Musharraf needs to be overthrown. He doesn't give a hoot about stopping Taliban jihadi terrorists. Time to put somebody else on the throne over there, because he's absolutely worthless.

Posted by: sanman at April 1, 2007 1:07 AM

Let me guess, provoked by the Indian troops harassing a suspected kashmiri jihadist at a chackpoint. Which of course makes it completely justified, just like it does in "palestine"[sic], where harassment of palestinians who may or may not be terrorists is considered UN's # 1 priority.

BTW, does anyone know what's the status on the kashmiri status? More to the point, what could the U.S. and the India still do to ensure Kashmir remains with India or is the place already too infitrated with jihad for that to happen?

It would be probably be most interesting at this point to hold a plebiscite for all of kashmir, indian and the part illegally held by pakis. Give the kashmiris a option of being part of India or PAkistan.

The Indian portion would probably want to still be a part of India since the hindus and buddhists would vote that way and the muslims of kashmir valley would probably in the end choose to be a part of India, if for no other reason that leeching off India's economic success is preferable over being in paksitan in their dream "islamic state". The people of pak-held kashmir would for sure vote to be a part of India; they've largely been turned off of the idea of being a part of the islamic umma in pakistan largely due to their heinous and sappalling mistreantment by Pakis, especially the Northern Areas.

The interesting thing is, if India and Pakistan would ever just agree to let all the states in India, including kashmir, and all the provinces in pakistan, choose for themselves which country they want to be a part of, India would end up with all its original land plus well over half of pakistan's land. Balochistan, Pak-held kashmir and Sindh would all end up with India.

Granted, it would mean India would end up with new muslim states in the form of balochistan, sindh and PoK, but these are by and large muslims only in the most liberal and nominal sense, and largely pro-indian and pro-american in nature. India would be able to immediately go about de-islamisizing these peoples and making them once again prosperous states, safe for religous minorities, (a prime case being the 1.5 million hindu sindhis still in pakiland and the exiled hindu sindhis). Especially since decades of persecution and massacres have convinced these peoples the idea of "muslim brothers" united as one is just bulls***, a smokescreen used by muslims of a dominant group, i.e. arabs and arabized people like Pak "punjabs" to torture, steal from and kill subjected muslims at will. All while trying to unite them against kuffars to distract them from the problems they cause.

Indians I've talked to have largely confimred this to be true, including the fact that places like Pak-held Kashmir, (esp Northern Areas), Sindh and Balochistan are becoming increasingly pro-India and pro-America, due to ideological similarities between them and India and also due to conflicts with the ISI. The situation with these states has become markedly similar to that in Southern Sudan and Darfur, where non-muslims and very nominal muslims are being genocided and terorized by islamized and throughly arabized peoples. Hence, these provinces should be dealt with the same as with Southern Sudan and Darfur, which won't happen becasue nobody really cares about Sudan and the West STILL thinks Pakiland is and ally, (SIC, SIC, DOUBLE SIC).

As far as Indian held kashmir independence is concerned, I bet even if they did in fact get their islamic state, give it a few years and they'd be begging and pleading to go back to India after their islamic state goes were all the other ones before it went. Then, India could take in on condition that all jihadis are killed, and all madrassas and mosques preaching jihad leveled, and future ones outlawed. So regardless, if all states and provinces were given a choice, india would in the end retain its land and get most of oakistan. Which is why paksitan will likely never agree to let any states or provinces, including kashmir, choose their own status unless India makes em do it.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at April 1, 2007 1:41 AM

lovely comment maxwell46&2 - there is only one wild card in the whole comment.
How soon would nominal muslims become active muslims. What would India do if those nominal muslims suddenly turned jihadi?
In other words however nice those Sindhi muslims might have become after seeing their harassment for the past 6 decades, would they blame just the Punjabi muslims or would they actually decide that Islam itself is the problem. What if they decide that it was just the Punjabi Muslims not being "true muslims" and decide to practice "true Islam" themselves? How would we trust them knowing about their taqiya habits?

"India would be able to immediately go about de-islamisizing these peoples and making them once again prosperous states, safe for religous minorities,"
In the present circumstances where the Hindus have not fully regained their self confidence/belief in themselves and the Indian politicians running around behind muslim votes this is a less possible scenario.

