Why do Muslim terrorists attack in Jammu-Kashmir? Because they can. The Muslim claim to Kashmir differs from their claim to all of India, or for that matter to Spain (Al-Andaluz), to Israel, to Sicily, to the Balkans, to Bulgaria, to Rumania, to Hungary, to all the areas once dominated by Muslims, only in the ability to push that claim. Of course, the entire world in the end must submit to Islam, be dominated by Islam (though non-Muslims may, should they accept what many Muslims continue to believe is perfectly just, those unambiguous conditions of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity whose sum is the status we now describe as "dhimmitude").

Any land area, even within the Westeern countries, where Muslims come to dominate, will by many of them be regarded as "Muslim land." The claims made by various local Muslims, no matter how comical they may seem to us, such as that for the "Caliphate" in Cologne, or the insistence that certain areas in Malmo or Rotterdam or Muslim-populated towns in France, are not to be treated as under the control, any longer, of representatives of the Infidel nation-state, and that attitude is being demonstrated even now, both by Muslims and by often fearful representatives (police, firemen, teachers) of that nation-state.

Jammu-Kashmir is part of India. It is not part of Pakistan. And the notion that any part of India in which there is to be found a Muslim-majority population is one where therefore the Muslim claims have legitimacy, is absurd. For what would follow, logically, would be a turning of all sorts of places within India into little Muslim-ruled areas. And given that the Muslim rate of population growth is always higher, in India and elsewhere, then the non-Muslmi population, and given that Muslims have not hesitated to push out large numbers of non-Muslims (think of the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced to flee when threatened with death), either one takes a firm stand, and rejects Muslm demands or, by even hinting at "negotiating" (as the Israelis do, to their own sorrow, and in failing to make their own case, have also helped Infidels in Europe understand that the siege against Israel, that Lesser Jihad, is hardly the only, or even the most important, of the local Jihads now being waged, and that will continue to be waged, using all the instruments now available, unless met with well-informed, implacable, relentless opposition.

India should not be "negotiating" over Jammu-Kashmir. There is no possiblity of such a negotiation satisfying Muslims permanently. Since India now possesses this part of Kashmir (Pakistan also controls part), any negotiation will only lead to further Indian concessions, possibly even the surrender of land. What Pakistan would offer -- a grand agreement to cease support for cross-border terrorism -- is no concession at all. Pakistan cannot offer up as a concession what it has a moral and legal duty to do anyway.

And the same is true elsewhere in the world. One suspects that the outside world will be unsympathetic to the Indians unless and until they all begin, at the same time, to talk about the belief-system of Islam, and why concessions here and there make no sense, given the ultiamte unappeasable demands that Muslims must, if they are to be true Muslims, continue to make on all Infidels.

Doesn't it make more sense for Infidels everywhere to recognize this, to discuss it openly, to force Muslims to discuss their own ideology, and be embarrassed or chagrinned by such discussion, so that not only will Infidels start supporting each other in their local conflicts, but so that some Muslims will have to cease the taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and begin to admit that something in Islam, a good deal in Islam, must change if it is not to make Muslims permanently immiscible and un-integrable and regarded with permanent suspicion and hostility by Infidels everywhere.

Posted by: Hugh at April 27, 2006 10:42 AM

l see a lot of common ways the country of India and Israel have tried to ignore and give in to muslims. and their fear of how the rest of the world looks at the them. they have to face reality, the world will not save them. they need to make demands of the muslims to change their ways, reform, or have their religon given status of being on a terrorist list, and banned from India.

Posted by: Lulu at April 27, 2006 10:49 AM

Cowardly yellow bellied sneak attacks in the tradition of their awful prophet. These modern day Muslims aren't doing anything Muhammad didn't do. And the Koran commands all Muslims to emulate the life of Muhammad. That's why we have such a mess. That's why Islam is the worst religion on planet earth.

Posted by: dennisw at April 27, 2006 11:50 AM

Prophet Muahmmed had shown the way to his followers how to spread Islam, i.e. through cold-blooded murder, kidnappings, rapes and forcible conversions. And he also said that a true Muslim will go to heaven in any case, whether he kills the infidels or he is killed while spreading the religion (of peace). This is exactly what his true followers are doing today, in spite of the fact that these medieval methods are totally outdated concepts in this modern world. Dhimmitude-stricken countries like India are doomed; they will sooner or later come under the yoke of Islam.

Posted by: cincinnatikid at April 27, 2006 12:21 PM

Hugh

Despite all their differences, and varying degrees of Dhimmitude towards India's domestic Muslims, this is one thing that all Indians, and Indian political parties are united on - retaining J&K. In India, maps of the country normally show the entire state, including the Pak occupied part of Kashmir and the Chinese occupied part of Ladakh, as parts of India. If any maps from foreign publications show the de-facto boundaries, those pages are stamped with a "disclaimer" -

The borders of India as shown on this map is neither precise nor accurate

The only concession that has ever been mooted has been acknowledging the status quo, and recognizing the Pakistan occupied parts, like Muzzafarabad, as a part of Pakistan. But that's as far as it goes.

The problem Kashmir, and Kashmiri Pundits face, is somewhat different. Unlike all other states in India, Kashmir has a special status in the Indian constitution called Article 370. This provision disallows Indians outside the state from owning property in the whole of Jammu & Kashmir, and has a whole list of other restrictions on Indians outside the state. Contrast this to say, Malaysia or Indonesia that have been liberally settling Muslims in Infidel dominated areas, like Borneo, Sulawesi, et al.

Also, the state is not uniformly Muslim; as Razdan pointed out in a different thread several weeks ago, you have a completely Hindu Jammu (which has a lower Muslim population than the national average), Buddhist Ladakh in the East, and Punan Kashmir, that has the Pundits. Despite these differences, it has been a long standing policy of Indian political parties (including the BJP) to pander to local Muslim dominated parties, like the National Conference. That has meant the political marginalization of the state's infidels.

Recently, there has been talk about splitting the state into smaller states or union terretories, like Jammu and Ladakh, so that the Infidels in those states can breathe more freely. I haven't heard of that lately. But that's the only thing that India can do to take this issue totally off the table.

As an aside, I don't believe there are that many people still stupid enough to tour Kashmir. Jammu, maybe, since there are the Amarnath and Vaishno-Devi temples, which are worth visiting, and terrorism has largely stayed out of both Jammu & Ladakh.

P.S. Razdan, where are you these days?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 27, 2006 12:54 PM

I forgot to add above the most important point - Article 370 allows Kashmir to have its own constitution - a right/privilege that no other state in India has.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 27, 2006 1:06 PM

dennisw

Muslims always make outrageous claims on all sorts of things but chiefly claims of sovereignty over Infidel lands. They do even so even though there are no real reasons for the claim, in the hope that in any negotiation they will get something, no matter how small. Then there is the matter that if even a small part of the fake claim is given to them, it will give quasi-legitimacy to other parts of the fake claim, which later generations can exploit.

There are two ways to annul this tactic

1. Do not give an inch

2. Make similar and even more outraguous claims on the muslim party as a tactic to annul their claim.

In India's case - India should make a claim on all of Kashmir. This, it has done, but does not follow up vigorously in all international forums.

Israel should make forceful claim on all Eretz Israel, and continually insist that the Arabs that are there, are occupying forces and have no right to be there - just as the Arabs do for Israel as a whole. When the likes of the BBC pick this up, they will have no alternative but to set this against the fraudulent claims of the so called Palestinians.

I find it surprising that Israel, which already has Judaea and Samaria, should even consider giving them up, and worse, consider joint sovereigny of Jerusalem. This only occurs in the last stages of the debilitating disease of Dhimmitis. When any nation, and particularly Israel with its thousands of years of attachment to Jerusalem, can think of sharing its capitol, then the end of that nation is nigh- unless it changes its mindset. When Israel considered sharing Jerusalem, leave alone actually offering it, it effectively legitimised Arab claims to it - all of it.

If Israel wants real peace, then it is living in fantasy land. There will never be real peace for Israel as the Jihad against Jews is mandatory. What it can achieve though, is to make terrorism or war very expensive for the Jihadis, by seizing and permamently annexing land for every act of terror, and thus reducing or virtually eliminating terrorism. It has all the reasons - legal, moral, Biblical and rules of war, to justify this.

I find it surprising that only in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the winner is supposed to give up land that it acquired as a consequence of the loser initiating the war. Loss of land by an aggressor after losing the war, is in fact justice, and a warning to others.

The Jihad is about acquiring Infidel lands, among other things. Loss of land to the Infidel, particularly Jews is against all that Jihad is about. India and Israel should take a chapter from the Jihadi manual and apply it against the Jihad.- taste their own medicine comes to a mind.

Posted by: DP111 at April 27, 2006 4:26 PM

But what about all the Christians, like Timothy McVeigh, who blew up federal employees and (probably a few passing) tourists in the name of God?

Or the Christian Jeffrey Daumer who killed and ate homosexuals in the name of the Crusader's God?

Or the Christian Ted Bundy who tricked unsuspecting women, by wearing a fake cast on his arm, and then kidnapped, raped and murdered them for the glory of his Trinitarian Deity.

Oh, wait, they didn't do it in the name of God, just in answer to their own despotic, misogynistic, or psychotic urges.

Our lunatics don't need to blame everything on/credit everything to the Creator.

And we don't set up websites to praise them as 'Lions of Jehovah', or send blood money to their families when they are "martyred".

We just wished they had been locked up in a steel-walled boobyhatch before their insane impulses became uncontrollable.

Islam is like a madhouse turned inside out.

Those who try to leave it are imprisoned.

Or have to flee the country.

Or are killed.

Inshallah?

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 27, 2006 8:37 PM