Indian officials believe Pakistani jihad group behind today's Mumbai bombings

No Muslim is peaceful!!1 Shias are just as violent as sunnis. Remember, majority of Iran is shia. ahmadiya claim to be peaceful, but when there is a call for jihad they will also behave the same way as sunnis, shias, and sufis. Sufis are touted to be peaceful Muslims - ha, you can see their "peace" in Kashmir, Chechnya, and all those "-stans" liberated from Soviet Union.

Believe me, no Muslim is peaceful!! Violence is in their DNA embedded by Mo/allah!!

Why does India treat Pakistan with kid gloves? Why are the Americans providing aid to Pakistan? Why doesn't India invite American forces to station within India? Why does India take the side of the Palestinian Muslims against Israel?

"Why does India treat Pakistan with kid gloves?"

That one's easy: porkistan has nukes courtesy of America.

As for the others: Because India is infected at the highest echelons with the same pc/mc madness that has infected the West.

I think the answer to most of your questions is the large Muslim population, about 15% of total, in India. This is a big vote bank for the Congress party, presently in power, and also for other parties. Muslims have been treated with "kid gloves" right from the very beginning of independent India.

The biggest mistake that Indian leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first PM, of congress party did was to let a substantial population of Muslims live in India even when they were given an independent nation of their own, called Pakistan. In addition, Muslims were given the right to practice sharia laws in civil matters which meant they can practice polygamy and have four wives at a time whereas the uniform civil code for civilized people, i. e., Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and others, others is to have one marriage and wife at a given time.

Muslims never practice birth control in India! Heck their motto was to produce as many kids as possible to increase their population as they do everywhere they live. The consequence of such policy is what we see today - the Muslim population was about 4 to 5 % at independence and is now about 15%. While the total population has more than doubled, the Muslim population has more than quadrupled.

Now the Muslim population exerts large influence on India's policies especially when Muslim ummah is concerned. For this reason India supports Palestinian cause and did not have any diplomatic relations with Israel for a long time. Now they have relations with Israel, perhaps can be called good relations which makes Indian Muslims quite mad.

It was the Indian Muslims who prevented immigration of Taslima Nasreen to India, a writer from Bangladesh who ran afoul of Muslims for telling the truth about Islam and had to leave Bangladesh. She thought she could live in India but no sir the gutless Indian government had no courage to do so. It was a shameful chapter in Indian politics that Indians could not protect and shelter her in their democratic country where religious freedom is given to all. I guess religious freedom is only given to Muslims and everybody else has to be a secularist Or they will be called communal. A word having the similar connitation as a bigot. Muslims can never be called communal in India. The rest of them are communal if they bring in their religion in any sphere of life. And just like here in USA, the MSM, political leaders and academia, and all those pseudo-intellectuals support Muslims and hate Hindus, Christians and everybody else.

That should explain India's bizarre behavior with other nations when Muslims are involved in the equation.

As to your question " why are the Americans providing aid to Pakistan". a simple answer is Pakistan became a member of now defunct alliance SEATO against the old Soviet Union and India followed a policy of non-alignment which more or less sided with Soviets.

Americans never supported India in any fight with Pakistan. Nixon had even ordered the seventh fleet to Bay of Bengal to help Pakis during the Bangladesh war of independence from Pakistan when India defeated the Paki army stationed in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.

As is always the case the American administration has always supported dictators all over the world for its own interests and has very rarely sided with democratic countries if they don't tow their line. Now we want to bring democracy to Muslim world - we see how well it is working in Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslims can't handle democracy, they are only happy to live under a brutal dictatorship as that of Sadaam in Iraq. If you bring democracy to them all hell breaks loose!!

You say Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi believed a substantial population of Muslims should live in India even when they were given an independent nation of their own. Israel's Jewish leaders made the same mistake even after the establishment of Jordan which was supposed to be part of the Jewish National Homeland.

According to Wikipedia, Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life. As a common Hindu, he believed all religions to be equal. Gandhi believed that at the core of every religion was truth and love (compassion, nonviolence and the Golden Rule). He also questioned what he saw as hypocrisy, malpractices, and dogma in all religions, including his own.

If Gandhi was a devout Hindu, is it possible there is something inherently flawed in the Hindu religion, if indeed Hinduism teaches that all religions are equally valid - at the core of every religion is truth and love? Clearly this is not the case.