Posted by: ik at April 1, 2007 2:08 AM

To ik,

Well, for starters, encouraging them to emphasize their own culture as opposed to the islamic one. Remember, as people who've left islam entirely, like Ibn Warraq and Anwar Shaikh confirm, one reason why muslims are now leaving islam at such high rates is that it does not encourage any respect for cultures and heritages unrelated to islam. That's why Iranians, Turks, Indian Muslims, Malaysian Muslims, and Algerian Amazigh among others are often keen to leave islam entirely in large groups at a time. Moreover, as Hugh has also noted, in Darfur, if Christian Missionaries were properly encouraged there, the amount of converts from islam would be huge. As it is, I've heard a prominent islamic leader, (I forget the exact source), note with fear how several million muslims leave Africa per year, and many of them are probably black muslims in Sudan, Chad, Niger and elsewhere who've had to tolerate mistreatment and all sorts of crap from Islamic Arabists quick to pronounce takfir on them.

Hence, the point about Pakistan is , as Indians I've talked about it to confirm, that for the Sindis, Baloch and peoples of PAK-held Kashmir, they have a stronger loyalty to their cultural heritage that is stronger than whatever loyalty they have to islam. Among the Baloch, for example, there are a great many people who though identified as muslims are basically atheist or agonistic. And the borderline genocidal treatment of them by Islamist Pakis has only made their loyalty to their culture over the islamic umma stronger. Peoples like the Baloch, Sindhis and Pak-held kashmiris indeed have appeared to figure out that Islam, or at least, miltant, politicized islam, itself is respnsible for their mistreatment, that Paki "Punjabs" are about as purely and hideously muslim as you can get. Hence, India and America should be looking at these provinces exactly like they should Darfur and Southern Sudan.

Not to say it would be a trivial or non-demanding task. India could de-islamisize Baloch, Sindh and Pak-held Kashmir, but their politicians and leaders would have to go about it in a vert tough, no-bullsh** manner. They certainly can't afford to be Mister Nice Guy when dealing with Jihadists who would try to radicalize these areas. They would need the moral courage to ban madrassas and foreign, (i.e. Sauid and Pak), funded mosques entirely, cease subsidizing trips to mecca, and viligantly defend their borders to protect against the Pak-supported Taliban, and any other Pak influence. Actually, India should really be doing that in all its states right now.

Needless to say, if you're going to be soft, look for U.N. approval and worry about sensibilites of Islamic hellholes, no plan of attack against jihad is gonna work. In that case, to even try to deal with the Arab States, Iran, or Pakis in any way is frugal and one might as well capitulate to them, much like too many have been doing for the last century or so.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at April 1, 2007 3:02 AM

maxwell46&2
This is in response to your first comment. You have a firm grasp of the situation of India vs. pakistan. But friend, you are too optimistic. I will tell you what the conditions in my city are. (I live in Central India, near Agra). There are some mosques in my city. Three are saudi financed. One has a minaret over a hundred feet high and it came up just a couple of years back. The areas around these mosques are slums. They are populated by muslims who do not want to miss the azan, the call to prayer. They "pray" five times a day. The muezzin howls "allahu akbar" and they abandon whatever they are doing and rush to the mosques to bang their heads on the grounds and to saw off the heads of goats (yes they saw off heads of animals at every "prayer" time). Their occupations are auto repair, basic carpentary (no carving, it is haram), basic iron fabrication and welding, tailoring (burkas mostly), butchery, and cab driving. These people do not call themselves Indian, they do not celebrate the Independence Day, they do not sing the Indian National Anthem and they stand out when they visit the rest of the city where the Infidels live. They stand out because they have long beards, wear clothes that can best be described as sacks, are accompanied by burka wearing women and at least 10 kids. (They want to out number the Infidels and if one visits a muslim ghetto, one can see the slogan of "Hum Paanch, Hamare Pachchees" (We (are ) Five, We (should have) Twenty Five) written on the walls.) It is islam that is the problem, not some particular territory. Any territory that has a significant number of muslims is going to have unrest, is going to have problems.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at April 1, 2007 4:28 AM

more PAK - ISI state sponsored terrorism then ...

Posted by: drk at April 1, 2007 5:21 AM

To arjun.sevak:

Thank you for that fascinating glimpse into your city and your culture. Having never traveled to any Middle eastern countries, I am always interested to learn about the conditions there.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at April 1, 2007 8:47 AM

Remember, violence is only sanctioned by the Qur'an in self-defense. Those sleeping Hindus were obviously attacking the Muslims in their sleep.

Qur'an 7:97 "Did the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they were asleep? Or else did they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they played about (carefree)? Did they then feel secure against the Plan of Allah? But no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!"

