India: Muslim mob attacks war memorial in protests over false rumors of mistreatment of Muslims in Myanmar

India: Muslim mob attacks war memorial in protests over false rumors of mistreatment of Muslims in Myanmar

I know that the rumors of Muslims being persecuted in Myanmar is false, but the above headline makes it seems like if that were true, then the Muslims would be justified in vandalizing the memorial of the unknown soldiers in Mumbai, as shown in the pics above.

Maharashtra needs a Shiv Sena government, so that they'd put any Muslims who tried such stunts again in their place.

This is utterly ridiculous. My guess is that India must be full of military memorials.

In World War II, some 2,000,000 Indians voluntary signed up and served in all levels of of the British Imperial forces, including one of Montgomery's top aides, I understand. When I was a consular officer in Thailand, I handled the immigrant visa case of one such veteran who stayed on in post-war SE Asia as a clothing merchant (he was the father of a woman who had become a US citizen after marrying an American)--and the old gent was a Muslim.

And how would the deceased veterans of the Indian army be responsible for the Burmese junta's mistreatment of the Rohingas?

Mohammedans here in the west continually squeal and whine and tell us we mustn't tar all Mohammedans with the same brush, and that we mustn't condemn all Mohammedans for the actions of a Tiny Minority of Extremists; and when Israel goes into someplace like Gaza and obliterates a nest of rabid Jihadi gang bosses, and some human shields busy sheltering said Jihad Gang Bosses get killed too, the Ummah screams at the top of its lungs about 'collective punishment!'

Yet: Collective Punishment is *exactly* what the Mohammedans do to non-Mohammedans, *all the time*, always and everywhere.

If just *one* dhimmi stepped out of line, anywhere in dar al Islam, Mohammedan mobs felt entitled to attack everybody in that dhimmi's community; or indeed in any *other* dhimmi community. And Christian dhimmi (or de facto dhimmi) communities have been and still are being used as 'hostages' to politically and emotionally blackmail majority-Christian Infidel nations outside of dar al Islam.

When Israel had the temerity to give a thrashing to the attacking Mohammedan armies in 1948, 1956, 1967, Mohammedan mobs punished the small and defenceless dhimmi Jewish communities scattered across the Middle East: raping, pillaging, and either mass-murdering them or driving them out altogether (in a massive act of ethno-religious 'cleansing'). Collective punishment.

Mohammedans feel entitled to inflict collective punishment on all kafir anywhere within reach and within their power, if they perceive or imagine or are told (often falsely) that *somewhere* in the world, *anywhere* in the world, a kafir has injured a Muslim.

DDA

This is entirely correct. Remember how they rioted in Nigeria against Christians when they got reports of a Bangladeshi Christian insulting the Quran, or something like that?

Non Muslims are more or less pretty disconnected from each other, but when attacks happen on Muslims elsewhere, Muslims in any part of the world feel free to respond. When the mosque in Ayodhya was demolished, Hindu temples in Pakistan & Bangladesh were targeted. Similarly, the Quran burning, or the Mohammed cartoons were enough to cause 'retaliatory' action against Infidels in dar ul Islam who had nothing to do w/ it.

Next time any terror attack happens anywhere, Muslims should be @ the receiving end everywhere!

I stand to be corrected, but I thought when India became independant the whole idea of Jenna and his Islamic Party insisting on breaking away and forming an Islamic state - Pakistan - was to separate his believers from non-believers. Of course, that resulted in mass maigrations, violence and fighting and murder on a huge scale. If the Muslims, or their leadership wished to live apart, why are there now Muslim communties in India, why has Pakistan allowed Hindu and other communities to exist in Pakistan, and why are Muslims moving back, eg Bangladeshis, into Assam? In a logical world you can't have your cake and eat it, but maybe this is another example of the principle established with the Treaty of Hudaybiyya: gain concesssions and a temporary truce while you are weak, then tear up the treaty when you think you are strong enough to come back and make more demands or impose your will.

The rioting, of course, is just yet more pressure in the abuser's [ie Islam's] behaviour which is one of the four elements needed for the abused [ie non-Muslims]to develop Stockholm Syndrome and adopt the suicidal policy of appeasement. In this istance the element is the perceived threat to the abused of their physical or psychological survival, and the belief that the threat would be carried out.

There has been only one problem. Muslims have not been manhandled in the secular city of Mumbai (or Bombay) even after the islamic terror attack a couple of years ago. When the Twin Towers fell, US invaded two muslim countries in revenge and tightened the noose around islam on its own soil. No such luck with dhimmi secular government of India. There will be more such incidents as these crazed muslims have been greatly emboldened.