that has flowed to preserve them.
Witness the push to bring the welfare state of Puerto Rico in to the fold. Guaranteed votes for the Democrats that feed and clothe them.
His biggest nightmare is the jihadi who is not an idiot. The jihadi who knows that not all fertilizers explode. The jihadi who is smart enough to light a match and touch it to a fuse and run.
He knows full well what the result will be for it is Conservatives who consistently insist on secure borders and Peace through Strength not dhimmitude. It is the Conservatives that see the wisdom in destroying ones enemies, not embracing and begging them for friendship.

The jihadis will not cooperate. They are incapable of stopping the mopeople from killing. It's what they do.

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

In a talk show, USA is being blamed for Faizal's radicalization, for:
- Admission to a 'sub-standard university.
- Granting citizenship (Thank you, Bush).
- Mortgage Faizal cound not afford (again, Thank you, Bush).
http://pakistanherald.com/Program/In-Session-May-08-2010-Asma-Chaudhry-3731

Meanwhile, Hillary is speaking from both-sides of the mouth, thus negating the "warning":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/07/60minutes/main6468740.shtml

Then again, Hillary is an American politican. And Americans think she is serving American people.

Note how Hamid Gul (a Jihadi-ISI-general) blames India.

Yep. They'll just try to shine us on with words and then it will be back to bizz as usual. Typical modus operandi.


islame is a lie
the Truth is killing it

There is also a Pakistani nuclear threat growing under the radar.

Pakistan is either capable of or close to being capable of producing the "suit case" plutonium-based nukes.

"Starting in the 1990s, it took the jihadist enterprise in Pakistan about ten years to build the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan. This proxy was leveraged to attack the United States on September 11, 2001. Not only did Pakistan get away with it, but has since found itself benefiting from Western largesse. So encouraged, the Pakistani jihadist-elite may be convinced of once again escaping retribution from both reckless and wanton proliferation of its nukes and their use. And may even expect to reap in the benefits, as part of “assisting” in the aftermath.

The mindset of influential Pakistanis with nuclear knowhow is truly troubling. Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, an architect of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, was not only speaking for himself when he declared that Pakistan’s nuclear bombs are “the property of a whole ummah [worldwide Muslim community],” so that some Muslim nations or groups could use them on infidels to bring about “the end of days” and lead the way for Islam to be the supreme religious force in the world."

The American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal urged Gen Kayani to step up military action in Waziristan? Why the commander is still pretending ignorant?
All he has to tell the Pak General is to stop his army doubling as Taliban. andask him to stop funding. Why the Americans are not destroying the narcotic crops in Afghanistn which is the source of Islamic terrorism and a great income for the Pak Army chaps?

It is nonsense to say that destruction of crops will endanger the livelyhood of Afghan public. How much is it going to cost the U.S. and NATO to feed the Afghans? Within months of food rations to the Afghans, the US policy makers will realise one thing that their military activity is no more necessary as all the afghans are in queue standing for their bread. Yes, America should take the aerial route to destroy terrorism (drug plants) which will pinch the packets of Pakistan Army officers' packets too.

Is hasish trade of Afghanistan helping some american generals mint millions of dollars so that they dismiss any ideas for destruction of poppy plants?

From the article:

"General Kayani, with whom General McChrystal has forged a positive relationship...".

General Kayani is a Muslim.

General McChrystal is a non-Muslim, either secular or at least nominally Christian.

Therefore, I would strongly advise General McChrystal not to set too much store by this 'positive relationship'. I would advise him *not* to trust General Kayani. I would, indeed, go so far as to tell McChrystal that, sooner or later he [McChrystal] will discover that this 'positive relationship' with a Muslim General is a snare and a delusion.

General McChrystal needs to read, and take seriously, all those verses in the Qur'an that - in the strongest terms - forbid Muslims to make any kind of lasting friendship or alliance with non-Muslims.

Surah 3: 28 - "Let not the believers [i.e. Muslims - dda] take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from God [i.e. Allah -dda]; *except by way of precaution, that you may guard yourselves from them.* {This is, of course, the locus classicus for the Muslim practice of taqiyya, strategic deception, feigned friendship assumed when the Muslim is weak vis a vis the Infidel - dda}.

Surah 5: 51. - "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."

Surah 5: 57 - "O you who believe! Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport - whether among those who received the Scriptures before you {i.e. Jews and Christians - dda} or among those who reject Faith {this seems to mean, anyone who has refused to become a Muslim - dda}...".

Surah 58: verses 14 and 22. "Turn you not your attention to those who turn (in friendship) to such as have the wrath of God {i.e. of allah - dda} upon them". {So: really pious Muslims won't befriend other Muslims who befriend non-Muslims}.

"You will not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day, loving those who resist God and his Messenger {i.e. who reject Islam - dda} even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred".

Surah 60: verses 1 and 13 - "O you who believe! take not my enemies as your friends (or protectors).." and "O you who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the wrath of God".

General McChrystal should also take the trouble to read and reflect upon Surah 48: 29 - "Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers (but) compassionate amongst one another" {this is the Yusuf Ali translation: the N Dawood translation says "Mohammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another".

and find out about the principle of al-walaa wa al-baraa, 'loyalty [to Muslims *only*] and enmity [toward all non-Muslims qua non-Muslims]'.

http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/wala_wal_bara/Alee_Imran.htm

And he might consult Ibn Kathir's authoritative tafsir or commentary on Quran 3: 28,

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052

"...which includes these words Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.''

'Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'' '.

{If you click on the above link you'll see that the translation of 3: 28 which it uses, is somewhat different from that of Yusuf Ali which I quoted. But the general drift is plain; Muslims may *feign* friendship in order to guard or protect themselves from non-Muslims (who, of course, they are taught to perceive as their permanent enemies).

"US missiles kill 10 suspected militants* in Pakistan"

(*AP-speak for 'Jihadists')

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/09/us-missile-strike-pakistan

General McChrystal ought to read the book called 'Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War', by our own 'MoorthyM' (Moorthy S Muthuswamy) who is posting in this thread.

Eastview - you've read it and given it a rave review.

Feel like buying an extra copy and sending it to the General with your compliments? If *he* doesn't read it maybe one of his staffers might.

Moorthy - you could always try what 'traeh' did with one of Spencer's books. Traeh found people - jihadwatch posters - from different states, who would volunteer to send a copy of the book (I am afraid I can't recall right now which one it was) with a covering letter, to their political representative. Maybe it would be possible to do something similar with the Indian parliament; to arrange that each non-Muslim who has a seat in your federal parliament, and who has a reading knowledge of English (do they all? or only some?) receives a copy of your book from one of their constituents.

Has anyone dubbed 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know' into Hindi and a few of the other major languages of India? Strictly speaking, if that is done, the film should be retitled 'Islam: What All Non-Muslims Need to Know'.

This would be a great opportunity to spread the rumor that Shahzad was really a US plant or dupe. The idea would be take make Western-based Mos objects of suspicion (if not outright paranoia) when they show up for arms .. "religious" training there. Maybe some would even wind up having the ultimate Muhammadan experience - getting publicly beheaded. Poetic justice, but before you write this off as a fantasy, keep in mind the level os suspicion that these people (Taliban etc) harbor. It should be easy to exploit that...

SIOE and SIOA to the US Government

"Islamisation: You can't pretend any longer that this is not going on"

Great post, Dumbledoresarmy.

Good advice for general McCrystal and his political leaders.

They give Muslims credibility and trust that is totally undeserved, it seems to me. They seem to think that there are "democratic, peaceful versions of Islam", versus the Taliban, a theocratic, violent, misogynistic version.

I was thinking about calling Islam in its many forms for the moment ISLA-MAS (Islam As Supreme).

Of course we most love something we may call ISLA-MEX (Exit out of Islam).

Then in Democracies we might develop the concept of ISLA-MID (Islam In Democracy), in the Middle. This then is our invention and our offer; in ISLA-MID we determine an Islam that is still Islam but with very clear conditions on it.

And we Worldwide Democrats start demanding that Muslims choose between Isla-Mas and Isla-Mid. Isla-Mas more & more being considered as the enemy and Isla-Mid as the minimum acceptable Islam.

And we bring their choices or lack of choice to the attention of the ignorant masses in Democratic countries. While in describing what Isla-Mid should be being as permissive as possible, but still demanding: the 5 pillars of Democracy, total reciprocity between Democratic and Islamic countries and other essential laws and values, added to a still Islamic core.

This could call the bluff many Muslims give the world (pretending to be Isla-Mid but in reality being Isla-Mas) and open the eyes of the ignorant, so-called "fair-minded" masses in the Democratic world. Even although I am fully aware that Islam is well-nigh impossible to reform, this might still be a positive tactic in the 21st century.

"The Obama administration has delivered new and stiff warnings to Pakistan..."

Feel the shudders.

