Is anyone surprised? How do we help these people!
Someone come up wiyh an idea, quick...

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 12:25 AM

"This is the third major attack on tourists by rebels in the past 10 days."

Are these terrorists going to be hunted down and brought to justice?

Posted by: Joe61 at June 1, 2006 12:26 AM

Rebels? Cowards attack tourists. Men attack Men.

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 12:30 AM

Men who attack and kill civilians need to be brought to justice. We expect that to happen, even in war. Are terrorists in other countries allowed to kill civilians? What government in the world will allow this kind of thing? If it is known who is being this kind of killing, why are they not prosecuted?

Posted by: Joe61 at June 1, 2006 12:40 AM

"...third major attack on tourists by rebels...badly hit by two decades of a violent, secessionist militant movement"

As long as the press won't call a spade a spade, the "secessionist, militant rebels" will continue their attacking and killing spree as prescribed in the Qur'an. The media needs to identify this threat in specific, accurate terms such as, Islamic Jihadists.

Posted by: Xero G at June 1, 2006 12:52 AM

What government in the world will allow this kind of thing?
Are you a hopeful fool that intends to believe in dhimmitude at the expense of my head? I am sorry sir but I draw the line there. If you prefer to die than to take it hard to the enemy. I say GET LOST. There are plenty of visas for middle erastern countries, MOVE PLEASE?

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 12:54 AM

But, But, surely Mr. Busdriver you should understand...we are only doing our duty by preying on the stupid infidel...

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 2:01 AM

a violent, secessionist militant movement

Hey, that's even better than "a noble religion hijacked by a small minority of extremists".

But are they really secessionist? It's not really secession if you want the whole ball of wax, the entire enchilada. Israel would love to have the "Palestinians" secede. But no matter where we infidels try to hide in Dar al Harb, their holy book commands them to come find us:

Qur’an 2:191 "And kill them wherever you find and catch them."

Qur’an 4:89 "Seize them and kill them wherever you find them."

Qur’an 8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them."

Qur’an 33:60 "They will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering."

Posted by: special_guest at June 1, 2006 2:19 AM

Yeah,
We kmnow all that, and right back at them. Please dont post their BS

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 2:33 AM

tgusa,

I may be misreading the above comments, but perhaps you are too quick to criticize Joe61. I don't see any dhimmi behavior in his comments. Give the guy a break. He seems to be on our (anti-jihad) side. Save the anger for the jihadis.

Posted by: del at June 1, 2006 2:38 AM

Could one of the many Indian posters here at Jihad watch please tell us how the Indian press is treating this event? Are they calling the “rebels” jihadis or muslims or are they PC like the press here?

Posted by: SnowDawg at June 1, 2006 2:42 AM

Every time I am criticized I think hard on the point. However when someone apparently so sensitive that you can detect anger over the internet. Do you think there might be something to it?
http://www.company71.org/wtc.htm

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 2:48 AM

I suggest you take a good hard look at those innocents. We are coming "FOR" Them...

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 3:00 AM

Snowdawg,
Some of the media is PC but the majority is not. The Hindus know the story. Kashmir is the only state in India in which there is a majority muslim population. That is why the intensity of violence in that region. There are jihadis in every house. An effective solution would be to root them all out. But that would mean genocide. And Amnesty International is bothered about that. So the jihadis kill wnenever they can. It is so bad over there that when the army performs house to house searches, they climb on the rooftops of their localities and start shooting. It is like palestine. Every muslim household has an AK -47. Unless Amnesty realizes that zombies are not even entitled to animal rights, we Hindus shall continue to die in Kashmir.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 1, 2006 3:15 AM

Thank you del.

I really don't know what tgusa is refering to when he says, "Are you a hopeful fool that intends to believe in dhimmitude at the expense of my head?" I am not calling for dhimmitude and I am against Islamic Jihad. It sounds like tgusa is against everyone. My pastor recently said that assumption is the lowest form of communiction and I think this a good example.

When you, tgusa, tell me to get lost, it makes me think that you don't even care to know where I am coming from. The truth is, I don't think I should waste my time trying to talk to you anyway.

Good night!

Posted by: Joe61 at June 1, 2006 3:15 AM

Joe61
Talk to me directly if you believe your pastor is the all knowing! I follow a different path. But you attack me through others. Speak for yourself if you can.BTW you can take him with you!
t you don't even care to know where I am coming from.
No doubt!