Why does India treat Pakistan with kid gloves?

In the false hope that being nice to Moslems and according them extra special treatment will delay and minimize the amount of suffering they will visit upon the Hindus and other Infidels there.

*** 8:39 ***

And fight Infidels until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah...

Three separate explosions tore through a business district in India’s Mumbai Wednesday, leaving at least 17 people dead and 54 injured...

A good day's work for the Mujahadeen. A solid plan well executed. You know they're in transit now, doing high fives and celebrating, looking forward to a hot Mohammed-style night with adoring Moslimas back at the Command Center.

"Americans never supported India in any fight with Pakistan. Nixon had even ordered the seventh fleet to Bay of Bengal to help Pakis during the Bangladesh war of independence from Pakistan when India defeated the Paki army stationed in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If there were not a politically active American Jewish community here in the US, I wonder whether the United States would support Israel to the extent that it does. My guess is, as the Muslim community and its influence grows here in the US, American policy will increasingly shift against Israel, toward the Islamic jihad against the Jews.

Correction:

.....If there were not a politically active American Jewish community here in the US....and, I might add, a politically influential, pro-Israel Christian community, which is more pro-Israel than the American Jewish community by and large. The American Jewish community, it seems to many, is turning increasingly against Israel.

Hindus of India have been very tolerant people and always accepted and sheltered people driven out by other countries such as the Jews from Arabia or Middle East who settled in southern state of Kerala and Parsees(Zorastrians) driven out by Muslims from Iran. These people settled on the Western coast, mostly Bombay in India countries. Neither Jews nor Parsees have had any problems with Hindus or vice versa. They live in peace and harmony even today practicing their own religions. Hindus the original people of India eventually succumbed to Muslim invaders from Turkey, Arabia and Afghanistan and were rulled over by them until the British slowly took over the whole of India.

Muslims tried their best to convert all Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains killing about 80 to 100 milion over a period of about 1000 years but could not succeed to force their religion on them. And even then at the time of independence the Hindu leaders decide against driving them out. After most of them are the converts from Hinduism albeit forcible conversion under the threat of sword. Though Mahatma Gandhi believed in goodness of all religions but perhaps he just couldn't gauge the evilness inherent in Islam or chose to ignore it hoping for change in behavior of Muslims and that is why he believed in Hindu Muslim unity and often favored Muslims and Pakistan right after independence which did anger many Hindus.

Hindu religious thinking is not flawed, for there is only God and there are different paths to him as taught by great religious leaders. But when one thinks that his is the only way then the problems arise and when it comes to Islam it is not a religion. It is purely an evil cult and that is why its followers do all those evil barbaric atrocious deeds and yet feel no guilt or remorse for their actions.You know it very well!!

You say: "Hindu religious thinking is not flawed, for there is only God and there are different paths to him as taught by great religious leaders...."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My late father believed as you do. He believed that there are many different paths to God. Christians (many) believe Jesus is the "only" path to God, because John allegedly had Jesus say: "I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me..."

But you say there is only one God. In this you are at one with Islam which also believes there is only one God. Islam holds that we all worship the same God, the God of Abraham. I don't know how many Muslims have told me we each (Muslims, Jews and Christians) worship the same God.

I believe Islam's god is a false god; an evil god. I believe Muslims worship an idol. I do not believe there is only one God. I believe there are a multitude of gods.

There is only one "true" and living God however and it is not Islam's god. Allah is not God. Who is the God of the Hindu religion? What is his name?

Muslims tried their best to convert all Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains killing about 80 to 100 milion over a period of about 1000 years ...

But weren't 60 - 70 million of them killed in just over the century after the Moghul Bros first rode in?

Hi wildjew, where and how do you get this idea that if I say there is only one god than I am with islam. Nothing can be farthest from truth. Islam is not a religion nor does it have any god. Muslims worship Mo and his alter ego allah that is why I call him Mo/allah.

The question comes when people believe that the one is the one worshiped by them and others are false. This discusssion is unnecessary. people can worship their own god without imposing it on others. Paths are many but hopefully they all lead to true god.