It is not promiscuous women who cause earthquakes.

It is those around the globe who quake in fear when the man who put the Mullah in Mulatto makes a threat.

Oooh.

Feckless (or worse) fellow.

They near want to build a mosque near to the world trade centre.

They want to build a mosque near to the world trade centre.

My comments interjected in bold:

The Obama administration has delivered new and stiff warnings to Pakistan after the failed Times Square car bombing that it must urgently move against the nexus of Islamic militancy

Wow, the New York Times using the "-ic" ending, rather than the limp-wristed "ist"! Unfortunately, that stronger ic is diluted by the qualifier "militancy", and even more so by the following words --

in the country's lawless tribal regions...

-- as though the problem is "lawlessness" and "tribalism", rather than that Super-Tribe called Islam with a blueprint for totalitarian supremacist expansionist law.

The American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, met with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, at his headquarters here on Friday and urged Pakistan to move more quickly in beginning a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in North Waziristan

Ah, so the problem is only those classic Bogeymen we've been fighting for over a decade now -- the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and only they constitute "Islamic militancy"

-- oh wait:

the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.

"other militant groups"? How many different "Islamic militants" are there, anyway? And why are so many multiplying and evolving into new species like fruitflies?

As for the remainder of the article, if one were a PC MC reader, it sounds like a description of a recipe for arousing more terrorism, not less -- for the only reason, according to PC MC, that these various "militant groups" are breeding terrorists who reached out with one of their long arms to try to attack New York City is because the US and its tyrannical despot puppet regime in Pakistan are killing and oppressing so many innocent Pakistanis; and since Obama is pressuring that tyrannical despot puppet regime to kill more of its own Pakistanis (but not too many), and is even threatening to put American "boots on the ground" in that region to assist in killing more Pakistanis (but not too many), this can only exacerbate the situation and foment more "backlash" against us -- unless, of course, we annihilate all those pullulating mosquitos; but this will never happen, since our current Rules of Engagement contradict any measures that would kill too many of the enemy beyond a minimum so bare, it sets up a situation of an indefinite perpetual motion machine:

Kill only so many of the enemy as to continue to anger them, but not so as to stop them.

(See below in my response to dumbledoresarmy about Gen. McChrystal)

Slow Learners In The State Department, The Pentagon, Congress, and the Executive Branch.

But let's be charitable. Let's make sure that No Child Left Behind starts at the very top, let's make sure that those Slow Learners in Washington (at the Pentagon, in the State Department, in the Executive Branch, and in Congress) manage to get up to snuff on Islam and all things related to and explained by it, such as the predictable meretriciousness of the generals and zamindars who run (and own) Paksitan, and the vicious hostility toward us, reflected in the conspiracy-theories and the mass rallying-round-Aashia-Siddiqui as a "victim" of those cruel Americans (those "cruel Americans" who have been shovelling tens of billions of dollars, and the most advanced weaponry too, into Pakistan for decades and decades, as each new naive administration comes in and is suckered, in its turn, by the latest smyler-with-the-knyf-under-the-cloke in Islamabad).

From the Dulles boys, who had no understanding of Islam but did devoutly believe that it was a "bulwark against Communims," right through those who kept supplying F-16s and then paying for Pakistan's little nuclear project under A. Q. Khan --- and during this time only Senators John Glenn and Larry Pressler seemed to have not lost the thread, or for that matter the threat, when it came to Pakistan (hence the Pressler Amendment, largely ignored by an Executive Branch dead-set on appeasing Pakistan at every step), to Bush and his faith in General Musharraf, to the current crop who have been loading still more planeloads of weapons and money for Pakistan, because "General Kayyani" is, it is felt, a "good guy" (it never ends), who is "on our side" (I said it never ends), this nonsense will go on unless and until there is a firm, widespread grasp of Islam among those who claim to instruct and protect us.

That's right. In the Making of Foreign Policy, let there be light and enlightenment as to the meaning, and menace, of Islam. Let the word go forth: No Child Left Behind.

As much as I dislike Obama, I fail to see why you feel obligated to bring his race into this.

Obama is certainly a dreadful little beast, but I think you could have gotten your point across without mentioning his mixed ancestry. That just smacks of racism on your part.

Criticize him mercilessly for what he says/does/doesn't do.....but race-baiting will earn you no more commerce here than it has earned him.

OT - Check out Leonard Pitts' PC column in the "Miami Herald" today. His thesis is that "all terrorism is the same." !

Truly - Political Correctness damages your brain. Please - you must read this idiocy to believe it! (Mercifully, it's a brief column).

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/08/1619442/learn-to-live-with-risks-that.html

Fareed Zakaria (an Indian Muslim) has this piece in Newsweek (on line) this morning:

"Terrorism’s Supermarket, Why Pakistan keeps exporting jihad."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237652

I've got Zakaria's "The Post American World" on audio. Zakaria does not think we have a problem with Islam or Islamic jihad. To Zakaria jihad terror is an isolated phenomenon in the Muslim world.

The following are couple of questionable assertions from Zakaria's piece this morning:

1) "Pakistan remains a terrorist hothouse even as jihadism is losing favor elsewhere in the Muslim world. From Egypt to Jordan to Malaysia to Indonesia, radical Islamic groups have been weakened militarily and have lost much of the support they had politically."

2) "Over the past four decades, much Islamic terrorism has been traced back to two countries: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Both countries were founded as ideological, Islamic states; over the years the governments sought legitimacy by reinforcing that religious ideology, and that made the countries hothouses of militancy, fundamentalism, and jihad. That trend is slowly being reversed in Saudi Arabia, perhaps because King Abdullah could make it happen as the enlightened ruler of an absolute monarchy......"

I continue to consider Fareed Zakaria as part of the problem. Through his powerful platform as a media analyst he has ensured that Islam is not properly scrutinized, by giving more importance to the Muslim apologist crowd.

I have analyzed his thought process extensively in my book.

He doesn't realize that Islam is the "problem." For instance he wrote in his book: "The key is not religious reform, but political and economic reform. The entire emphasis on a transformation of Islamism is placed."

As I wrote in my book, the contrasting evolution of India and Pakistan that share just about everything but differ on the majority religions tells us where the problem is.

So what would the Pakistan military be doing about the Taliban, if the US had paid them no money and didn't pressure them? Nothing? Something? If the Pakistan gov had to depend on its own resources to protect itself from the Taliban, would it do it, or would it role over, belly up and play dead?
I vote for roll over and more foot dragging...Fighting the Taliban is a waste of time, which would be better spent fighting India...But on the other hand, fighting the Taliban is much more lucrative...

I'm afraid I have a dismal pessimism about the usefulness of persuading McChrystal to educate himself about Islam. He strikes me as one of those so infected with the quantum ignorance of PC MC that even if he were to give his undivided attention to every verse of the Koran and apposite hadiths, all that data would not really reach their designated target (the rational part of the brain) but would be intercepted before they get there in order to bind with antibody-interpretations that have the effect of softening, diverting, neutralizing, and sometimes even reversing the import of the data.

Diana West has written some good articles about the brilliant obtuseness of Gen. McChrystal -- West's words are un-italicized, the report she is quoting is italicized:

Allied soldiers killed two anti-government fighters for every Nato and government death. “During all of 2008 the kill ratio was never so close,” said McCreary. “This should be unacceptably embarrassing news for the coalition.”

How come this is happening?

One reason is the restriction on the use of air power imposed by McChrystal to try to reduce civilian casualties, which were turning people against foreign troops.

Conventional wisdom unsupported by the fact that jihadist forces [cause] a much greater proportion of civilian casualties. It could only be thought up by a commander who ignores the enemy threat doctrine (jihad).

The number of bombings are half what they were a year ago but Nato casualties are at their highest levels.
“Air power is our main advantage and we’re not using it,” said McCreary. “It’s like fighting with a hand behind your back.”

McChrystal’s orders are being passed to the most junior levels of the US armed forces. Yesterday at Kandahar air base a group of soldiers was shown a PowerPoint presentation before heading out on a supply convoy. The troops were shown where IEDs had been found along their route and told not to fire indiscriminately even if they were fired on. The briefing ended with a projected screen of McChrystal’s quote:

“It’s not how many you kill, it’s how many you convince.”

Gag. Convince of what? Christianity? Capitalism? Diversity? Mustard over ketchup?

[West then quotes from Wired magazine reportage on the battlefront that typifies the problem with our Rules of Engagement:]

The building ...identified as the sniper’s perch is next to several farmhouses. “Man, the target house is right on the edge of that village,” Meador says, rubbing his shaved scalp with the palm of his hand. If he orders a strike that hits a farmer’s kid instead of a sniper, the Taliban will have some angry new allies, and the brass will be apoplectic. Meador wants to protect his men. But he also can’t be sure who or what a bomb would hit. Meador tells Faucett to wave off the F-15s — and hopes he hasn’t made a serious mistake.

