Imagine the reaction if we threw a grenade at Muslims gathered around the kaaba or blew up a mosque while they were inside at prayer.

We never would and they know it, which must be why they keep giving us the green light for such attacks.

Posted by: PMK at July 21, 2007 8:55 AM

People - In an article in the "NYT" today India's newly-elected female President has said that Indian women started veiling in the 16th century for protection against Muslim invaders.

Is that true?

Becuz you see the Mohammedans in India are "offended" (so, what else is new?) by that comment.

I want to know what the truth is.

Posted by: darcy at July 21, 2007 9:14 AM

I wonder if Rage Boy knows anything about this attack?

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at July 21, 2007 9:57 AM

Darcy,
Traditional indian woman dress does not have a veil. None of the women sculptures in temples and traditional buildings have veils.

Indian politicians have a long history of Dhimmitude. You may recall that recently Kabeel and Sabeel got arrested for their brutality, in service of their faith, in Glasgow. There weere TV interviews of their families doling out sob stories. Dhimmi Prime Minister of India said "Looking at the suffering of their families, I cannot sleep". Prime minster does not lose sleep when 100s of people were killed in Mumbai train blast, varanasi blast, amarnath blast, akshardam blast. Looking at PC brigade in this country, I think we are also headed for dhimmitude.
How can any human being kill and maim others who are going to pilgrimage. Our ally Pakistan calls these people in Kashmir as Freedom fighters. When will this end? We probably need more Neal boortz in public discourse to waken up people from heading into dhimmitude. We need to hold Islamic world to account.

God bless
Desi

Posted by: Desi at July 21, 2007 10:05 AM

Thx, Desi. Jai Hind.

Posted by: jewdog at July 21, 2007 10:19 AM

OK, Desi, so it IS true that Indian females adopted the veil so they wouldn't be raped or killed or both by Muslim invaders to India.

And as we all know, Muslim males feel entirely justified in committing acts of violence against un-veiled females.

So, makes perfect sense. I had a feeling that the Muslims in India were being "offended" by something that was completely TRUE.

Posted by: darcy at July 21, 2007 10:21 AM

So what else is new ! The area of Jammu and Kashmir already belongs to the jihadists. They chased the Kashmiri Pundits away, and it is only with the security forces that the Hindus can make this pilgrimage. That area has already fallen to islam. Hello ! Anybody listening ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 21, 2007 12:14 PM

We probably need more Neal boortz in public discourse to waken up people from heading into dhimmitude. We need to hold Islamic world to account.

Desi,
Neal Boortz is speaking to the converted. We need more of him on the other side of the American media. Maybe then we'll make some progress. If Air America or The Nation or Time or the much vaunted New York Times began to take a stand against dhimmitude then we might get somewhere without first seeing a million plus deaths in the US from the next great strike.

Posted by: PMK at July 21, 2007 2:42 PM

Darcy:

This was from the AP files:

_________________________________________________
And her comments ahead of the election calling on Indian women to abandon wearing headscarves was roundly denounced by Muslim leaders and by historians _ who disputed her assertion that women only started wearing them in India to save themselves from 16th century Muslim invaders.
__________________________________________________

It looks like she's a lady with an eye for the truth. Hopefully, she can influence India to remove the scum that are attacking said pilgrims.

Posted by: Briars at July 21, 2007 2:59 PM

Darcy,

The concept of veiling was unknown to India before Muslims invaded India. Some commentators have tried to give the impression that the veil was already prevalent before Muslims invaded India by saying that it was prevalent in ancient Indian society. This is utter crap. This is nothing but an attempt at moral equivalence - just to say "Hey, you Hindus! You were already wearing the veil before the Muslims came... so just shut your infidel mouths up!"

Pratibha Patil was wrong in saying that the veil was worn by Hindu women to protect themselves from Mughal Invaders. But if she meant that it was worn to protect themselves from MUSLIM invaders (and not Mughal invaders per se), she's completely correct.

I'll tell you why. The first invasion of India by Muslims occured in 712 AD when the Arabs invaded Punjab. The Mughals invaded India only in the 16th century. Between the Arab and the Mughal invasions, a massive Islamic empire was already built in the subcontinent by the Khaljis, Tughlaqs etc. Which means that India was already under Muslim influence by the time the Mughals arrived in India.