Hi AFP, Invasions of India stated right in the eighth century with bin Qasim invading Sindh and starting the islamic killing machine. The race was on and various other invaders came and killed in the name of Mo/allah. Later the Turks and other invaders from Central Asia, Timur, Genghis Khan, and the Mughals, Babar dynasty going upto the 18th century had their major share of killings. Timur, Jehangir, Shah Jahan of Taj Mahal fame and Aurangjeb were the most brutal of the lot. It seems the peak of killings was reached the times of the letter three.

Jaladhi, I do not believe you are with Islam. I was only trying to point out the fallacy of saying there is only one god. There are many gods. Allah is a god; albeit a false god. Muslims believe Allah is the same God that Jews and Christians worship; the God of the Jewish Bible. Clearly this is not true. Allah is not the God Moses worshipped, otherwise Moses would have commanded the Jews to kill and subjugate unbelievers and to treat women like chattel slaves. The God Moses worshipped is compassionate and merciful to all peoples, Jews and non-Jews alike. Not so Allah. Allah is merciful to the Muslim believer only, but he is harsh with the unbelievers; you and me. There are many gods. Allah is indeed a god; he is a false god.

I think China had more to do with Pathologicalstan's getting nuclear weapons technology than the US did.

"If Gandhi was a devout Hindu, is it possible there is something inherently flawed in the Hindu religion, if indeed Hinduism teaches that all religions are equally valid - at the core of every religion is truth and love? Clearly this is not the case."

Hinduism teaches that different paths can lead to the same goal. That is not the same as all dogmas/beliefs are equal. Gita/Upanishads are clear in that some forms of worship are demonic and will distance you from the goal of moksha/nirvana.
But according to hindu belief, a man born as muslim can also attain moksha. It depends on how he interprets the teachings of islam. I would say a truly spiritual muslim person will follow only the meccan teachings and completely ignore the medinan ones. Then, yes, he too can attain moksha.

Many Indians are hopelessly deluded and living a fantasy world concerning islam and muslims. They firmly believe like Gandhi, that to become friends with muslims you must give in to their every demands. That being Indian is all that matters to Indian muslims. That islam is just another path to god like Hinduism and Buddhism.
What’s worse is that many Hindu preachers also believe this rubbish. Then they go and teach this to the gullible naive masses. Thank god that there are many other Indians who are not buying into this.
Do you know what will happen in Porkiestan if a Christian group was to bomb the Porkie stock exchange and claim credit afterwards saying they did it for Jesus? The Porkie muslims will rise up en mass to burn down all churches and massacre as many Christians as possible.

Yet in places like India and Thailand we are supposed to understand the muslims and not stoke communal tension by targeting muslims for reprisals.

Jaladhi, Genghiz Khan never invaded India, but was in fact the scourge of Islam and the Mongols would have destroyed Islam, had it not been for his death and an in-fight among the Khan's successors which led to the golden horde siding up with Islam. Also, the big massacres of Hindus took place only after the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi and Mohammed Ghori from Afghanistan starting in the 11th century, in the wake of which their Slave's dynasty took over and it was this period and later which saw the genocidal atrocities against Hindus by psychopaths like the Khiljis, Tughlaks and the raider Timur. The Moghuls under Babur arrived much later, in the 16th century and although Babur invoked Jihad in the decisive battle against the Rajputs, he wasn't much of a Jihadi otherwise. His successors were realistic politicians who tried to live and work with the Hindu rulers. Akbar, especially, coopted the Hindus into powerful positions and thus ushered in an era of peace and major prosperity for India, vaulting it to, arguably, the wealthiest nation on Earth. Jehangir and Shah Jehan basically lived off that prosperity. Aurangzeb, however, thought he would extend (and defend) the Mughal empire in the South, by invoking an iconoclasmic Jihad against the Hindu rulers like Shivaji. It was a fatal mistake and he ended up destroying the Mughal Empire. The Mughal period, on the whole, saw the least amount of atrocities against Hindus.

Indians have always been lulled into false complacency by the Party line on the RoP. Gandhi had sought out a Maulana - Shaukat Ali, to understand the "real" teachings of Islam and having assimmilated the usual bunkum, ended up becoming a willing tool of Islam in India. Thus primed, he went to the extent of provoking and leading the ultra reactionary Pro-Caliphate Khilafat movement in India after WWI, against the modernist Attaturk. Ironically, the person who disagreed vehemently with Gandhi was none other than Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was so disgusted by this blatant cooption of Muslim orthodoxy by Gandhi, that he decided to part ways with Gandhi's Congress Party. But Jinnah had learnt the power of using religion to get a following from Gandhi, something he would pursue decades later, to carve out Pakistan.