[West's article on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, in this regard was superb -- West's words are un-italicized, the report she is quoting is italicized:]

Between 1940 and 1945, 128 known air raids were carried out by Allied forces on German-occupied Rotterdam in the Netherlands, killing 884 civilians and wounding 631. I mention this wondering whether Admiral Mullen ever ponders just why it was that Allied Forces in Europe were greeted as liberators in a war that caused millions of civilian casualties. From DVIDS:

...

One Marine yesterday wondered why the Americans – who try desperately not to kill civilians – are pilloried when an accident occurs, yet the Taliban seems to kill fellow Afghans with impunity.

"The question that surrounds civilian casualties ... takes me immediately to the lack of depth and breadth of understanding that we had ... about the severity of the outcome and the impact it has," Mullen said to reporters traveling with him.

Reporters? Didn't Mullen answer the Marine? Whether he did, Mullen's talk of "breadth and depth" ignores the Marine's question. Fact is, the Taliban, love or hate 'em, are the Afghans' Muslim brethren. The Marines are infidels (just hate 'em). From the cultural chasm between the two groups bubbles up an easily fanned rage at the Americans. Meanwhile, such rage, akin to "Arab anger" as recently discussed by Gen Petraeus, is a big booty-winner for Afghans, garnering all kinds of compensation. Pillorying the Americans for civilian (or "civilian") casualties is a win-win situation -- for locals and the enemy.

"We just can't win it if we keep killing the locals."

Mullen's mantra. Of course, so long as our forces are armed with live ammunition, they will continue "killing the locals," whether because the "locals" are enemy fighters or enemy shields. So, by Mullen's definition, it seems likely we just can't win. Unless, that is, we move from "armed social work," the COIN strategy, to just "social work." Maybe Mullen could show the way.

The enemy uses any accidental civilian death against American or coalition forces.

Because we help the enemy by apologizing up and down the countryside -- whether the charge is true -- for any accidental civilian death.

Mullen said Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in the country, shared with him the results of a study showing what happens in an area when civilian casualties occur.

"When we cause them, they generate a serious uptick in violence for up to five months," he said. "When the Taliban causes them, they generate an uptick in violence for about three months."

Sounds like a word problem in the making: If we cause 2 civilian casualties, triggering an uptick in violence for five months, and the Taliban causes 22 civilian casualties, triggering an uptick in violence for 3 months, how many months will it take ... to win hearts and minds in Khandahar?

Coalition forces have to get to the point where they are not causing civilian casualties at all, he added, and when the local people know only the Taliban are causing civilian deaths, and it will start to work against the enemy. "We're not there yet," he said.

[Now recall what we did in WW2, as illustrated by the example West opened with above, to which one could add this superb excerpt from an essay by Hugh Fitzgerald:]

When the RAF bombed Copenhagen in 1944, and instead of hitting Gestapo headquarters hit a children's hospital, killing 88 children and four nuns, what did the Danish Resistance do? Did it denounce the RAF, and tell it to change its ways, and never to use bombs (as the Americans are hardly using planes and airpower in Afghanistan) because it might cause "civilian deaths that are always unacceptable"? No, of course not. The Danes said: "We know you are sorry, but keep on coming. Don't stop, keep it up."

That is because the Danes were on our side. But in Afghanistan, the corrupt Karzai is quick to attack the Americans for, ludicrously, the kind of accidents that always and everywhere occur, and occur especially if the enemy never wears uniforms, and insists on fighting with civilians all around, civilians even gathered up or held as hostages in order to make it harder for an opposing force determined to scrupulously try to avoid civilian casualties (the Americans in Afghanistan, the Israelis in Gaza) to perform as effectively, with as little threat to its own forces as possible. Should the lives of Afghan civilians be rated higher than those of American soldiers? Why? That scrupulousness means little or no use of air power, and firing only when one is absolutely one thousand percent sure there are no civilians who could be hurt, and if it means not firing on an enemy who has just fired on you (you saw him) because he has also just dropped his weapon and looks defiantly at you, daring you to fire on him and knowing you won't - well, that's all part of the Grand Strategy of Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds.

"And it comes amid increasing debate within the administration about how to expand the American military's influence -- and even a boots-on-the-ground presence -- on Pakistani soil."

The last thing in the world this country needs is a boots-on-the-ground presence -- on Pakistani soil. It would be a quagmire to end all quagmires.
If Obama is serious about protecting this country from Islamic terrorism he would immediately ban all Muslim immigration to the United States, including from Pakistan.
Anything short of that will only tell us that he still refuses to face up to the real problem of terrorism -- Islam is the problem, not any one country.


I am in full agreement with Hugh and others.

The power elite in Washington hasn't understood Islam's violent conquest nature at all, although most apparently agree that Islamic doctrines have a more violent component than just about all other religions.

Even the perceptive Charles Krauthammer doesn't get it!

The other problem the political class has run into is this: even if they feel that Islam drives people into intolerance and violence, how could they articulate it without losing their credibility?

People such as Robert Spencer have put forward excellent arguments exposing the thrust of Islamic doctrines.

I penned this alternate analysis that attempts to use the platform of science to expose Islam for what is:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/09/is-wilders-wrong-about-islam/


Strangely, Fareed Zakaria fails to mention Iran and Syria in his piece. Are they not also supporting terrorism in support of the campaign to destroy Israel?

Fareed Zakaria has insinuated himself very deeply into the American power structure. He has all the right credentials and connections*, and operates somewhat like an IV drip, slowly but persistently injecting his Islamic perspective into policy discussions at the highest levels.

I wonder where he will peddle his bromides now that Newsweek is closing its doors? No doubt he will find something suitable to his exalted status. Hey, maybe he could be appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations!

*Dr. Zakaria is the editor of Newsweek International, overseeing all Newsweek's editions abroad. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. He hosts "Fareed Zakaria GPS," a weekly talk show on international topics, for CNN Worldwide. In 1992 he was appointed managing editor of Foreign Affairs, a position he held for eight years. He is the author of From Wealth To Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad., and the forthcoming The Post American World. Dr. Zakaria has won several awards for his columns and other writing. He currently serves on the boards of Yale University, the Trilateral Commission, and Shakespeare and Company. -- From his CV at "Council on Foreign Relations"

"U.S. to Pakistan: "You can't pretend any longer that this is not going on""

Pakistan to U.S.: OK, you can report back that you've dutifully delivered the lecture. Now, where's the check?

Eastview:

Thank you for taking the time to read and recommend my book.

You are right about Zakaria’s insinuating influence at the highest levels of our policy-making.

Pakistan’s leaders are well seasoned in the art of lying and deceiving US authorities and they are highly successful in it so far. Current warning is one routine of many such in the past. It is part of the usual bilateral stuff that goes on between the two countries periodically for domestic consumption before aid to Pakistan is hiked. One must appreciate the immense faith and trust US has on Pakistan’s sincerity to fight terrorism. Pakistan is also at the receiving end of terrorists as one cannot escape from an evil after creating, encouraging and nurturing it. Fearing local backlash, military is conducting some hunting trips that are aimed at dispersing some useless fringe groups. Fighting terror has now degenerated to a business like venture as without US generous aid, impoverished and terror infested Pakistan will drift in to an economic collapse. Besides, it is impossible to make a separation between terrorist leaders and most of the influential leaders in Pakistan. It is all a complex and intractable mix of terrorist organizations, military leaders, civilian authorities, ISI etc. It is impossible to say who is what till a terrorist strike is unleashed.

US may be now aware that quite a good portion of their aid is ultimately getting diverted to finance terror strikes against it. It is literally paying for the nasty beatings aimed at it. The Pakistan’s leaders are in a bind as their fight against terror on be-half of US is totally opposed by majority of public who are in agreement with the Jihadi ideology of the terrorists. The establishment itself is responsible for the Islamic ideology to take deep roots in Pakistan as it used it as an anti-India rhetoric to cover up its frequent military incursions and economic failures.

Obsession with Islam is a sure fire ticket to poverty, illiteracy and repressive ruling. Islam is a powerful tool for seizing and enjoying political power without accountability. It is the main reason why leaders of Islamic countries are obsessed so much with Islam and Pakistan is no exception. It will become a temporary problem only when terror is exported. They must find an ideology based solution to wean the public from supporting the cause of terrorists so that it is, at least, contained within its borders. Political integrity and accountability need to be of high order to control the mob that is relatively freed from State sponsored religious indoctrination. This task is next to impossible as leaders are hopelessly corrupt. Becoming ruthless like Saudi Arabia is the only solution just to hold on to power – it may be even a good bye to the present ineffective democracy. They have not taken the job seriously so far as they are frightened of the consequences. Instead, they found it easy and convenient to play and hoodwink US by lying limitlessly thanks to Taquiya. Incidentally, Mr. Obama is best placed to understand this truth and he must put an end to this Taquiya drama that is going on for more than 10 years. US must mercilessly force Pakistan’s leaders to stop Taquiya business by giving a final ultimatum to take committed steps to confine terrorism within their borders. That is the maximum they can do if US and West are clever enough not to harass those who perform the difficult surgery with impractical and incompatible concepts like human rights, democracy, freedom etc.