The veil began around the 11th and 12th centuries among upper caste Rajput women in Rajasthan. If you read a bit of Indian history, you will find that the Rajputs bore the brunt of Islamic invasions from the northwest. There's a 90% chance that the veil began to be worn by Rajput women to protect themselves from the prying eyes of perverted Muslim invaders and officials because:

1. You'll see the veil only in northwest and western India, areas which have born the brunt of Islamic invasions from the northwest. Nobody wears it in southern and eastern India.

2. The time around which the veil appears is the same as the time of major Islamic invasions (invasions by Afghans and Turks) i.e., the 11th and 12th centuries.

Posted by: Atlantean at July 21, 2007 3:06 PM

More of those Zionist Hindus no doubt. You know, the ones who invaded Iraq and defiled the holey city of Mecca with their nasty foreign oil wells.

Posted by: joeblough at July 21, 2007 4:48 PM

PMK,
If there are more people like Neal Boortz, they can shake up the american society from complacency. Otherwise they will be influenced by Air america, NYtimes, BBC ... It would be certainly good if Nytimes leave their dhimmitude.

There is no substitute to calling islamic world to account. Remember Prithviraj. He pardoned Mohammad Ghori each time he lost terror raid. But finally Mohammad ghori overwhelmed Prithviraj he beheaded Prithbiraj.

India has a long history of slaughter and deceit at the hands of islamists. Remember all the sikh gurus tortured by Mughals!!!. America needs to learn from history. We need more Neal Boortz to boldly speak.

God Bless
Desi

Posted by: Desi at July 21, 2007 7:57 PM

After the kidnapping and murder of an Indian engineer in Afghanistan last year, India beefed up the security with its own armed forces there and there has been no incident there after that. Indian soldiers can make their guns speak as well as (or better than) the terrorists there can.

One wonders why the current Indian government cannot provide such protection to its own citizens on its own territory. Perhaps the will is lacking.

Posted by: bajirao at July 21, 2007 9:26 PM

Not ALL Hindu women wore veils anyways... Its was just Rajput women.... Rajputs (incl. Sikh and Muslim Rajputs) make up about 2% of Indian population. Ya its true that Rajput's bore the brunt of Islamic invasions. Some of their entire clans were converted by force to Islam. I think the elite of the Pakistani army is made up of Muslim Rajputs.

As for Amarnath i believe its one of the four holy pilgrimages of Hindus. In the starting years of "Jihad of the Thousand Cuts", scores of pilgrims used to die on the pilgrimage to Amarnath. I think some guy even made a documentary on them... "Faith vs the Bullets" or something.....

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 21, 2007 10:56 PM

Not ALL Hindu women wore veils anyways... Its was just Rajput women.... Rajputs (incl. Sikh and Muslim Rajputs) make up about 2% of Indian population. Ya its true that Rajput's bore the brunt of Islamic invasions. Some of their entire clans were converted by force to Islam. I think the elite of the Pakistani army is made up of Muslim Rajputs.

As for Amarnath i believe its one of the four holy pilgrimages of Hindus. In the starting years of "Jihad of the Thousand Cuts", scores of pilgrims used to die on the pilgrimage to Amarnath. I think some guy even made a documentary on them... "Faith vs the Bullets" or something.....

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 21, 2007 10:56 PM

Desi:

Are you a sihk? Then, god bless.

Posted by: breezy55 at July 21, 2007 11:09 PM

Re. Desi et al.

The existence of the Sikh is one of the few things that holds out hope for the reform of mohammedanism.

As I understand it, the founders of the Sikh faith were well familiar with mohammedanism and in fact absorbed much of its more civil tenets into their own practice.

Call it clutching at straws.

On the other hand, we could all, by way of alternative, simply nuke enough of the mohammedans to punch a hole in their morale. Even mohammedans would calm down after a few 10's of millions of deaths.

It would be pleasant to think that they might learn something from the Sikh that might obviate that necessity.

Posted by: joeblough at July 22, 2007 2:04 AM

Dear Atlantean,

There is the tiniest of possibilities - very tiny - that Indian women may have begun to wear protective veiling very much before the Muslim takeover. There is slim evidence that there was a fashion for 'sunscreens' by about 324AD as northern, Indic, Indians sought to differentiate themselves from Southern, darker skinned, Indians. This is only a theory, you understand, but it should not be ignored as a reason why the veiling of women in the North was so easily accomplished after the Muslims arrived.

Posted by: Jonathan Ralbrooke at July 22, 2007 3:48 AM

The veil is not the point.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 22, 2007 12:13 PM