This also explains why there are so many gods and godesses in the so called Hindu pantheon, as all these are seen to be valid symbols of the supreme spirit, worthy of respect and worship, although these may have been or are, primitive tribal and village dieties.

Not twice.

Three times.

This is the third mass-murderous Muslim jihad assault upon Mumbai in the early 21st century.

The first such attack was the Mumbai train bombings.

Which took place **on the 11th of July** five years ago, in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings

"The 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings were a series of seven bomb blasts that took place over a period of 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai , capital city of the Indian province of Maharashtra and the nation's financial capital. The bombs were set off in pressure cookers on trains plying the Western line of the Suburban Railway network. 209 people were killed and over 700 were injured. According to Mumbai Police, the bombings were carried out by Lashkar-e-Toiba and Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI)."

It was discussed thoroughly at jihadwatch, from when the news first broke, onward.

Some of the relevant links:

The news first broke at jihadwatch, and was commented upon, in this thread.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/afghanistan-gets-first-fashion-show-in-decades.html

when two posters interrupted that thread with the breaking news:

- Yojimbo | July 11, 2006 9:35 AM

"O.T. - bad news amid all the hilarity: bombs in Mumbai (Bombay).

MUMBAI (Reuters) - Blasts hit moving commuter trains on Tuesday in three suburbs of India's financial hub, Mumbai, a police official said.
"There have three been blasts in Khar, Santa Cruz and Mahim," said the official in the Mumbai police control room.

Another police official said that the blasts occurred in moving trains. No further details were available.

CNN said several people had been injured in the blasts.

Blasts hit commuter trains in India's Mumbai

Let's hope there are no fatalities. My condolences to any Indians reading the board."

and

- Churchill1938 | July 11, 2006 9:45 AM

"HUGE EXPLOSIONS - OUR INDIA OFFICE SAYS CHAOS OUTSIDE - HUNDREDS DEAD - TROOPS CLOSING STREETS - PEOPLE REPORTED WITH CHEMICAL BURNS

THIS IS BIG !!

Blasts in India financial capital

At least three explosions have taken place in the Indian financial capital, Mumbai (Bombay), police say.
It is not yet clear what caused the blasts and police are not confirming the location of the explosions, which occurred during evening rush hour.

Some reports say at least one of the blasts took place near a train station. Unconfirmed reports speak of a number of casualties.

There have been a number of bomb attacks in Mumbai in recent years."

Then it got its own thread:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/dozens-reported-killed-in-india-bombings-bombing-tactics-similar-to-those-of-kashmir-jihadists.html

And was covered by more, as reports came in and the picture became clearer:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/india-bombings-likely-the-work-of-jihad-group-lashkar-e-taiba.html

In *that* thread, one poster gave the following listing of previous jihad terror attacks in Mumbai -

Churchill1938 | July 11, 2006 12:15 PM

"RECENT MUMBAI ISLAMIC RELIGEOUS CEREMONIAL ACTS:

Aug 2003: At least 44 people killed in double car bombing
July 2003: Three killed in bus blast
Mar 2003: 11 killed in commuter train
Jan 2003: 30 injured in market attack
Dec 2002: 23 injured at McDonald's outlet
Dec 2002: Two killed in bus blast
Mar 1993: More than 250 killed in serial blasts".

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/possible-al-qaida-link-to-india-train-attacks.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/mumbai-bombs-kill-at-least-135.html

There's more, if you click on any of those later links and then just read your way forward through the jihadwatch article postings from 11 July 2006, through to August or September as investigations proceeded and arrests were made.

Unfortunately, this is also why it is so easy for the Hindus to readily accept Islam at face value, as "just another path to the same God" and accord their "saints" unsuspecting and at times ridiculous repect. Frustratingly, the Hindus do not even seem to remember their own history and as the famous aphorism goes, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

These bloody assaults on peaceful and unarmed people are a traditional hallmark of Islam all over. This, and a disproportionately high number of criminals, is the price countries like India have to pay for living with a significant population of Muslims.

"...Why are the Americans providing aid to Pakistan?"