"U.S. to Pakistan: "You can't pretend any longer that this is not going on""

So when are we going to take our own advice? If we stopped pretending then we would stop letting in "peaceful" Muslims who gain citizenship by marriage and then plan to attack people naive (or politically correct) enough to welcome them into their midst.
If we took our own advice we would stop letting Americans, naturalized or natural-born, travel to these areas except on a one-way ticket and we would take their passports away from them when they board the plane.

dumbledoresarmy wrote:

General McChrystal needs to read, and take seriously, all those verses in the Qur'an that - in the strongest terms - forbid Muslims to make any kind of lasting friendship or alliance with non-Muslims.

In truth, none here knows if he has or has not already done that.

General McCrhrystal works for a select few other generals, who themselves work for an even more select few generals, who themselves work for a civilian administration.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he is actually well versed in Islamic ideology, I can scarcely imagine that he has permission to publicly quote Qur’an, chapter and verse—particularly those you reference.

American military personnel are also not without access to the same applicable info as their civilian counterparts (internet, libraries, magazine racks, newspaper racks, television, etc.) and there’s no reason to think that they don’t have access to respective subject matter info.

My father sent the April ’10 copy of The American Legion Magazine to me and I opened it just an hour ago. The article he highlighted is Frank Gaffney’s ‘Stealth Jihad’—which I believe has previously been posted at several websites.

Out of simple coincidence, while I was keying this in, Gaffney just spent a few minutes on a Fox news program addressing the very same issue.

I don’t think ignorance of Islam remains a significant issue within the military, but I do think that—for purely political reasons—civilian and upper echelon leadership are preventing that knowledge from being openly and publicly expressed.

Regards.

off topic , HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!! do you realize that in no islamic country they do not honour their Mothers!!
again Happy Mother's Day!!

Moorthy, thank you for the link to your FrontPage article, where you comment on the excellent work of Bill Warner. It is, indeed, superb, unparalleled in many ways with respect to how he cuts through the nonsensical Gordian knot comprising the Qur'an-Hadith-Sira.

You ask above: "The other problem the political class has run into is this: even if they feel that Islam drives people into intolerance and violence, how could they articulate it without losing their credibility?"

There is an aspect to Islam that appears to be rooted deeply in the shame culture of Arabs, and perhaps this could be used as the needed wedge that bypasses those things that inhibit discussing the roots of Islamic violence. I have yet to see an analysis that focuses on Islam as the distillation and encapsulation of cultural attitudes of the nomads of the Arabian peninsula in the Seventh Century. A hint of such a link is revealed in another recent FrontPage article that you may have seen http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/05/among-criminal-muslims/ .

It's not clear how one would disentangle religion and culture, indeed it may be impossible, but if one is searching for an attack angle that avoids directly taking on the sensitive subject of religion, then an examination of the psychology of the underlying culture, especially as might relate to propensities for violence, would seem to be worth looking into. Of course, the multiculturalists will assert that there are no differences in the underlying psychologies of different cultures, but the FrontPage interview appears to provide documented evidence to the stark contrary. The idea would be to try to interest the scientific community into examining how Islam is the vehicle for transmitting the bad attitudes and practices of an ancient culture. Not without risk, to be sure, but it has the advantage of avoiding getting tangled up in theological disputes (except, of course, those that would most certainly come from Muslims).


Telling Muslims not to pretend any longer is a non-starter. Islam is all about pretending. Deceiving too, both others and oneself. If you believe a brutal, perverted fraud like Mohammed is the last and greatest of the prophets you are engaged in a giant pretend game and deception of others and self in a most disturbing way. The best that can be hoped for is that the pretending by Pakistanis will be made to look as though it's not pretending while it will still very much be just that.

Fareed Zakaria, despite once having a wine column, cannot possibly be expected, as someone who continues to identify with Islam (perhaps his own private Islam, one that he wishes exists), to be able to make the ideology of Islam clear to viewers, and hence he cannot ever make clear what is going on in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or in Bangladesh, or in Indonesia, or anywhere else. He cannot explain, for example, why it is that the "winning hearts and minds" strategy is impossible of attainment, cannot explain why after the Americans leave Iraq will relapse into a state of low-level (or perhaps high-level) hostilities between Sunni Arabs, who will never accept their loss of power and status, and the Shi'a Arabs, who have no intention of relaxing their hold on power. Some depict this as a matter of particular personages, so that were Al-Maliki, for example, removed that somehow the Shi'a would be more willing to share power, and the Sunnis to accept their new status. But the Shi'a Arabs constitute 65% of the population, and the Sunni Arabs 19%. Why should the former, who at no time in the history of modern Iraq been treated as equals by the Sunni Arabs, now behave magnanimously toward those Sunnis? Islam itself teaches that there are Victors and Vanquished, so why should Muslims consider, in the manner of non-Muslim advanced Westerners, the people who removed Saddam Hussein, the possibilities of permanent compromising? This goes against the grain of Islam, where one makes a treaty, or appears to yield, to one's opponents only to bide one's time, and increase one's power so as to make another attempt on that opponent, that enemy.

Can one imagine Farid Zakaria recognizing, much less imparting to others, any of this? Can one imagine him discussing all the ways that Islam explains the failures of Muslim polities and peoples -- economic, political, social, intellectual, moral? No, it's not possible. He remains, as he must, an apologist -- at a higher and less immediately obvious level -- for Islam. Perhaps, since he is also a keen careerist, over time, as he feels the rising tide of understanding beginning to threaten him, and his presentation of events, he will change. Slightly, slightly, just as much as he has to, to stay ahead of the game, and protect and further promote himself, which is, after all, quite clearly Farid Zakaria's main goal in life.

PRCS:

In criticizing Geert Wilders, Charles Krauthammer is essentially giving free pass to Islam. Mind you, he is NOT doing it for "political reasons."

There is every reason to believe that Krauthammer's thought process reflects a large spectrum of the leadership and opinion-shaping class.

Pakistan will deal with their Jihadists as soon as we in the US deal with ours. We're not doing much to shut ours down, so why should they? >-(

Seriously, countries such as Pakistan should tread with care. If they don't make an effort to keep their own militants from conducting their own militant foreign policy, why should we or any other country respect their authority over those people or that territory?

Many years ago -- post-911 but long enough ago for this seemingly flip remark by Fareed Zakaria on the Charlie Rose show to go zinging by my head without leaving a mark at the time. To paraphrase from memory, Zakaria affecting a joking demeanor used an analogy for something he was talking about -- no doubt something of serious import for otherwise the soberly craggy Charlie Rose would not have had him on his show to impart his savvy wisdom to his viewers -- : and that analogy was that "sometimes you have to lie to your wife when she asks you if she looks overweight in her new dress."

At the time, my Islamoliteracy hadn't progressed enough to recognize the Tariqishly sly allusion to --

Sahih MuslimBook 032, Number 6303:

...exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).

and Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 857:

...she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

Much as the people of India admire the American PEOPLE for their general friendliness, warmth, hard work, and innovative spirit, we have little or no admiration for most US administrations. From John Foster Dulles to Hillary Clinton, we see the State Dept backing the wrong horse due to its eternal dhimmitude towards islam. We hear sermons from the State Dept about "dialogue" with Porkistan, but that advice goes out the window when the US is threatened and Porkistan is warned by Hillary. The people here feel that the spineless Indian govt should tell Hillary to heed her own advice and stop this game of double standards. As for Porkistan, like good muslims they are the masters of deception and duplicity. They will continue to use the US taxpayers' money to train terrorists who will try their stunts in both India and US. We fail to see why the Americans are hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot. I steadfastly maintain that only a US/India/Israel alliance can deal a mortal blow to radical islam.

Eastview:

Thank you for your insightful comments.

I did read the Frontpage interview. It is fascinating, and should be very useful, I might add.

I am in the middle of writing a series of articles on this topic. I have published two and have at least two more to go. They will address some of the questions you have raised.

Since I have a day job, everything takes time...

What if we are, we Infidels in the West, were to cut off the Jizyah to every other Muslim state or Muslim group to which such Jizyah, sometimes in the form of "foreign aid" that, however, is both received, and given, in a way that reflects, in both donor and donee, the classic attitudes of non-Muslim forced to give the Jizyah, under conditions of humiliation, and of the Muslims who take, as by cruel right, that Jizyah.

