Oh Joy! And this is one of the countries we outsource medical records and tax info to. That's using the old noggin'!

Posted by: pinkpower at August 25, 2004 9:49 AM

What the Prime Minister was attempting to suggest is that terrorism should not be used against fellow Muslims, such as the current rulers of Pakistan, or those in Saudi Arabia. It may be employed against Infidels, but should be done so sparingly because some of those Infidels -- to wit, the Americans -- do not take kindly to such instruments of Jihad and are both willing, and able, to react.

So Jihad should only employ the instrument of "terrorism" where it can get away with it -- in Jammu-Kashmir, where Muslim terrorists routinely slit the throats of Hindu and Sikh villagers, and where 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits were forced to flee for their lives, or in Israel, where the relentless Jihad has employed, and of course may continue to employ, terrorism as its major weapon, and so on. But don't do it against us, in Pakistan -- and can't you see we a few yeas ago we supported the Taliban, and thus Al Qaeda, to the hilt, that we continue to promote the murder of Hindus and Sikhs not only in Kashmir, but elsewhere in India (the Kashimiri "dispute" is really a classic Jihad, and were all of Kashmir to be handed over to Muslim rule, that would simply whet, not sate Muslim appetites and embolden Muslims within India).

The American government understands that the Pakistanis cannot in the end be trusted, even if they do some things, under enormous American pressure. Those who follow such matters wonder why it took so long to understand the immutable nature of Islamic tenets, and what that means for the entire non-Muslim world. Why was Pakistan the favored nation, the recipient of American arms -- out of pique with Krishna Menon and the idiotic anti-Americanism of the Indian political establishment all through the 1950s and 1960s (and hardly extinguished today)?

Pakistan should be treated with the utmost mistrust. Let it do what it can not merely to round up terrorists, but to uproot the whole system of madrasas that produceds people fit only for the Jihad. Let the Pakistani government publicly condemn the "rich Arabs" (and in those terms) who supply the money for those madrasas, to ensure that poor Pakistanis are unprepared for the modern world, but perfectly prepared for the medieval Jihad. Let the anglophone elite in Pakistan, or what remains of it, whether it lives off its jute factories or the child-labor of the rug industry (and in this country, the smiling owners of rug shops who are outwardly affable and plausible, and who live on the exploitation of child labor, and whose soothing apologetics for Islam are particularly plausible and therefore particularly dangerous, need to be treated just as warily)understand that the jig is up. No more even of Ahmad Rashid telling us, absurdly, at the beginning of his book Jihad that the word "Jihad" really has nothing to do with violence, it's the internal struggle blah blah blah. Basta.

And where are those nuclear weapons? And what is the likelihood that they will fall into hands even more unpleasant and even more dangerous than the Pakistani generals who currently, we are assured, have them in their control? And what provisions are being made for these -- and why should not Pakistan be forced, on pain of total economic collapse through a Western boycott and a complete denial of Western aid, to turn those weapons over -- you know, like a dangerous cowpoke taking off his holster when he enters the church and the stern Marshal gives him a no-nonsense look? Pakistan is crumbling; it can be kicked over by economic measures. Is this what the rulers of that country want? And if they think they can save their children by sending them to the West, where many of them already are, let it be made clear that the continued permission to reside in the West will depend completely on their cooperation in this little matter of nuclear weapons.

If Musharraf is serious about turning away from full-fledged terrorism, he has to do a bit more than round up the usual suspects in Karachi, or go on the attack in Waziristan. He has to stop the cross-border attacks in Kashmir, and he has to figure out a way to let the Americans gain possession of those weapons, which he must know the government cannot control indefinitely, and there are plenty of Pakistanis who would not think twice about dropping them on Infidels -- or passing them on to others who would.