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 3:41 AM

Good job tgusa,

You woke me back up!

I did speak to you directly and it sounds like it didn't do any good. I don't know why it is that I feel I need to defend myself to you. I guess it is my problem. The truth is, I have nothing against you, I just didn't like being attacked for no reason.

Islam has been at war with the rest of the world since it began. Like you, I would like to be a part of the solution rather than the problem. It doesn't help when we cannot take the time to find out who is with us and who is against us. I want to think that I am with you, but from the sounds of it, you don't want to have anything to do with me. I am with Mr. Spencer and the rest of the people on this sight who are opposed to Islamic Jihad. Will you please tell me what I said that led you to think otherwise?

Posted by: Joe61 at June 1, 2006 4:13 AM

The BBC reports that three "militants" that it says were "armed with hand grenades and assault rifles" were killed by a police in a firefight near the HQ of a Hindu organization (the RSS):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5035840.stm

I know nothing about this movement whose building was under attack, but the BBC seems more concerned to criticize them than the attackers. The article says that they are "militaristic" and "intolerant towards religious minorities" and that the man who killed Ghandi had once been a member of their organization; and the sidebar linking to previous stories has two stories with "hardliners" in the title.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 1, 2006 4:38 AM

The RSS is an organization of Hindu patriots who call a spade a spade. gandhi was indirectly responsible for the deaths of a million Hindus that occured at the time of partition of India into pakistan and bangladesh. That is why PC media targets RSS. gandhi called for "peace", meaning, give land of Hindus to create pakistan, do not mind if the muslims butcher Hindus in pakistan, let millions of muslims live in the fractured India, do not kill them, for all men are brothers. Peace.
Nathuram Godse downed gandhi, but only after partition. Don't think for a moment that Hindus like gandhi. Only the PC media likes gandhi, the great man of peace. I spit on his grave.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 1, 2006 4:58 AM

There are also stories that gandhi liberated India from the British by his "peaceful movement". Nothing is far from the truth. The British had agreed with us that if Hindu soldiers support them in WW 2, they will vacate. The Hindus fought with the British. But after the war was over, the British morale broke, or God knows what happened, they vacated almost all their colonies. They vacated India, China, Israel. But anyway, gandhi gets the credit. For pimping India, dividing her into 3 pieces, leaving us a muslim population that is a nuisance till date, and one day will lead to a collosal loss of Hindu life. The RSS are the people who wanted India the way it was, not carved up, so the PC media paints them black. The same PC media cannot print cartoons of thug mohammad.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 1, 2006 5:06 AM

Paul Johnson in Modern Times quotes Ho Chi Minh on Ghandi and peaceful protest: "let him try that in French Indo-China and see how far he gets". IOW, the British were not ruling with a very strong hand, at any rate compared to other Imperial powers, and, as you say, were ready to go anyway. Johnson doesn't care for Ghandi and thinks there was something phony about him. He quotes someone who financed Ghandi saying that it took a lot of money to keep him living in "simplicity". But in both cases I quote from memory: it's a long time since I read Johnson's book.

But whatever anyone thinks of Ghandi, making a thing about the man who killed him because he "had once been" a member of the organization that was attacked today seems to be stretching the concept of relevance pretty far.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 1, 2006 5:35 AM

Yojimbo,
It was Sarojini Naidu, one of gandhi's colleagues. The lady said "It costs a fortune to make gandhi live in relative poverty".

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 1, 2006 6:10 AM

Remembering the Farhud

Today marks the 65th anniversary of the Farhud. Arabic for “violent dispossession,“ this is the word used to describe the infamous pogrom of June 1, 1941, against the Jews of Baghdad. In its wake, the Farhud left some 200 dead, 2000 injured, and 900 Jewish homes destroyed. It was the beginning of the end of the Jewish community of Iraq, a community that had existed for twenty-six centuries, preceded Islam by a thousand years, and once numbered over 125,000 souls.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22594

One anniversary that won't be commemorated at the BBC or the New York Times one suspects.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 1, 2006 6:40 AM

"It costs a fortune to make gandhi live in relative poverty". Arjun, it seems that even the cost of living in poverty has gone up. Of course this is the same PC media that claimed that millions of deaths by starvation in Ukraine in 1932-33 were not caused by Stalin. We now know that the New York times reporter Walter Duranty, who received a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting was a tool for Stalin's propaganda to the West.
Ghandi seems like Neville Chamberlain, who gave Eastern Europe to Adolf Hitler and then declared that he had made "Peace For Our Time." The PC media want peace at any cost. These pacifists think that if you just give the bullys what they want they will leave you alone. They are too stupid to realize that the only way to defeat a bully is to stand up to him and fight him. The sad part is that it seems to be happening all over again. Will we never learn?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 1, 2006 7:40 AM