What if, for example, all military aid to Pakistan, save possibly for a few rifles and jeeps, to be paid for by the Saudis or other fellow members of the Umma, and no longer by the long-suffering American taxpayers, were to be cut off? What if we cut off all economic aid, and stopped giving Pakistani textiles preferential treatment and, in short, did everything to show we were now unwilling to shore up the Pakistani economy, always on the brink of collapse in a state always on the brink of collapse?

For a little essay on the consequences of cutting off the Jizyah, see right here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/12/fitzgerald-if-we-cut-off-the-jizya-could-things-become-even-worse.html#more


IndianTiger:

I put the blame on the Indians for their inability to get to the right side of America (from 1947-1977). In fact, Indian leaders were known for their irritating righteous attitude (for a nation that was yet to establish itself beyond the attributes of a non-performing third world country).

By the way, I was born and brought up in India.

It's plain and simple: you have to understand the hierarchy and learn to play the game. Clearly, Indians didn't.

At this time India is not ready to be part of any alliance, let alone an US/Israeli one.

In my view India needs a new generation leader in order for it to reverse the Islamic onslaught and to help set Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia) right.

The resurgent India represented by its more capable younger generation has to get hold of the reigns of power in New Delhi.

It couldn't happen sooner!

'mullah in mullato'

heh. Totally nonPC but funny. First time I'm hearing it.

Eastview,

Is Fareed a Muslim or Christian? Zacharia does not seem like a muslim name.

Been watching this for a long time and it looks to me that alpakilosingh is right on the money and when 20 million Americans are dead we will still be in the dark.

people inside the USA Will never open up the eyes and see, anyway its the end of the American party one way or the other.

stop the flow of money to Pakistan...and watch the "real" Muslim fury come to the show....

His bio is on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zacharia . It starts out "Zakaria was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India to a Konkani Muslim family. His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar. His mother, Fatima Zakaria, was for a time the editor of the Sunday Times of India...."

In criticizing Geert Wilders, Charles Krauthammer is essentially giving free pass to Islam. Mind you, he is NOT doing it for "political reasons."

There is every reason to believe that Krauthammer's thought process reflects a large spectrum of the leadership and opinion-shaping class.

Thank you for your response.

I would agree that Krauthammer was attempting to give Islam a pass; one based--as with so many others--on his personal ignorance of Islamic ideology. I haven't heard anything about Islam, from him, since.

Hopefully, since the Fort Hood jihad and the many recent public incidents of Muslim violence comitted in this country--and abroad, the size and the credibility of that leadership and opinion-shaping class has diminished.

The 'political reasons' I make reference to are those which direct U.S. relationships with our Muslim nation 'coalition partners' in this poorly named 'war on terror'.

Though constrained by those 'political reasons', I would not be surprised to discover that General McChrystal--and other military leaders--know more about Islamic ideology than they can publicly divulge.

Mr Moorthy,

While I do agree that 1947 - 77, Indian foreign policy was wrong and went little beyond vacuous moralizing, I disagree with your views that we should have tried to ally with US or that we should understand "hierarchy" and "play the game".

You cannot ignore all that India went through in the British rule. We see the signs sometimes even now. You have probably never faced a humiliation only because, for instance, you do not know a particular language well (English in this case). While the foreign policy in that period was wrong, I think an Indian with any knowledge of Indian history under the British would at least understand it.

Also, it is really strange to hear talk about understanding "hierarchy" ! Are you implying that India should be, sort of, obedient to a state more powerful and developed than itself. That is a ridiculous suggestion. If such subordination is desirable, then why not just be a dhimmi.

It is exactly persons with that mindset who became dhimmis under Muslim rules and the community that developed thereby in India and elsewhere constitutes today's politically correct class. It is no coincidence that Jawaharlal Nehru, a confirmed dhimmi, was a direct descendant of servants of Moghuls, those servants perhaps being very mindful of "hierarchy" and willing to "play the game" !!

Finally, while a realism in conduct of foreign policy, guided by a desire to improve the security for people, seems to me the right thing, the kind of cynicism that Americans and the western nations display is also wrong and diminishes those nations. Americans willingly took the likes of Osama and Taliban as allies in war against Soviets. When the British were ruling India, they had no hesitation in using the murderous Muslim League to do down the Indian nationalist leadership of Gandhi and Nehru. Let us Indians not emulate that kind of behavior.

For this reason, we should not look for alliance with US or the west but look for a tactical partnership in the war against Islam. In the long term (after, hopefully, Islam is out of the picture some day), India and the west are likely to be in an adversarial relationship since there are irreconciliable differences between our values and those of the west.

Sanjay

Unlike the rabble in Iran, Pakistan's soldiers of god have been to military colleges. Shahzad(an air marshal's son) is probably a fluke. Most Paki kids don't have to run off and join the taliban as they're probably already in one.
The shame his father must feel: "My son the Blacksheep! if only he'd told me he wanted to kill americans, we coulda got him a real family job"

Hugh,

This is a guess, but I think the reason the aid to Pakistan does not stop is - if Pakistan completely collapses and that changes the power equation on the subcontinent such that India is too powerful, well, then India will be too powerful and that is not a desirable end result for USA. Why should America facilitate the rise of another power, similar to China in stature, that will further diminish America's global influence.

All powers in the world seem to be playing this game all the time - how to keep potential claimants to influential position as small as possible and how to keep their influence as little as possible.

I think this thinking is flawed, but it appears to be the way the international politics is conducted so one cannot expect America not to seek to keep India as small as it can.

However, in my opinion propping up Pakistan for this purpose is going too far. America has to look the other way as Pakistan hurtles towards becoming a sort of sophisticated Afghanistan under Taliban. America looked the other way as Pakistan aquired nuclear weapons.

Americans did not hesitate to have Osama and Taliban as allies at one point. They are making the same mistake now with respect to Pakistan.

To let India become really powerful and influential in world affairs (after aid to Pakistan is stopped and it's nuclear assets taken out by India with help from US) will be a much better choice for the US compared to letting a strong Pakistan exist and it's society turn increasingly hostile to US and all the other infidels (hostility to India being a given anyway). But that is a huge decision and it appears that American government is not willing to go that far right now.

Sanjay

Is Fareed a Muslim or Christian? Zacharia does not seem like a muslim name.

"Zakaria" could be one of the few Arabicized Hebrew loan-words (Hebrew spelling Zachariah) that didn't go through virtually any of the usual permutations of transliterations:

Yeshua - Iesous - Issa

Avram - Abraham - Ibrahim

Moshe (Moses) -- Musa

David - Dawud

Gabriel - Jibril

etc.

Eve is another -- virtually unchanged from Hebrew to Arabic: Hawwa

PRCS

Thank you for the clarification.

From Charles Krauthammer to President Obama our opinion-shapers and leaders owe to us that they get to the bottom of why so many Muslims have taken to terror in the name of Islam, unlike any other ideology.

Sadly, they have not.

I do not deny that all of these people know (probably view Islam negatively) more about "Islamic Ideology" than they let us know. But this "strategy" has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Those who talk openly and frankly about Islam, such as Geert wilders face political ostracizing, and even persecution.

Had Wilder quoted some "scientific" study in characterizing Islam as an ideology of conquest, I bet, the establishment in Netherlands would have found it difficult to go after him. In fact, he may have managed to turn the discussion directed toward Islam itself, had he done that.

The analysis I published recently "Is Wilders Wrong About Islam?" attempts to provide a scientific cover to the leaders who want to go after Islam.

You attribute cunning and malice aforethought (toward India) to those who make American foreign policy that does not exist. You are wrong to attribute some anti-Indian bias to American policymakers these days. Decades ago, yes. In the days of the Dulles brothers, there was -- I've written about it many times -- a favoring of Pakistan, because Jawaharlal Nehru and, especially, Krishna Menon gave off too strong a whiff, it was felt, of Marxism, because for Americans in those days any hint of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, or the New Left Book Club of Victor Gollancz, was sure to be misinterpreted. You should not underestimate the ability of Pakistani generals to pull of their little routines, of being fly-whisking terry-thomas-moustachioed pukka sahibs, ramrod-straight, with the implied comparison to those bandung-conferencing menons and nehrus. They are past masters at inveigling lots of aid and lots of military equipment out of the Americans.

As for your belief that American policy-makers are deliberatley trying to thwart India's rise -- I think this is a baseless fear. What may thwart India is India itself, or rather the 150 million or more Muslims within India, who for now I suppose are subdued, but that can change. And I believe -- correct me if I am wrong -- that a great many Muslim outrages, committed at the local level, never make the Western papers and in fact, may not even be reported in other Indian states. I suspect a great deal is going on that we just don't hear about it, when it comes to Muslim attacks on Hindus and other non-Muslims inside India.