And he might start by distancing himself more from "the Arabs." Talk about a peaceful and "non-Arab" Islam. Discuss openly how the Arab Muslims massacre the non-Arab Muslims in Darfur. Talk about how the Muslim Kurds were massacred in Iraq, with not a syllable of protest from the Arab League. Talk about how the Berbers in Algeria and Morocco have had their own language, Tamazight, suppressed, their own culture ignored, and have often been forcibly arabized. Note that it was "the Arabs" who paid for the Taliban, and "the Arabs" who killed Sheikh Massoud, and "the Arabs" who are "paying for all these madrasas that cause such damage to Pakistani society." You get the idea. That is, if you are serious about using one kind of emotion -- anti-Arab or anti-foreign feeling, to achieve what you wish in doing a little version of Ataturk (baby steps). That is, if you see now -- one wonders, one doubts, one hopes -- just what the belief-system of Islam brings, wherever it goes. Possibly Mission Impossible. But worth a shot.

Posted by: Hugh at August 25, 2004 10:08 AM

And self defense is the duty of every non-Muslim.

Posted by: DCWatson at August 25, 2004 10:47 AM

Right on, Hugh! Cut through the crap! Let's hear more of that great Italian word: BASTA, BASTA, BASTA! Enough Islamofascism!

Posted by: Mentat at August 25, 2004 10:52 AM

It would be interesting (as always) to see what the Left have to say about this.
The amount of "in the dark" leftists I've debated about islam and jihad with that have informed me that "violent global domination is not an accurate assessment of what jihad actually is -- according to muslims" (or some other PC crap along the same tracks).

But here we have it yet again that many muslims don't see anything wrong with killing innocent people as long as they are doing it in the name of allah/jihad. So then muslims, when exactly does an act of jihad become an act of terrorism?
And if I suddenly declared that I was going to start blowing holes in every muslim I came across with a shot-gun , to spread the word of Jesus Christ , in the name of christianity, would the fact that I was doing it for religious reasons rather than just because I can't stand muslims, make it justified?
Apparently you and your leftist fan-club think so, oh but hang on, only if your a muslim carrying out jihad, but a christian doing the same thing for his/her religion is evil; right? Okay , glad we cleared that one up.

Posted by: Rikki at August 25, 2004 11:03 AM

To extend Hugh's eminent explanation to Arab influence in the United States. It's the Arabs that are funding disingenuous Middle Eastern studies programs in universities. It' the Arabs that are funding Muslim schools and that are seated on textbook-approval committees. It's the Arabs that have hired retired government experts, ex-diplomats and others to roam the halls of Congress and paid lobbyists or speakers at universities, think tanks, and meetings and symposiums of other influential groups. It's the Arabs that are funding and running the majority of mosques in this country that promote jihad.

What's wrong with this picture....I repeat, it's the Arabs!

Posted by: epg at August 25, 2004 1:03 PM

Jihadists, terrorists - let God sort them out.
Lock and load.

Posted by: Rottweiller at August 25, 2004 2:24 PM

At some point India will have to come to the inescapable conclusion that pakistan will never become a good neighbor & that as long as pakistan exists in it's islamic configuration it will be seeking, overtly & covertly, to destroy hindu India. Upon recognition of this fact they will have to make a hard decision with global implications. They can either continue to play tit-for-tat with the pakis in the vain hope that at some point in the future pakistan either becomes secular or can be persuaded to give up it's nuclear arsenal, OR they can force the issue now. The danger in postponing the inevitable, in continuing the current low-grade conflict with it's occasional flare-ups, is that this gives pakistan more time to expand it's nuclear arsenal & to improve the Guidance & targeting capabilities of it's missiles. At some point it will acquire enough to destroy India as well as arm other islamic nations with "the bomb". The danger in forcing the issue now to a final conclusion is obvious - India would take a nuclear hit from a pakistan with an itchy trigger finger. The difference being - attacked with nukes now but survive & win the war (i.e. destroy pakistan entirely) or wait & quite probably be attacked by nukes later on a scale that may not be survivable. Personally, I don't think that the pakis will ever give up their nukes & at some point they will use them against India. They have already done so much harm to "world peace" (whatever that is) by their willingness & enthusiasm for sharing their nuclear technology with a veritable rogues gallery of nations. We should back India at every turn in their conflict with the pakis & help them in whatever way we can, but ultimately, it will be India that will need to make a very difficult choice. We can't make that decision for them.

Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2004 2:40 PM

Hmmm. Suppose we accepted the idea that Jihad is just a personal struggle- for some of those who follow islam. While others use it to justify their terrorist activities. And to them, it is also personal...

So. While on a flight to, say, San Francisco:

"First time to California."

"Oh yes. I am on Jihad."

"Oh good for you! I hope it all works out."

How does this conversation end? With everyone arriving happy and alive, or as part of the debris raining down from a destroyed skyscraper? Are we just supposed to accept the defintion these people set, and Hope it is the correct(???!?) one?

Profile. Deport. Interment camps. Although the latter won't come into play until a few more practice Jihad as they believe it to be, in our countries.

Posted by: Gary at August 25, 2004 2:46 PM

As Infidels [whose lives have no sanctity unless we are backed by guns] suggest we don't waste time
arguing about this crap. Whether we or they call it Jihad or Terrorism : Islamists are out to kill Infidels .It would make sense to me if we sought India as our ally not bloody Pakistan but
Politics do make 'for strange bedfellows' they say.

Posted by: Morgane at August 25, 2004 6:59 PM

Jim:

You advocate that India take the bull by the horns now rather then wait. You are right in that. There are though a few strategic matters that India has to settle before it sets out on that course.

Examining this war ie the Jihad, it is about the dhimmification or submission of non-muslims, and failing that, killing them. As Pakistanis see it, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan may well destroy Pakistan and India. However, as far as Jihadi Pakistanis are concerned, a large part of the idolators of this world will be destroyed, at a cost of a mere 10% of the ummah. This, as far as the demented mind of the Jihadi is concerned, is a worthwhile victory for allah. India thus becomes vulnerable to a first strike. Such a policy of first strike has been advocated by senior generals in Pakistan. A similar threat has been made against Israel by Iran, giving the reasons that I have outlined above.

To counter this threat, India, like Israel, should make it clear, that if India or Israel are subjected to a nuclear attack, wiping out virtually all Hindus and Jews, then all Muslim nations will be subjected to a nuclear attack, whether involved or not. To fight the demented Jihadi doctrine, we may have to really employ the MAD doctrine.

I never thought that 'MAD' would have to be understood in the pschiatric sense. Oh what a world we have arrived at.

Posted by: DP111 at August 25, 2004 7:00 PM

CAIR is the enemy. Learn and know the truth and pass it on.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org

Posted by: Truth at August 25, 2004 8:37 PM

Pakistan Prime Minister Shujaat Hussain has said that Jihad is different from terrorism in as much as the former is a supreme duty of a Muslim, and the latter a crime.

This is a lot like claiming that if a poor person gets caught stealing they are a thief, but if a rich person gets caught stealing they are a kleptomaniac.

Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 9:32 PM

Whoa, Hugh! Another blistering post, I must admit. Hadn't really considered the Arab angle to Paki insanity. Oh, BTW, you write (quote)

" the idiotic anti-Americanism of the Indian political establishment all through the 1950s and 1960s (and hardly extinguished today)? "

From what I know, ignorant anti-americanism of the 50s and 60s vintage in India stands largely extinguished (that it continues to exist in India's communist party HQs as a museum attraction is another story) and the gigantic and increasing middle class, from what I know, newly discovering the joys of materialistic progress is as pro-US as any ever was in India. The then Govt in Delhi rushed to offer bases and support immediately after 9-11 when the US started to focus on Afghanistan. Also, it had critically sided with the US position on many a UN forum etc.

I'd rather India be considered a rather reliable ally in ther war on islamofascism.

Posted by: voletti at August 26, 2004 8:10 AM

India is going to be a very important ally in the future. It's time to let bygones be bygones - we're all in this global anti-jihad together.

Posted by: Mike at August 26, 2004 1:54 PM