Bohemond,
Guess what Bohemond. Some media here have said the same thing as Yojimbo did in the final line of his post. Over here people are aware, lots of them. But the BBC is beyond me. Yes, gandhi was like chamberlain. These idiots never see the big picture, they just want their cocktails in peace, no matter how many die, they are safe, their kids are safe, and their future is secure.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 1, 2006 7:45 AM

Dear members of jihadwatch

Jihad is a tool, a weapon, to be used to subjugate and fulfill the objectives of Islam

First a little History

In 1947, when Pakistan was seperated from India, and states within the Subcontinent were given an option to join either India or Pakistan. The princely state of Kashmir, ruled by a Hindu Maharaja ,Hari Singh, wished to remain independant. This irked Pakistan who believed that the 'muslim majority' kashmir should be part of Pakistan. Pakistan first sent a envoy to 'convince' the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. When that failed, Pakistan subsequently enforced punitive measures against the state. After failing again, the Pakistan government sent in Pakistani regular army units disguised along with tribesmen (not unlike present day sudan) to annexe the state.
After unsuccessfully trying to resist the looting, raping hordes from Pakistan, the Maharaja appealed to India, and acceded to India to prevent this aggression. The Indian army halted the progression of this marauding invader. But instead of liberating Kashmir, the then Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Jawarhar Lal Nehru, approached the UN for a peaceful resolution to this issue. The United Nations issued a resolution for a mutual ceasefire, for Pakistan to hand over land it illegally occupied to India, and "AFTER THAT", India is to conduct a free and fair plebiscite to determine the status of Kashmir.
Pakistan violated the ceasefire in 1965, by trying to invade Kashmir in the hope that the local population would support the invasion, which totally backfired and was repressed by Indian forces. This incursion led to a ceasefire treaty called the Shimla agreement which is frequently violated by Pakistan(1999 Kargil incursion being a notable breach).
There is also a very important economic aspect linked to the Kashmir issue. 4 of Pakistan 5 major rivers run from Indian Kashmir to Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and subsequently to Pakistan. The water flow, presently regulated under the Indus Water treaty, is a lifeline to Pakistan's agricultural industry and that is why Kashmir is referred as the 'jugular vein of Pakistan'.

Now what has happened in both sides of Kashmir

Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is called Azad Kashmir which means free Kashmir. But in reality it is just a puppet state for Islamabad
Ministers are sworn in with a declaration that they want to accede to Pakistan. Government officials are appointed only if they declare their loyalty to Pakistan. All important decisions regarding administration, defence, economy (or lack of it) is taken care of by the ministry of Kashmiri affairs in Islamabad. To further boost "islamic loyalty" in the region, the Pakistan government has imported Taliban style tribals from Pakistan's Northwestern regions and resettled them over there marginalizing the original inhabitants. Any efforts to protest for the true independence of Azad Kashmir are met with brutal suppression. The infrastructure is non existent; there is a woeful shortage of doctors and medical institutions, educational institutions and freedom of expression. The government of Pakistan has suppressed, subjugated and marginalized these people.

Indian Kashmir (defined as heaven on earth-before the 'so called insurgency')
The Indian government first of all kept a autonomic status for Kashmir, allowed tax incentives for industries to develop in Kashmir, set up educational and medical institutions in Kashmir, and improving the infrastructure of the state. Up to 1989, the year in which, the "insurgency" happened, life in Kashmir was prospering. Tourism was bringing in great revenues for the state. The Indian government even gives special privileges for Kashmiris in terms of educational and employment opportunities. Muslim women refused to wear burkhas till 1989, until they started to be gunned down for that "crime". Everything changed after that. Terrorism became rampant. The ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus and their mass exodus, the imposing of sharia on kashmiris, backed by the threat of a bomb blast or a AK-47 bullet. Kashmiri muslims believed in jihad, and many of them still do. But all they blindly seek to acheive is the draconian ignorance that is 'azad kashmir' .
After 2 years, the army controlled the insurgency movement, after which Pakistan induced more hardcore jihadis, veterans from aghanistan, who wouldn't be so easily swayed by silly concepts such as peace and development. And these foreign mercenaries,who have their bases from Pakistan, have been running the show ever since, by infiltrating India’s borders and hiding with Pakistani Islamic Sympathizers.
Their motives are simple 'Islamize kashmir and remove all infidels therein'
This is not a freedom movement; it is a greedy, politically and economically motivated Islamic crusade, a lesser jihad of sorts portrayed as a freedom struggle.

The Kashmiris after years of brainwash, are now beginning to realize that being with India is the only true way to a secular prosperous future.

***this is a website about harkat al Mujahideen-a 'freedom fighter' in kashmir--see it for yourself***---www.harkatulmujahideen.org/---

They advocate jihad in its true meaning. Islam will never stop attacking prosperity, because that is what it lacks. It doesn't seek to create prosperity, but rather prefers to rob and destroy the prosperity of secularism for its own survival. This is what we are fighting against.

for a free world

the hindu

Posted by: thehindu at June 1, 2006 7:51 AM

"We are in the struggle, fighting against the barbaric and wicked Indian Army to rescue & save our downtrodden helpless Kashamiri Muslim brothers"
From harkatulmujahideen.org
-----------------------------------------------
WOW, ok so let me get this right, India moves in to protect the people who don't want to live the way you do and so you bomb them, BUT the Indian army doesn't go bombing random muslims....K....Hold on....ouch....my head is hurting.....*POP*....................
Erik will not be able to continue this as his head just "popped" (ie exploded) from the shear stupidity of what he quoted here, thank you for your understanding in this matter...

Posted by: Erik at June 1, 2006 10:17 AM

Anyone that goes to a mideast country that has a islamic population takes their lives in their hands.

Boycott all muslim owned businesses and muslim occuppied countries until the muslims fix the violence. I think this may take a while.......

Posted by: Texican at June 1, 2006 11:02 AM

The line about how expensive it was to keep Gandhi in poverty was made by Gandhi...in the movie...it was Ben Kinglsey, an actor, who actually said it.
Everyone has their supporters and detractors. Gandhi, being a controversial figure certainly had/has his.
The Hindu is right, there will be no end to jihad untill infidels put an end to it...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 1, 2006 11:06 AM

tgusa said

Please dont post their BS

Wait: on a website dedicated to informing people how the Qur'an justifies violence against non-Muslims, you don't want me to quote any passages from the Qur'an that justify violence against non-Muslims?

Qur'an 6:66 "And if a fellow infidel poster shall be thrown headlong into mischief [telling you not to quote from the Qur'an], then find them wherever they are, and smite at their neck with a wet noodle. It will be a fierce noodling, a horrible noodling."

Posted by: special_guest at June 1, 2006 11:20 AM

Qur'an 6:67 "And furthermore shall they be painted with the tarred brush and bedeck'd with the feather of fowl."

Posted by: Eisenhund at June 1, 2006 11:40 AM

duh_swami,
It was not made for the movie. It is written in Sarojini Naidu's biography. gandhi said, a lot of my people are poor, so I'll walk around in a loincloth. For the love of Mike, even then loincloth was worn by labourers, men who worked in the fields in a tropical country. And this is certainly not a solution to absolve poverty. Anyways, sticking to this topic, special mud huts were made for this traitor wherever he went, the nut refused sleeping in state guest houses on the grounds that "my people are poor". And he obviously had more than 500 morons who were on the gravy train with him, and they won't sleep in guest houses either. So, huts for them too. Then this oaf managed to get a handloom from somewhere and started weaving. India had weaving plants then, but this oaf said that this is the way to abolish poverty. And he had lots of them distributed. Point is, he was dotty to the core. He did not know his history, did not know his people, was oblivious to the suffering of Hindus under muslim rule, and betrayed them all.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 1, 2006 11:44 AM

theHindu, Your summary of Kashmir's history is quite good. I'd just like to add a few points here.

First, while it is true that the Maharajah of Kashmir was a Hindu, it was not because he was a Hindu that he shied away from joining with Pakistan (as the Pakistanis would have you believe). The fact is that the territory of Jammu & Kashmir is very much mixed, with large areas that are predominatly Hindu (such as the Jammu region) and an even larger chunk that is predominantly Buddhist (i.e. Ladakh and Leh). The muslims are a majority in ONLY a small chunk of the state (i.e. the Kashmir valley) and even in this small chunk there are other minorities such as the Kashmiri Hindus (called Pandits), Sikhs and Christians. It is no wonder that the Maharajah hesitated. Of course, the forced invasion by the Pakistani jehadists, caused him to make up his mind pretty quickly in favor of the State joing India. The Indian forces were successful in rebelling the jehadists, but not before they had managed to occupy a large chunk of the land.

It is also interesting that while it was India which raised the issue of Pakistan's illegal occupation of Azad (ie 'free', a misnomer if ever there was one) Kashmir; it is the Pakistanis who currently keep harping on the UN resolutions. Then, as now, the UN was totally inept at resolving the issue. Rather than ask Pakistan to vacate its illegally occupied territory, the UN decreed that a plebiscite be arranged in the state of Jammu & Kashmir to assertain the will of the people. This was strange since none of the people in pre-independence India were given a similar choice in deciding whether to opt for India or Pakistan. Of course the plebiscite issue, as pointed by theHindu is a moot one not only because over 50 years have passed since this resolution, but also because Pakistan has completely changed the population demographics within "Azad" Kashmir. Oddly enough, it is India that has followed the spirit of the UN resolution by actually having a law barring non-Kashmiris from settling in the Indian portion of Kashmir (i.e. Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution).

Finally, despite the generally held belief that it is the unresolved issue of Kashmir that prevents peace within the Indian subcontinent, in actuality Kashmir is just a visble symptom of a much deeper problem, i.e. the inability of Islam to tolerate a non-Islamic society in its midst. Even if India were to offer the whole of Kashmir on a platter to Pakistan, the Pakistanis would find a way to continue warfare with India on some other trumped up charges. That is the nature of Islam... and, unfortunately, despite the past and recent history of India... most Indians still don't get it!! Any treaty with muslims is not worth the paper its written on. This is true whether one is dealing with muslims within the Indian subcontinent, or with muslims in the middle East.. or muslims anywhere else in the World.

P.S. This is off topic... but...I have to disagree with duhSwami about the Gandhi quote. I have heard of this quote as being made by Sarojini Naidu long before the movie by Richard Attenborough (sp?) ever came out.

Posted by: Razdan at June 1, 2006 12:38 PM

the hindu writes: The Kashmiris after years of brainwash, are now beginning to realize that being with India is the only true way to a secular prosperous future.

I presume you mean Kashmiri muslims in your quote above. The non-muslim Kashmiris (which includes Hindus, Buddhitsts, Sikhs and Christians) have ALWAYS stood with India.

Unfortunately, I don't quite agree with your assessment of Kashmiri muslims. While most of them are getting somewhat weary of the jihad that has been waged, it would be a mistake to imagine that they still don't harbor ideas of a Nizam-e-mustafa (i.e. islamic rule). This is despite the fact that many muslims themselves have suffered under the jehadists who not only extort money from the local Kashmiri muslims but also forcibly marry Kashmiri muslim girls. In this they exhibit what I would call the Naseem syndrome... (i.e. though Naseem belongs to a sect within Islam that has been brutally persecuted by the mainstream muslims.. she still identifies herself as a staunch muslim who yearns for Islamic rule.. go figure).

Posted by: Razdan at June 1, 2006 1:00 PM

SnowDawg asks: Could one of the many Indian posters here at Jihad watch please tell us how the Indian press is treating this event? Are they calling the “rebels” jihadis or muslims or are they PC like the press here?

I have to disagree with Arjun Sevak on this. I do believe that the mainstream English-medium Indian press IS even far more PC than the press here. The press constantly refer to the jehadists as 'militants' or worse as 'misguided youth'. Quite often the press, when reporting killing of Hindus by the so-called militants, will purposely leave out the fact that the victims were Hindus (i.e they just mention the locality).

Posted by: Razdan at June 1, 2006 1:09 PM

joe61.
I am not agianst you!
Yes it does seem that most of the world is in denial of the truth.
Do you go to church and see a lot of atheists there?
The Qur'an justifies violence against non-Muslims.
So exactly what part do these alleged Governments play in all this?
And could you describe this elusive civilian you speak of?
Is that the one who puts their AK in the closet just before the Marines move in?

Special, if you believe that posting verses is helpful, Ok, I may disagree but I could be wrong.
My Apologies,

Posted by: tgusa at June 1, 2006 6:10 PM

Even if the news is PC, don't people see it, and conclude that it is unsafe to go to Kashmir? Even if they don't mind paying a Jiziya.

Why not take a trip to Darjeeling - it's much safer there, GNLF notwithstanding.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 1, 2006 9:06 PM

Razdan

I regret omissions in my post. I had to write it quickly as I was pressed for time.

I agree with your points, namely with the demographics of kashmir, and how the problem cannot be solved anymore from a socio-economic angle.

and I meant "kashmiri muslims". Thank you for the correction.

I wanted to clarify my assessment. I believe that Kashmiri Muslims want to establish a muslim state and still enjoy the economic and security benefits of being affiliated to secular India. A sort of pseudo secular utopian islamic setup, that "moderate muslims" seek to set up all over the world.(if you want the definition of that moderate islamic utopia-please ask a moderate muslim because I certainly don't undestand that concept)

Hope I came across more clearly this time

Regards

the hindu

Posted by: thehindu at June 2, 2006 3:07 AM

the hindu,
Please get this straight. There ain't no such animal as a "kashmiri muslim". There is only muslim. You can see what they have done. They have taken over host countries by force and by demographica. That is why we should not be afraid of demographics. That is why we must recognize them as viruses. Else the next state they shall demand will be U.P.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 2, 2006 6:37 AM

Here's an interesting item from the Times of India. Indians have started waking up. Time the West did too!

'Pattern of terrorism changing in India'
Abhay Vaidya
[ Saturday, June 03, 2006 02:31:37 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

PUNE: With terrorists having surfaced boldly in non-metro cities, such as Nagpur, Aurangabad, Bangalore (2005), and at Akshardham temple (Gujarat, in 2004), a distinct change in the pattern of terrorism is unfolding in India, according to Lt Gen (retd) D B Shekatkar.

"Terrorism in Kashmir has reached a saturation point. One can expect increasingly bold attempts in the smaller centres in the country," Shekatkar, who has fought with insurgents in the Northeast and Kashmir told TOI on Friday.

"The fact that terrorists are penetrating deep into India means that they are getting logistical support from local groups and sleeper cells. These are far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves as they are hidden in society.

The police alone cannot detect them. The citizenry needs to be alert against suspicious activities in the neighbourhood and help the police in detecting these subversive elements," Shekatkar said.

Like in Israel, the society at large will have to maintain a high degree of alertness in detecting and reporting suspicious activities, Shekatkar said.

Shekatkar served as the operational head of the unified command in the Northeast, divisional commander in Kashmir and as additional director-general (military operations) and perspective planning at the Army headquarters.

He said attacks on religious centres and on establishments of RSS were aimed at instigating the population and driving it towards extreme steps as a ploy to ignite communal tensions and destabilize the country.

“At the same time, attacks on India's leading centres of commerce and industry, education and technology cannot be ruled out as a part of the same strategy," he noted.

Shekatkar pointed out that last year's shooting at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore during an international conference there was part of the strategy to spread terror in different sectors of society.

States like Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Goa and Andhra Pradesh which were leading in commerce, IT and education "could develop into the most dangerous hubs of terrorist activities", he said.

According to Shekatkar, unlike in the past, now terrorists are educated, tech-savvy and also better armed.

According to the jehadi philosophy of war, the terrorists believe in destabilising India by "fighting on all fronts" by targeting the economy, industry, religious centres besides fighting on political, diplomatic and military fronts.

"If we want to combat terrorism, we have to combat it on all fronts and not leave it just to the police or the military. Killing terrorists cannot be the only strategy. The society at large has to maintain a high degree of alertness," he said.

Changing pattern of terrorism in India:

* Terrorists moving to smaller towns and cities
* Better armed, tech-savvy, better qualified
* Hidden elements in society, sleeper cells providing logistics
* Citizens need to guard against suspicious activities

Posted by: Dunk at June 3, 2006 1:32 AM

Dunk,
Nice to see you again. Yes, they are in my city and lots of other cities as well. They are called as "your friendly neighborhood muslim". They sleep in their mosques and their shacks, and wait for the word of the head honcho before they strike. There shall be attacks on our industries and against the common people. There shall be riots by the muslims. The per capita income of India would be much higher if it had no muslim population. This population has no contribution in the economy and instead pulls it down. (healthcare, electricity, funding for "modernizing" madrasas, subsidized food, vaccination, awareness campaigns, ). Dunk, have you ever been to India ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 3, 2006 6:39 AM