Think of American policymakers not as being ill-disposed toward India, or malignant, but as ignorant of Islam and, frequently, incurably undworldly, for all their worldly might, and stupid. That can be -- often is - even worse.

This is one reason why Afghanistan is far from the right war. We pretty much have to depend on Pakistan for access to Afghanistan. Pakistan is a very frail reed to lean on in any case (it was probably a conduit for SEATO secrets to Communist China back in Cold War days). Worse, its populace always seems to think in terms of "Us Muslims vs. everyone else", and even if we Kufr are beating up on the wrong sect of Islam--Shi'ites? Ahmadis?--the Pakistani street will close ranks against us no matter how much their Muslim brothers might be in the wrong.

When last we met at this site, on the afternoon of May 6, I was too tempted by the chance to ladle out a sooterkins of wit (re calligrammatic verse, Apollinaire's pun on Saint Ursula, etc.) not to overstep the bounds of decorum. Your subsequent silence at that thread suggested disapproval. I allow myself to believe, from your kind comment above, that my worries were misplaced.

..Larry King talked about how he'd never been online, “do you punch little buttons and things"

Ok Obama Rant: today he talked about the 'bad media', speaking to Grads he said, "The Man" said they should watch out for xbox??
Clinton eventually carved out 'slick willie', Obama is heading for the deep end.

Hugh,

I did wish to attribute such negative sentiments as malice and cunning to American policy makers. I just stated that that is the way of international politics and America too acts that way. I am willing to go along with your suggestion that they are not like that but act out of ignorance.

You are right in this statement: "What may thwart India is India itself, or rather the 150 million or more Muslims within India, who for now I suppose are subdued, but that can change."

Since you are one of the few American commentators who displays insight into how other nations think and behave, I would like to tell you that I have seen, have personal experience of, how Muslims pull down India.

Muslims ALWAYS vote for those politicians in India who not only are dhimmis, but, out of extreme egoism, are willing to aggressively undermine India itself. Think of men like Jyoti Basu (a hardened communist) or Mulayam Singh Yadav (he once suggested that India should pay a billion dollars to Pakistan to compensate for all the actions taken by India in the aftermath of parliament attack).

These men do as much as they can to damage Indian institutions, particularly in security establishments while overtly mouthing platitudes about peace with neighbors. Muslims, with their power of collective action, vote in a far more organized manner than Hindus and are able to influence the electoral process disproportionately. That is the real mechanism whereby they are trying to undermine India.

There are local outrages too, as you suggest. They are reported in Indian media which, thank God, does not suppress facts but for all it's "secular" bias. I have even seen snippets of Geert Wilders' Fitna in mainstream Indian media which I bet never made it to American mainstream media.

All we can hope for now is that nations like US and India will both wake up to the menace of Islam soon enough and start acting in concert rather than at cross purposes like is happening now.

Sanjay

Nw that the Soviet Union is no longer, and American policymakers need not get all hot and bothered about a Soviet steel plant being built in this or that Indian city, and at long last are disabused, too, of the idiotic notion that Islam is a "bulwark against Communism" -- why, even now there are former C.I.A. agents who think they did just fine in aiding Pakistan, and various Muslim fighters in Afghanistan in order to weaken the Red Army (when the Soviet Union was enduring its own economic degringolade, that already guaranteed its collapse). It was madness for American money and especially American weaponry to be sent to Pakistan, and to various Muslim groups or groupuscules so dangerous to America and to India and to all non-Muslims.

It would be good if more Indians spoke up intelligently about what the Muslim invaders had done to India, and about those who, out of a desperate desire to escape the fate of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, converted to Islam (and are the ancestors of today's Muslims in India, Pakistan, and Bangaldesh) -- even attempting to get them to give up the religion of those who enslaved those ancestors, to see Islam as part of what conquerors imposed, and not what was freely chosen. For the Muslims in India are merely Hindus (and Buddhists, and Jains) who long ago were forcibly converted -- "forcibly" in the sense that they did so not out of conviction but to avoid an unpleasant fate. Perhaps as they are made to realize this, some will throw off the lendings of Islam. It's worth a try.

Hugh,

I dearly share your wish that more Indians spoke out about what happened during the "Muslim" centuries of India. But the subculture of dhimmitude that developed in India during those centuries is quite powerful and it is not easy to dislodge it from it's entrenchments though, rest assured, all efforts are on.

However, like I have said in the comments elsewhere, India is slowly de - dhimmifying. It was very visible in the decade of 90s when the Hindu nationalist party BJP came to power and the Babri "mosque" built after demolishing a prominent Hindu temple was brought down.

Even now, though it may not be visible to outsiders who can listen only to what is spoken in public, more and more Hindus are coming round to an understanding of what Islam is really all about. When I was younger, I had neither heard of Bani qurayza nor Khaibar nor Asma bint Marwaan or Umm Qirafa and all such like nor known anyone who showed that knowledge.

Today, thanks in no small measure to internet and websites like jihadwatch, not only do I know Islam myself but I find increasing number of Hindus showing that knowledge and then getting better understanding of what exactly informed Muslims when they invaded Somnath, or when they demolished Kashi temple and built a mosque on top of it or, for that matter, what made them demand pakistan out of India using means such as "direct action".

India is free, democratic and all institutions have to concede the specific freedoms guaranteed under the Indian constitution. Once the number of Hindus of the kind mentioned above reaches a critical mass, no one will be able to stop us from occupying a place in public life. Perhaps then you will see what we both desire to see in India.

Sanjay

I was reading several posters who had mentioned Farid Zakaria. Did anyone see his segment on CNN today? The experts are basically saying that America, and the west in general are going to be the subjects of terror attacks in perpetuity, from now through some immeasurable time frame. You are wondering what Zakaria's interest is in perpetuating what is now, an obvious lie (Islam being a religion of peace)? The answer is in between the lines. This is what he knows, what he wants.

It is more important that we have large Islamic populations in the west for Muslims like him to live in, than it is for dhimmis like us to live in peaceful secure nations. It really is very simple, it is simply easier for us to die in random jihadists attacks which are instigated, and fueled by the Quran and Hadith, than it is for Muslims, and our government to find real solutions to this problem. Like possibly considering looking at religion when selecting who, and who isn't allowed to immigrate, for starters. That would be fine with me, if at least I could hear one politician put that on the plate. Perhaps restricting travel to and from Islamic countries ... maybe just for a time. This would seem like a reasonable place to start in a "war on terror" scheme. Oh and all jizya payments to Islamic countries ... cut off, completely cut them off. I really like the Israel, India, US alliance it would be powerful, and it seems so natural.

In India one can not buy Spencer books or for that matter any books which expose the real face of Islam. Let' not forget,India is a dhimmy nation.

Re the discussion of Fareed Zakaria above, I am reminded of his statements in his famous "Why do the hate us?" article in Newsweek in October of 2001, written in response to the 9/11 attacks.

"[...] This awkward reality has led some in the West to dust off old essays and older prejudices predicting a "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam. The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for "true Islam" or quoting the Quran. The Quran is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern strictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare.[...]"

Here Zakaria already appears to be well-schooled in Islam apologetics, denials, deflections, ad hominem, tu quoque, and so on. Thus, given his status and influence, we can see that Zakaria was, right away, contributing to the massive pro-Islam propaganda campaign that followed 9/11, the main message of which being that Islam is a moderate religion and that terrorists such as the 9/11 hijackers represented a tiny minority of extremists who were taking a twisted view of Islam.

Note how Zakaria--instead of presenting some examples and letting readers get some idea of what's in the Quran, hadith, and Sira--dismisses it all with a summary and seemingly authoritative judgment.

Zakaria did not mention to his readers, at that critical time, that the Quran is not just some vague book of poetry but is--together with the Hadith and Sira which are required for its interpretation--the source of Islamic sharia law and the legislation of jihad warfare. Nor did Zakaria tell his readers that most Muslims want sharia law to be imposed; i.e., they share the goal of bin Laden and others. We now know that polls and surveys indicate that most Muslims worldwide want "strict" sharia law (e.g., see World Public Opinion), and most want a caliphate to be set up. Nor did Zakaria tell his readers that large minorities to majorities of Muslims world-wide say they support bin Laden, and large minorities to majorities (see PEW polls) agree with terrorist attacks against civilians in defense of Islam.

Zakaria also claimed, earlier in this essay, that the majority of Muslims don't perceive the West and Islam as at war with each other (Zakaria: "For him [bin Laden] and his followers, this is a holy war between Islam and the Western world. Most Muslims disagree. Every Islamic country in the world has condemned the attacks of Sept. 11."). I doubt that that was the case in 2001. Nevertheless, polls and surveys indicate that most Muslims in recent years do believe that the West is at war with Islam.

