Violetti,

U C wazza point of making peace with these mujahid wogs...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 7:05 AM

"'Sheikh Rashid is a mujahid and played a great role in jihad. I would like to meet him and ask him why he is denying his involvement in training mujahideen. I had personally visited Rashid’s camp,' he (Khalid) said. "

Out of modesty, no doubt.

/sarcasm

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 17, 2005 8:27 AM

Vik-rant, what is the point in decending down to this type of racist language. 25 years ago you too would have been termned a "wog" in the UK. I know as I was calld it several times to as a youngester.

Having got that off my chest the point in case should not be dismissed lightly. Sheikh Rashid Ahmed (SRA) is a symptom of all that creterin Zia-Ul-Haq started.

He was the primary instigator for the "state of the pure" to help start insurgency in the Indian side of Kasmir on the one side & the Taliban on the other side.

Had he got any sense of pride and justice (as Islam instructs him to) SRA should resign and name & shame. Failing that Mushi should force him...but will any of that happen ...ofcourse not. The MMA and other forces will secure his position.

And so the corruption that has dogged Pakistan from day one will continue. We are collectively taking our trip to hell, the Taliban which Zia helped set up are now fighting us...I mean how ungrateful are they?

It is true that Mullah Omar has a blanket that the prophet (PBUH) himself used to wear...but will it protect him like he thinks.

Pakistan's collective trip to hell will take us *all* to judgement day...so come Vikrant let us hold hands and walk to that day and recieve judgement from Allah (swt). Hopefully RSA will be there too!

Posted by: Naseem at June 17, 2005 8:35 AM

Plz dont call the troubles in the valley insurgency. If it had been genuine insurgency then 500,000 Kashmiri Pandits wouldn't have been evicted from their homes. JKLF and Hurriyat may bray about how their "freedom struggles" is "secular". Probably u in Pakistan were never told about how they were evicted from Kashmir. I'm a part Sindhi myself. My Grandpa was kicked out of Sindh on to the trains of death during partition. He was rejected a visa 8 times to visit his birthplace. He died an accomplished yet a broken man here in UK thousands of miles from his birthplace (Hyderabad,Pakistan). Prensence of 140 million Muslims in India defeats the purpose of partition. How many Hindus in Pakistan have freedom of worship? How many are in the top echelons of Pakistan? Pakistan may go to hell if it wants India is not going down with it. In last while Pakistan was busy training an army of jihadis, India was busy building an army of 50 million graduates. For once even after 20000 Hindu deaths in valley and drastically aletered demographic balance of Hindu majority Jammu. Hindus have never for once taken up arms. But if peace in achieved achieved at the cost of Kashmiri Pandits, then Naseem they're determined to take up arms.

BTW doesnt Paki constitution state that Ahamaddiyas are non-Muslims???

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 9:55 AM

Naseem check this intrestoing interview wit a guy from JeI-Pakistan. :
http://www.vinnomot.com/Islam/JamaatAgenda.htm

Quote:
Q: This is a great vision since this was not even possible for the Muslim dynasties and Moguls who ruled India for the last 700 years.

A: True. That is because they had never really established the Muslim Empire. Though the Kings were Muslims they had entertained the Hindus in positions of power. When you make an unequivocal statement that only Muslims are voters and declare that India is Islamic republic, then automatically the people will become Muslims. Little bit of terror had to be applied to the heart of Hindus and Christians. I will give you a best example. The portions now constitute Pakistan had 25% Hindu population before Independence. After independence lot of Hindus migrated to India. Yet after the migration, Pakistani Hindu population was 15%. Do you know what is the percentage now? It is less than 1%. How was this made possible? How did the Hindus converted to Islam in a short span of 20 years whereas for 700 years they had never converted to Islam? That is purely because of the terror of the partition. That terror forced the Hindus who remained in Pakistan to become Muslims. Pure and simple. JI used similar techniques in Punjab and Sindh each time a riot breaks out in India, we had used that pretext to strike terror among the Hindus, Christians and Ahmaddiahs. The similar terror will be at the heart of the every non-Muslim both Hindu as well as Christian in coming years in entire India. Qazi is a analytical genius who knows every strategy that is used by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) will be and should be used in India to achieve the total submission to Allah.

further he says...

Q: Yet the popular uprising in Kashmir was missing in 1965 as well as in 1948.

A: That is true. That may be because of the clout of Sheik Abdullah of Kashmir during 1948 war. Actually the Muslim population in Jammu Kashmir was only marginally higher than Hindus. Muslims constituted 58% while the non-Muslims constituted the 42%. Hence the operation Topac aimed at eliminating the Kashmiri Pandits from the valley. We thought all of them will go to India. Instead many went to Jammu and only very little went to India. Hence we had to ask Harkatul to start terrorising the Hindus in Jammu. We also expected large scale war against Muslims in Jammu as well as in all the parts of India because of the killings. Indian govt suppressed these information. Another thing that was not done is the complete removal of Buddhists and Hindus from Jammu and Kashmir. We could do only in Valley and not in jammu and Ladakh. Hence the population of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir is around 65% only according to Harkatul.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 11:03 AM

Vikrant,

Yes, we Ahammadis are considered non-muslim. Not quite infedels like the Sikhs but non-muslim.

Only the sunnis consider themselves pure. All the rest Shias included are impure.

Ahammadis come low in the pecking order and indeed our future is as uncertain as the christians, hindus and sikhs of Pakistan.

There is not much love lost between me and the sunnis of power. Those bastards would always prefer a corrupt sunni to a decent Ahmaddia.

You are also right in that Ahammadias or any other sect will never be allowed to have a position of power.

As its neighbors India and China get closer & richer Pakistan will fell isolated, get politically weaker, less able to control the population and increase Jihad.

If the MMA take power then in my view all bets on peace are off. Ties with America will be severly curtailed or Taqqiya & kitman will be the norm. Jihad will increase & then it will only be a matter of time before the nucleur Jahadi is born in the land of the pure. In fact he/she may be alive today.

From that point on we-ll all be forced to take the road to judgement day!

Posted by: Naseem at June 17, 2005 11:13 AM

Naseem-
You are offended by the term wog.
However, I remember a past post of yours in which you refer to the fact that you are sending your son to an "infidel" university.

That term is highly offensive to non muslims.

It also tells me a great deal about how you, a supposed "moderate", view those not of your faith.

Either extend the courtesy you would like to the rest of us, or stop complaining.

Posted by: treehugger at June 17, 2005 11:45 AM

A.Q. Khan for President of PAKISTAN!

Start printing the bumperstickers now!

One for every carbomber in Islam!

The cabinet is already in place.

"The future's so bright, I have to wear shades."

Posted by: BigSleep at June 17, 2005 11:53 AM

Vikrant,

Yes. Kashmir valley is a lost cause where India's concerned. Unlike the punjab insurgency, chances of a peaceful settlement for the 'kashmir problem' within the Indiian constitution isn't plausible.

From what I remember, Jagmohan as governer of J&K shook things up pretty much there and restored sanity in J&K by deploying state funds to improve infrastructure etc in the Hindu, Shia and Buddhist areas of J&K. He was also the guy who used the iron hand of the state to quell what could've easily been a wholsesale revolt in Srinagar's lal Chowk on 26 jan 1989. (or was it 1990, can't remember). Now the latest news from India is that ex-PM Vajpayee writes PM Manmohan a letter echoing the security establishment's grave concerns about the direction of things under the misplacedly overoptimistic peace-process brouhaha.

Naseem,
So, you're Ahmediya, eh? And you still find the heart to defend Pakistan now and then, eh? Didya know you'd find far, far greater freedom, respect and opportunity in india than you're likely to see ever in Pakistan or B'desh? Blaming Sunnis or Zia or the MMA is the easy way out. Blame ISlam itself, where the whole mess started in the first place.

Posted by: voletti at June 17, 2005 12:02 PM

Naseem: Why do u or any Pakitani for that matter reamin silent on the issue of Kashmiri Pandits. Remember your religion may be different, still racially and ethnically we are realated. Have you ever given a thought that your ancestors may have been Hindu or Buddhiist or why you guys write Urdu in Arabic style? To you i'm an infidel but a Palestinian is a brother. Don't you realise Islam is making Indo-Aryans fight against each other. On what basis does Pakistan claim Kashmir? Surely Muslim majority is no criteria. India has as many non-Kashmiri muslims as Pakistan. On basis of cultural distinctiveness? On that basis every Indian state has right to independece.

Voletti: I'm just curious, wazza ur national affiliation...?

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 12:20 PM

An echo to Violetti above -- it is curious how certain members of the Indian "intellectual" class ape the attitudes of Western "intellectuals" in London or elsewhere, in mocking and denigrating those who, in perfectly understandable fashion, wish to recover India's Hindu past that was obscured by the hideous years of Muslim rule. Some (but not all) Muslims in India are outwardly more civilized and rational than, say, the Arab version -- the same phenomenon can be seen, however, among some (but not all)Lebanese Muslims. This simply reflects their being cheek-by-jowl with non-Muslims who need to be placated, and whose own ways may rub off. But Islam remains Islam, a mortal threat to India.

While the numbers of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians has dwindled in Pakistan and in Bangladesh, the numbers of Muslims has steadily risen in India. The former reflects a deliberate campaign of intimidation and persecution that caues people to leave or, in some cases, to adopt Islam in order to save themselves (think, fo rexample, of the forcing out of 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits).

In both Great Britain and the United States, coherent and unapologetic Hindu and Sikh immgrants can do much, perhaps more, to alert their fellow Infidel citizens, those touchingly trusting Christians and fearful-of-being-marginalized Jews, to recognize the menace of Islam. A little history lesson on what took place during the 250 years of Mughal rule, where there was much more of Aurangzeb and a lot less of that entirely unrepresentative syncretistic Akbar, would do much.

One has no way of knowing how many Indian-Americans or Indo-British or Indians visit Jihadwatch, it would be good if some among them alert others to its existence, to the fact that not everyone assumes that it is only the West that has been the only victim of Islam, and that whatever other differences may exist among various Infidels, they are as nothing compared to a world-threat, the threat and menace of Jihad which, it should be repeated, is not only or even mainly a direct military matter, but one where Da'wa and demographic takeover play their part as instruments of Jihad.

Not everyone is scornful of the idea of Hindutva, and not everyone ignores the work of Sita Ram Goel, or Koenraad Elst, or Francois Gautier. This is the place to come, if you have any sense of what has happened in the history of India, of the recovery of that history through the far more benign period of English rule (the English may have been colonialists, but unlike the Muslim overlords, wished to sympathetically study, rather than destroy, the Hindu past. There is no Muslim equivalent of Sir William Jones, and there never could be).

That is the end of my pitch to a billion or so people. Do drop in.

Posted by: Hugh at June 17, 2005 12:30 PM

Hugh:
Brilliantly put.
I've been an avid fan of Goutier's writings myself. And I dn't quite see hindutva as evil incarnate. rather ity maybe just what the doctor ordered for Indian culture nationalism to withstand the venomous assault of the jihadi hordes.

Vikrant:
My national affiliation? Suffice to say, am part-desi, spent my schooling years in des and am now married to a desi.

Posted by: voletti at June 17, 2005 12:56 PM

Me god Hugh u appear to be well versed wit Indian situation that most westerners. The so-called Saffronisation of history was a war cry for communists. Now the govt. has initiated what TOI glaringly call "detox drive". I'm especially furious to find in one of my cousin's history books to find certain derogatory sentences about Marathas (i.e my people). We sacrificed 2 million (including 100000 on a single day in the Third Battle of Panipat)over a span of 180 years to destroy Mughal Empire and estd. The Marathas Confedracy which saved India from further Islamification. An entire regiment of Indian army is named in their honour. Our warrior prince Shivaji (revered by 70 million Marathas around the world as virtual God) has been reduced to mere footnote. My ancestors atleast deserve a recognition in History books for their services to the nation.

I certainly hold S.R Goel and Dr.Elst in high regard
but Gautier is actually harming the cause of Hindutva by writing derogatory articles about Buddhism. Try www.voi.org for other western guys who dont suscribe to the notion of "facist" Hinudtva...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 3:52 PM

Those in India falling under "Open" category, the writing's on the wall, pack ur bags boys...

Muslims to get reservation for the first time in India. Dhimmitude in India. Check this Time of India article.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1145517.cms

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 5:02 PM

On what basis does Pakistan claim Kashmir?

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar

On the basis of bombing unsuspecting people - killing them.

Because those who do such things - are testifying that they MUST USE FEAR to get people to bow to their god.

They love evil - and show NO mercy - NOT realizing - that those who show NO mercy - NONE will be shown unto them in the Judgment - Because God is the Judge of ALL things - Because He created ALL things.

Woe unto those who sit themselves in the Seat of the One and Only Great and Holy God - The Judge of ALL things! before the appointed time - the Judgment of God.

Posted by: Beth at June 17, 2005 6:26 PM

Voletti

It was 1990 for sure. Coz Jihad in Kashmir actually started on 31st July 1989 when telegraph offices in Srinagar were blown up.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 6:45 PM

Voletti i've googled a bit on Jagmohan. I'm sursprised i knew a precious little about this guy. I was in my nappies when Jagmohan was the man that stood btwn Kashmir's accession to Pakistan...

http://www.kashmir-information.com/Jagmohan/index.html

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 17, 2005 6:59 PM