Tabari VII:100 “Every time I opened a door, I shut it behind me from the inside, saying to myself, ‘If they become aware, they will not have time to stop me from killing him.’ When I reached Rafi, he was in a dark room with his family. As I did not know where he was in the room, I said, ‘O Abu Rafi.’ When he replied, I proceeded toward the voice and gave him a blow with my sword. He shouted and I came back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O Abu,’ changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘I don’t know who came to strike me with his sword.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. I hit him again and covered him with wounds, but I could not kill him, so I thrust the point of my sword into his stomach until it came out through his back. At that, I knew that I had killed him [in front of his wife and children]. I came out, filled with puzzlement, and went towards a ladder in order to get down but I fell into a moonlit night and sprained my foot. I bound it with my turban and moved on. I came to my companions and said, ‘By Allah, I will not leave till I hear the wailing of their women.’ So, I did not move till I heard them crying for the Jewish merchant. I said, ‘Deliverance! Allah has killed Abu Rafi.’ I got up, feeling no ailment, and proceeded till we came upon the Prophet and informed him.”

Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad.”

Tabari VII:101/Ishaq:483 “Sallam’s wife came out and we told her that we were Arabs in search of supplies. When we entered, we bolted the door on her so she gave a shout to warn him of our presence. We rushed upon him with our swords as he lay in his bed. He took his pillow and tried to fend us off. Abd Allah thrust his sword into his stomach and transfixed him while he was shouting, ‘Enough! Enough!’ At once we went out but Abd Allah had bad eyesight, and he fell off the stairway, bruising his leg or arm. ‘How shall we know that the enemy of Allah is dead?’ one of us asked. ‘I will go and look,’ one replied. He set off and mingled with the people. He said, ‘I found him with the men of the Jews, and with his wife, who had a lamp in her hand, peering into his face. She said, ‘By the God of the Jews, he is dead.’ I never heard any more pleasing words than these. We went to the Messenger of Allah and told him that we had killed the enemy of Allah. We disagreed in his presence about the killing of Sallam, each of us claiming to have done it. The Prophet said, ‘Bring me your swords.’ We did and he looked at them. He said, ‘This sword of Abd Allah killed him. I can see the marks left by bones on it.’”

Ishaq:434 “Amr and an Ansari waited until they were asleep. Then Amr killed them, thinking that he had taken vengeance for the Muslims who had been slain. When he came to the Messenger, he told him what had happened. The Prophet said, ‘You have killed men for whom I shall have to pay blood-money.’”

Ishaq:676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”

Well, actually, it's okay for Muslims to kill sleeping people. Even if it's an unarmed woman whose only crime was talking about Mohammad in a way he didn't like and even if she has a baby suckling at her breast.

The Religion of peace.

Posted by: special_guest at April 1, 2007 5:35 PM

Thank you for that fascinating glimpse into your city and your culture. Having never traveled to any Middle eastern countries, I am always interested to learn about the conditions there.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi

Just a brief note - India is not in the ME.

Posted by: DP111 at April 1, 2007 8:49 PM

Interesting and illuminating posts as usual.

I really appreciate the contribution our Indian friends make to this site in our shared effort to defeat Islamic Supremacism.

You guys were already fighting Arab/Islamic aggression for centures before Christopher Columbus thought he found you in the Caribbean in 1492.

Posted by: alexon at April 1, 2007 11:46 PM

special_guest, not sure if you are Indian or not but I always appreciate what you have to say too.

Posted by: alexon at April 1, 2007 11:48 PM

alexon, I am not Indian. I feel for India's suffering at the hands of Islam. I enjoy your postings as well. Fond regards.

Posted by: special_guest at April 2, 2007 2:54 AM

Well in Lucknow, was there in 2003, they have signs everywhere on the mosques saying "No non-muslims allowed" and this is in a supposed Secular country.

To put it mildly it made my blood boil, I starting cursing an screaming that my cousin had to push me into the taxi and take me elsewhere to cool me down. I was like "What is this BS? If they wanna fight we'll give them a fight they won't forget even after we deport these bastards back to the desert."

Now everytime I have to go visit cousins in Nepalgunj I had to go via Lucknow, noe I have decided I will fly to Kathmandu and grab a flight to Nepalgunj and never set foot in Lucknow until a fight breaks out.

Ayo Gorkhali

Posted by: Gorkhali at April 2, 2007 4:24 AM