Zakaria doesn't mention that Muhammad in the sahih hadiths said "I have been made victorious with terror," and that the Quran orders Muslims to make the most of their power to "strike terror" into the hearts of the enemies and the enemies of Allah (8:60), using every ambush, every strategem of war (9:5) to fight the disbelievers (9:29, 9:123) until all religion is for Allah (8:39) and Islam is supreme, victorious, dominant over all other religions (9:33, 61:9, 48:28).

More denial and deflection from Zakaria:

"Searching the history books is also of limited value. From the Crusades of the 11th century to the Turkish expansion of the 15th century to the colonial era in the early 20th century, Islam and the West have often battled militarily. This tension has existed for hundreds of years, during which there have been many periods of peace and even harmony. Until the 1950s, for example, Jews and Christians lived peaceably under Muslim rule. In fact, Bernard Lewis, the pre-eminent historian of Islam, has argued that for much of history religious minorities did better under Muslim rulers than they did under Christian ones. All that has changed in the past few decades. So surely the relevant question we must ask is, Why are we in a particularly difficult phase right now? What has gone wrong in the world of Islam that explains not the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 or the siege of Vienna of 1683 but Sept. 11, 2001?"

In other words, says Zakaria, ignore Islam as understood and applied by Muslims for all of its history until the "past few decades" leading to 9/11. In the above paragraph, again we see some apologetics that are now commonplace on the internet and in the mainstream media, regarding the supposedly tolerant treatment of religious minorities under Islamic rule. This is the sort of fluff that Karen Armstrong writes. Zakaria is either ignorant of, or does not want his readers to know about, the mass slaughters of civilians throughout Islamic history that are consistent with the 9/11 surprise massacres of large numbers of non-Muslim civilians.

A historian on the Islamic imperialist massacres in India:

"Gautier focuses mainly on the Muslim period of India's history. "Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese." "
"Gautier cites two eminent historians who wrote free of any colonialist or ideological agendas, basing their accounts on documents by contemporary Muslim chroniclers themselves: Alain Danielou in Histoire de la Inde: "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoilations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races." And the well-known American historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization: "...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within." "
[Source: Indiastar.com]

Sanjay

you wrote, re the Muslim populations in India:

"Muslims ALWAYS vote for those politicians in India who not only are dhimmis, but, out of extreme egoism, are willing to aggressively undermine India itself...

"These men do as much as they can to damage Indian institutions, particularly in security establishments

"while overtly mouthing platitudes about peace with neighbors.

"Muslims, with their power of collective action, vote in a far more organized manner than Hindus and are able to influence the electoral process disproportionately.

"That is the real mechanism whereby they are trying to undermine India."

I read that, Sanjay, and I *immediately* thought of the incredible 'third-world-style' chaos of the recent elections in the UK, the 50 cases of electoral irregularities now under investigation (which I would bet my bottom dollar are mostly to do with Muslims) and the skewing of the political process by the presence in certain key electorates of large blocs of block-voting Muslims actively courting the most anti-British politicians.

I thought, too, of the disruption already wrought in parts of Europe by similar Muslim voting blocs, and the inordinate influence they wield on the worst kind of politician; the same sort of thing is beginning to happen also in the USA and in Canada and Australia, in those parts of our cities where Muslims have settled en masse.

Ethoman

you wrote:" I really like the Israel, India, US alliance it would be powerful, and it seems so natural."

Count Australia in on that one, too, if and when it happens. We're only just across the Indian Ocean.

We too were amazed to see Indian style political wheeling dealing in the UK and especially the willingness of politicians to compromise important democratic principles to keep themselves in power.

It is terrible to see the replication of Indian chaos, caused in India in large part by Muslim voters, in a nation like UK.

The only way reprieve from this relentless spread of Islam into the free world (and the attendant pressures on modern day freedoms) can come is, if a critical mass of non - Muslims globally have clarity about Islam and start acting in sync.

Cannot happen too soon.

Sanjay

I have see the fruits of American aid to fight terror in my country. Grand flats and khotis for the generals and colonels and Majors in the Punjab.

And death and destruction for the people in NWFP and Peshawar and Karachi and other cities. I am shia and I hate to read about any person in Pakistan to die as a result of American sponsored terror.

Whose fault is this? - Quite clearly America and India.

India is most at fault for not coming to an amicable settlement to Kashmir.

Since my country was born Kashmir is only azad in part, and India refuses to settle the rest. This has led to 3 wars and the rise of leaders like Zia-Ul-Haq .

The Russ (hello Ivan) have brought the American (hello Joe) to our lands and they have liked & the encouraged the formation of the Mujahadeen

No good blaming Islam for this - it is India and America and the Russ (to a small extent).

If anythinhjg Islam has been the unifying and peace bringing force that has kept us together. Please believe what I am saying - Islam is not your enemy.

Ali,

Why don't you try answering many of the issues raised on this website by persons like Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald, in their many articles, about the nature of Islam, if you wish to establish that Islam is peaceful and not our enemy and the real culprits are all the democratic and modern societies of the world.

You might consider answering issues about punishment for apostasy from Islam, jiziya and dhimmitude, Mohammed's brutal treatment of jews of Bani Qurayza and Khaibar, and his taking their women as slaves, the best ones for himself such as Saafiya. Just search this website for articles on these issues, and try to answer them and if you are convincing enough, maybe you will cause a minor revolution !

All the best.

Sanjay

Sanjay,

Sanjay - Why don't you try answering many of the issues raised on this website about the nature of Islam.

This is what I am trying to do now. I have been shia muslim all my life - and I just cannot see violence through Islam being a threat to global peace.

Only a fool would deny that there are no problems. Extremists, just like non-muslims take small isolated problems and magnify them to mountains and label them to Islam.

The purity and edifying force of Islam are there for all to see. If Islam was THE problem, you would 99.9% of muslims causing problems not the 0.01% who happen to be muslims.

Yes those muslims who do have problems take things a bit far, but an honour killiing here or there is not symptomatic of an epidemic or a virus like you people make it out to be.

In certain countries people with power or weapons behave badly - and some of them happen to be muslism - but President Lincoln said that a person's true character comes out with power. - This is true for all, look at the lying cheating bankers who fleeced you - power hungry bastards - it is the power that caused that - you are not going to blame Islam for that are you?

Sanjay - Mohammed's brutal treatment of jews of Bani Qurayza and Khaibar, and his taking their women as slaves,

That was a long time ago, and it was war. The best way to ensure that your enemy does not come back to bite you in the bum - is to eliminate them. The Romans did this with their "decimate" policy, the Nazis did that too - Oh and they did not belong to Islam.

Sanjay - the best ones he (Muhammed PBUH) kept for himself such as Saafiya.

My mother used to tell me this story. She said that Saafiya was very pleased to be rescued to see the light of Islam by it's founder.

Saafiya we are told said "that she was the luckiest woman alive to marry and recieve seed from the last prophet", the greatest teacher sent by God SWT.

How many woman can claim such status? What's the problem here? I cannot see it, she was blessed.

May God SWT provide all the women with such blessings as sister Saafiya.

"Saafiya we are told said "that she was the luckiest woman alive to marry and recieve seed from the last prophet", the greatest teacher sent by God SWT."

First of all, GROSS!!! Secondly, the only teaching Mohoggad ever did was to teach Moslems to abuse there wemon, rape there wemon, and behead there wemon.

Also, Mohogged is not a prophet, in strictly Abrahamic religious terms. To be a prophet of the Abrahamic religion, there are tests to be done to see if a person qualifies.

The number one test to see if a person is a prophet is: Does he contridict scripture? If he does then he can not be a prophet of God.

Mohoggad contridicts scripture... Not a prophet.

The End.

"I have been shia muslim all my life - and I just cannot see violence through Islam being a threat to global peace.

Only a fool would deny that there are no problems. Extremists, just like non-muslims take small isolated problems and magnify them to mountains and label them to Islam.

The purity and edifying force of Islam are there for all to see. If Islam was THE problem, you would 99.9% of muslims causing problems not the 0.01% who happen to be muslims.

Yes those muslims who do have problems take things a bit far, but an honour killiing here or there is not symptomatic of an epidemic or a virus like you people make it out to be."

As a Shi'a, you will then no doubt be able to explain away, or wave away, the attacks on Shi'a in Pakistan by Sipah-e-Sahaba and similar Sunni groups dedicated to attacking and murdering the Shi'a. For they will, in your view, only be taking "things a bit far" and besides, the killing of a Shi'a "here and there is not symptomatic of an epidemic or a virus." So let the Sunnis, with the violence and aggression that comes naturally to those raised in societies suffused with Islam, go ahead and teach the Shi'a in Pakistan more lessons in just who, and who is not, in the view of many Sunnis, a "real Muslim" and who is not.

The failure of many Muslims to understand their own reality, and their unwillingness to confront what is in the texts (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira) and tenets of Islam, and their fury when Infidels dare to read those texts, and study the history of Islamic conquest, and draw their own conclusions rather than accept the version put out by smiling Muslim apologists, continues to astound.