Other word for paying the jizayh (high protection tax only for Christians & Jews, for "corrupting" the Bible) 9:29 ... not to threaten America with nukes of Pakistan

"But according to hindu belief, a man born as muslim can also attain moksha. It depends on how he interprets the teachings of islam. I would say a truly spiritual muslim person will follow only the meccan teachings and completely ignore the medinan ones. Then, yes, he too can attain moksha...."

If a Muslim follows the meccan teachings only, can he or she be a good Muslim? There is the example of the prophet who was a violent and bloody man of war. He is the example for the devout Muslim? How can one be a good Muslim and not follow the example of the founder of Islam?

Anybody out there still think that Islam is a peaceful religion?

No, but wouldn't it stand that once the Moslems have finally taken over the world, that they'd be satisfied and all the trouble would be over.

*** 33:21 ***

Re: Jaladhi

Like our Prez Barack Hussein, I'm too intellectually lazy to go over to voi.org and read one the histories of the Moghul. But thx for the info. I'm thinking there was a relatively brief period of intense mass murder of Infidels, maybe a century or so. This is of interest to me cuz that would by their measure be the most successful period in Moslem history, a golden era, which is an important subject to know about.

"That's the Muslim way of celebrating birthdays. Kill a few people and it makes them happy."

I think you're misquided. If you study the facts this is actually the way Muslims celebrate funerals. Blowing up people who are attending funerals seems to be the way Muslims like to celebrate, not at Birthday parties.

This slipped by Marisol and I didn't want it to go uncorrected. sarc/off.

Hello wildjew, there is no spiritual Muslim anywhere and there is no way a Muslim will attain moksha or nirvana. Muslims have no such concept. The so much touted sufis who are following "supposedly" spiritual" Islam, ha, if there is such a thing, are just as murderous as the sunnis, shias and any other brand of Muslim.A muslim has to follow teachings of Mo/allah in toto or he is not Muslim and qualifies to be an apostate. Islam promises Muslims an unlimited sex with beautiful hoories in jannat(paradise) and there the wine flows like Mississippi that they can enjoy and yet wine is prohibited for them in this world.

Hindu teachings do not promise this miserable murderers any moksha. Period.

"If a Muslim follows the meccan teachings only, can he or she be a good Muslim?"

Probably not. But according to hinduism (or buddhism or jainism or sikhism) he would be a good human being and his spiritual growth is assured. On the other hand following the medinan teachings will lead him in the demonic path

"There is the example of the prophet who was a violent and bloody man of war. He is the example for the devout Muslim? How can one be a good Muslim and not follow the example of the founder of Islam?"

The founder of islam was not a "spiritual" person but rather of demonic spirit. But a person born a muslim does not have to be

I wonder why Hindus are so apologetic about Caste? Castes were/are nothing more than tribal and occupational groups called Jatis, allowed to retain their identity, customs and practices and live peacefully in a cooperative inter-dependent mode with other groups. The Brahmins, of course, had a comprehensive theory on caste, called Varna, which had the famous four groupings of Brahmins (unsurprisingly at the top), Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. Unfortunately, the British applied these theoretical Varna categories to the entire Hindu population starting from the 1901 Census, leading to the erroneous belief that the fourfold division has been an integral part of Hindu society for ever. To decry caste is like someone decrying nations and nationality as an evil practice.

Don't believe Wiki. Gandhi used to use the name of Rama excessively, but he didn't have a clue as to his philosophy. Hindu religious texts were by no means pacifist: in the Ramayan, Rama fought a just war to recover his wife from the demons, who were his enemies, and in the Mahabharat, Krishna helped the Pandavas win a war w/ guile and win back their kingdom, and avenge the insults to their wife. Other Hindu texts are full of accounts of wars b/w Gods and Demons, and how the latter was always defeated. A collection of very rivetting stories that would excite anybody who likes good battle stories, and nothing in it about turning the other cheek, or loving your enemies.

Gandhi came up w/ a new cowardly butt-kissing philosophy out of whole cloth, and some ignoramuses, particularly in the West, mistook that as Hinduism. A lot of Indians believe that all religions teach the same thing, and just have different names for God. Those who think Gandhi even knew, much less represents, Hinduism ain't much more informed and don't know much about either!!!

Slamdunk

Jati & Varna were not the same thing. Jati was based on birth, while Varna was based on expertize. There were rules on what people w/ certain expertize could and couldn't do. As far as birth went, it typically determined things like marriages and so on.