Hugh - As a Shi'a, you will then no doubt be able to explain away, or wave away, the attacks on Shi'a in Pakistan by Sipah-e-Sahaba and similar Sunni groups dedicated to attacking and murdering the Shi'a.

Ofcourse its a problem - but sunnis do not attack us per say. Sipah-e-Sahaba attack us, but more important than being sunni, they are an extremist group.

They have been funded, armed and trained by the Generals and the ISI who the Joe American has funded and keeps funding. The money that you give so generously is not welcome by many of us. We work and feed our families just as we did 60 years ago, none of your filty money has touched us other than seeing the killing of shia.

Take your troops, take your money it will be a welcome change for us to see less mujahadeen. You cannot save your country from attack by allowing the generals to have their fancy houses and cars.

You can help by stopping to call ordinary Pakistanis to account. All we do is try to live a peacful life according to way of Islam, surely as God SWT is our witness.

Spread the message that ordinary Pakistani citizens are peaceful loving people who should not be stopped from living their lives even if it to do businees in Joe America.

"Ofcourse its a problem - but sunnis do not attack us per say. Sipah-e-Sahaba attack us, but more important than being sunni, they are an extremist group.

They have been funded, armed and trained by the Generals and the ISI who the Joe American has funded and keeps funding. The money that you give so generously is not welcome by many of us. We work and feed our families just as we did 60 years ago, none of your filty money has touched us other than seeing the killing of shia.

Take your troops, take your money it will be a welcome change for us to see less mujahadeen. You cannot save your country from attack by allowing the generals to have their fancy houses and cars."

You surely cannot be blaming the Americans when Sunnis kill Shi'a -- or is that feat not beyond you?

As for that "filty money" that the Americans give, and that ends up, predictably, in the pockets of generals and zamindars and their families and retainers, I agree -- no more money, no more aid, no more weaponry, of any kind, should be transferrred from the United States to Pakistan. We agree completely.

That "filty money" can be put to use at home and should not be lavished on any Muslim state or group. If any aid is to come from the United States, the recipients should be those who are willing and ready to help us defend the West against Jihad. Those, and only those countries, should be receiving aid. Certainly none should be transferred from the non-Muslim to Muslim lands and peoples. That makes no sense.

Why, nearly a trillion dollars is to be given to poorer countries in the E.U. by richer countries. But we never here of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, being expected to take care of the poorer Muslim countries. It is always assumed that the United States, Canada, and the countries of Western Europe will assume the Infidel Man's Burden.

Why?

This makes no sense. It must stop.

"In India one can not buy Spencer books..." -- NALWA

Interesting. How about being able to order them online and having them delivered from, say, Amazon.com?

re: Aadeesh Ali,

Folks, note that Aadeesh Ali practically defends rape in his response to another poster. Indeed, he glorifies it. He is of course trying to cover for this by implying that Safiya voluntarily "married" and had sex with Muhammad around the time when Muhammad and his men had killed her husband and killed or raped numerous people in her tribe. But from the non-Muslim perspective of these same accounts, it is obvious that Safiya would have had to have been forced, i.e., raped, and that some early pious Muslim propagandists (Ibn Ishaq and his redactor, Ibn Hisham) had added some incoherent and incredible disclaimers, such as the claim that Safiya wanted this to happen and that her husband Kinana had mistreated her, etc.

Aadeesh Ali then goes even further, proclaiming that all non-Muslim women should be so "blessed" as to be raped and forcibly "married" and forced to convert to Islam (as he alleges Safiya was converted to Islam) by Muslim invaders and conquerors, in the way, for example, the conquered women of Khaybar were reportedly divided up and distributed among the Muslim male captors.

Sanjay wrote: "the best ones he [Muhammad] kept for himself such as Saafiya."

Aadeesh Ali responded:
"My mother used to tell me this story. She said that Saafiya was very pleased to be rescued to see the light of Islam by it's founder.
Saafiya we are told said "that she was the luckiest woman alive to marry and recieve seed from the last prophet", the greatest teacher sent by God SWT.
How many woman can claim such status? What's the problem here? I cannot see it, she was blessed.
May God SWT provide all the women with such blessings as sister Saafiya."

Once again, a self-styled "moderate" Muslim, this time Aadeesh Ali, defends the Islamic imperialist policy of rape of non-Muslim female captives and slaves (and forced "marriages" of these traumatized and devastated women to their Islamic owners), for which see the Quran 4:24, 23:1-6, 70:29-30, 33:50-52, as well as numerous parts of the Hadith and Sira, all carried out with Muhammad's approval. So we have another "moderate" Muslim advocating what amounts to mass rape, forced "marriage" and forced conversion of all non-Muslim women to Islam.

...and Aadeesh Ali,

You wrote: "Saafiya we are told said "that she was the luckiest woman alive to marry and recieve seed from the last prophet", the greatest teacher sent by God SWT."

In your view, was 9-year-old Aisha also "lucky" to "receive seed" from your "prophet"?

"Extremists, just like non-muslims..." Extremists...those that kill in the name of allah...just like non-muslims...
Wow. How incredibly stupid is that?
And Hugh did not say that he was Shia. He was quoting you. Try and keep up.

"Yes those muslims who do have problems take things a bit far, but an honour killiing here or there is not symptomatic of an epidemic or a virus like you people make it out to be."
Indeed. More like cancer, not a virus. A virus will pass. Cancer must be excised...killed. You say the we should ignore the fact that these murders occur every single day without cessation. Often times more than one such incident per day. And those are the very few that are actually reported as the barbaric religion of islam approves of these murders and the authorities are not notified or turn a blind eye to them. Strange thing is...they are always committed by good muslims who defend themselves by quoting the koran. And...not a single day goes by without a terrorist attack in the name of the moon god. Sometimes hundreds die, some are maimed for life by gas attack or acid being thrown in the faces of schoolgirls. This is your religion that condones and makes a duty of these acts.
You worship at the feet of the Ayatollah Sosmelly...I mean Khomeini then do you not?
Tell me that you think the world of that pervert. How do I know of his perversion? His little green book makes it quite clear. How to have sex with infants. Apparently there's a right way and a wrong way. I thought it was all wrong.
He gives the OK therein to sex with animals. Sick. Perverted. islam.
"The purity and edifying force of Islam are there for all to see. If Islam was THE problem, you would 99.9% of muslims causing problems not the 0.01% who happen to be muslims."
Where do you get your statistics cause...mine doan match yours. And have you notice the polls? They do them from time to time in the UK for instance....asking muslims how they feel about suicide bombings, do they support them. They ask about their support for Osama Bin Laden. You should look at some of those. Far more than the .01% you indicate are in support of killing infidels....like me.
In short, quit makin' crap up. I call it lying. You call it taqyia.
Your false prophet had sex with a corpse, sucked on the tongues of young boys and girls, had men lick his chest, had sex with a nine year old girl. I'm sure that thighing got its start from this pervert as well.
Gimme a break. This is your prophet? You'd be better off worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

Kinana

you observed, re. the Mohammedan dementor, 'aadeesh ali' alias naseem alias wenti alias mr barcode:

re: Aadeesh Ali,

"Folks, note that Aadeesh Ali practically defends rape in his response to another poster.

"Indeed, he glorifies it.

"He is of course trying to cover for this by implying that Safiya voluntarily "married" and had sex with Muhammad around the time when Muhammad and his men had killed her husband and killed or raped numerous people in her tribe.

"But from the non-Muslim perspective of these same accounts, it is obvious that Safiya would have had to have been forced, i.e., raped, and that some early pious Muslim propagandists (Ibn Ishaq and his redactor, Ibn Hisham) had added some incoherent and incredible disclaimers, such as the claim that Safiya wanted this to happen and that her husband Kinana had mistreated her, etc.

'Aadeesh Ali then goes even further, proclaiming that all non-Muslim women should be so "blessed" as to be raped and forcibly "married" and forced to convert to Islam (as he alleges Safiya was converted to Islam) by Muslim invaders and conquerors, in the way, for example, the conquered women of Khaybar were reportedly divided up and distributed among the Muslim male captors.'"

Kinana - have you seen this article on 'reproductive jihad', which appeared at New English Review on 13 April 2010?

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/27053

Toward the end, it includes some perfectly horrifying material:

the transcript of a 'pep talk' delivered by a jihad-minded Muslim in Bangladesh, in which he whips up an audience of young Muslim men by ecstatically describing the gang-raping of a little Hindu girl, ten years old.

When one reads that sickening account, and the soulless triumphalism that suffuses it, and notes the absolute lack of empathy for the victims, one knows that John Quincy Adams was right when he declared that

[Adams' capitals] - "THE ESSENCE OF HIS [Mohammed's] DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE"

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter