"Jihad armed group has suddenly gone berserk ..."

...that is odd, I thought they had done this long ago.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 24, 2007 8:05 AM

THE END IS NIGH !!!!!!

If they have been stupid enough to mess with the Tamils then it is over for the moslems.

The Tamils are unique, they have never been defeated in battle or conquered by force.
They are totally ruthless and fanatical. They gave the Indian Army a good beating.
The moslems are finished in Sri Lanka.

This will be a story well worth watching, I am sure the developments will be interesting.

AI

Posted by: apostate_islam at August 24, 2007 9:23 AM

can we import Tamils to Toronto or Montreal and get a clean up?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 24, 2007 9:26 AM

Coming soon to a place near you! For the entertainment of the seething Masses!

First will be Street Theater in the form of frothing rage and burning effigies. This followed by demonstrations of the Mohammedan Martial Arts shows (please note if you become injured during any of these it’s all your fault, since you are Najis Kafur and are thus never innocent of impeding our Freedom of Speech, be glad we don’t sue you for impeding the show). A wonderful medieval style head display contest will also be available.

Yes that’s right, because all the Kafur must pay. Be it the idyllic islands of the Philippines, the exotic Darfur, beautiful Bosnia, ancient India, and the streets of Paris or Amsterdam. You will pay either with your life or you can pay the Jizya (Master Card, Visa, or American Express accepted).

Posted by: senor doeboy at August 24, 2007 9:48 AM

It will be instructive to see how the Tamil Tigers react to this, and what the result may be. For their terrorist campaign, directed until now at the Buddhist (Sinhalese) majority, has demonstrated their own fanaticism and willingness to kill. However, while Tamil Tigers is only a local phenomenon (limited to Sri Lanka), observable only in the last few decades. The fanaticism of Muslms can be found wherever there are Muslims in numbers sufficient enough to dare to use such methods, and since the beginning of Islam. And, of course, technological advances (i.e., explosives) now make terrorism for everyone easier than it was when the Assassins long ago were limited to knives.

Questions for historians: to what extent did Muslim conquests, subsequently reversed (as in Spain with the Reconquista, or in India, where Muslim rulers were driven out, in turn, by the British, under whose rule Hindus were helped to redisvoer their own pre-Islamic past) affect those who had been under Muslim rule.

In Spain, the Reconquista, that five-hundred year campaign to retake or regain Spain from Muslim overlords (fpr grim fun see Maria Rosa Menocal’s addition to the literature of the myth of Andalucia, that supposedly splendid example of interfaith harmony avant la lettre), surely changed Spanish national character. As it happened, beginning in the late 15th century, at a time when the Spanish might have continued their wars against the Muslims right to North Africa, they were diverted to channeling their energies (and aggression) into the conquest of the New may have contributed to a certain hardness and harshness, and the fact that Spanish aggression was diverted from carrying the campaign against the Iifidels across the Mediterranean to North Africa, into a new area: the New World, and its conquest. And to what extent was the harsh treatment (even if the Black Legend or Leyenda Negra has been debunked) of Indians, los Indios, by conquerors and Catholic missionaries, the behavior famously deplored by Bartolomé de las Casas, a reflection of that harshness, which in turn may have simply been due to the effect of Spanish warriors coming to emulate, out of necessity, the behavior of the Muslims in Spain with whom they fought for so long. It was, incidentally, Christian theologians of natural law, the jus gentium of its day, such as Vitoria and Suarez, who declared certain aspects of Spanish behavior, based on Spanish claims in the New World to be a violation of natural law, earning them, as Boswell records, Samuel Johnson’s praise for "the good doctors of Salamanca."

And in India, which V. S. Naipaul has described as being, because of the Muslim conquest and Muslim rule, a “wounded civilization,” what was it that made Bharat, the Land of the Hindus, whose easygoing, all-embracing, all-accepting Way (open to all, to wade into, as far out and in deep as they wished), a place at times of intermittent violence which may have started as a band of irregulars fighting Muslim overlords. When did the dacoits and thuggees get started? And what about “sati” (suttee), the custom of having the widow immolate herself on the funeral pyre of her husband – was this a Hindu custom fro time immemorial, or was it possibly something that was done to avoid a fate that such Hindu widows might suffer at Muslim hands?

And to what extent did the Muslim conquest, as it made its way southward, down to the refractory Deccan, to the lands of the Tamils, introduce a new kind of attitude toward violence that has something to do with the methods chosen by the Tamil Tigers today?

These are questions, not assertions, that have come swimmingly to mind. There may be nothing to them, or a great deal. Until recently, until Bat Ye’or, no one had systematically studied the condition of the non-Muslims under Muslim rule, though Bat Ye’or herself would quickly assure us that her work was also, in large part, one of synthesis, based on the studies of many other unintimidated and forthright Western scholars. But I am unaware of the systematic study, or any study, of what Muslim rule did to the psychology of the Spanish, of Indians, of the Sicilians, though such names as Salvador de Madariaga (less scholar than popular historian), and K. S. Lal, and for siculo-arab history, Michele Amari, all come to mind. Surely there was a great effect. Well, who has traced the lineaments of such an effect? What a field wide-open for study: how the Muslim conquests affected not those who remained conquered, but how they affected those who had been conquered, and who in one way or another had the Muslim yoke removed. We know what happened to those who remained conquered. They were killed. Or they over time succumbed to Islam, in order to avoid the unendurable onerousness of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity (including sudden forcible conversions on pain of death, which a Muslim ruler, celebrating a conquest or the birth of a son, might order). And then there are the remnants that are left. In the Middle East, these are those who managed to survive, either because of geography (the mountains of Mount Lebanon, or highlands of what is now Kurdistan) or because of distances that provided safety (so that a Muslim ruler’s writ might not run to distant villages, located far away from the capital), or for other reasons. Think of Maronites, Copts, Zoroastrians, Chaldo-Assyrians, and of course the Jews, those who never left the Middle East, who are no longer anywhere to be found in the Arab world (save for a handful in Morocco), having been killed, driven out, or having escaped, just, in order to be in-gathered in the one recent example of a people retaking the land that had been conquered by Muslims (in the case of Israel, however, the “retaking” was not by conquest, but by buying land from Ottoman and Arab landlords, and then having to successfully ward off the repeated examples of Jihad by “qitaal” or combat (and terrorism) that the Muslims, offended at the establishment of Infidel rule in what had been,,until very recently, part of Dar al-Islam, have and do and will whenever they can, no matter what further concessions or surrenders Israel makes, conduct against that tiny, but to them permanently intolerable Infidel state.

Posted by: Hugh at August 24, 2007 10:39 AM

And what about “sati” (suttee), the custom of having the widow immolate herself on the funeral pyre of her husband – was this a Hindu custom fro time immemorial, or was it possibly something that was done to avoid a fate that such Hindu widows might suffer at Muslim hands?

Also, there was another practice called Jauhar, whereby before a city was about to fall to Muslims, the women of that city would drug themseves and commit self-immolation to avoid falling into Muslim hands and getting raped or sold as sex slaves. This practice was not only not there in pre-Islamic times, when enemy Hindu warriors would honor various codes of war conduct and not ravage civilians: in the 18th century, when Hindu Maratha warriors were on a subjugation campaign of their own in Rajputana, Rajput women then did not commit jauhar, since they knew that the Marathas followed the same kshatriya code of conduct that the Rajputs did.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 24, 2007 12:08 PM

On the above story itself, I've generally loathed the Tamil Tigers for introducing the concept of suicide attacks into the terrorism manual, and it has been unfortunate that they haven't been rooted out to date. But now it looks like they've finally discovered a group that is worthy of all the viciousness that they are famous for.

To date, Sri Lanka has been one of the few places where Muslims have laid low, particularly due to the high intensity conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils. If they are now staring Jihadi attacks, it means that they have grown to a point where they think they can succeed. Both the Sinhalese and the Tamils, if they were wise, would do well to not interfare when the other retaliates against Muslims. Already, Muslims dominate islands in the Indian ocean like Maldives; it would be tragic if as a result of the Sinhala-Tamil conflict, the Muslims end up taking over.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 24, 2007 12:14 PM

"Sri Lanka has been one of the few places where Muslims have laid low..."
-- from a posting above

And, intermittently, in Gujarat. In Xinjiang, since the last ruthless suppression by the Chinese Communist government, and certainly since the 1930 declared Jihad was put down. In Punjab, when the Sikhs have been un-inclined to take any nonsense. And elsewhere -- but always an elsewhere were Jihadist qitaal is met, promptly and ferociously, by counter-qitaal.

Posted by: Hugh at August 24, 2007 4:24 PM

Hugh,
There was one thing the Spanish did after they had regained their land: they required those who remained (both Jews and Muslims) to convert to Catholicism or leave the country. Sounds like something they learned from their Islamic overlords. What goes around comes around.

Posted by: PMK at August 24, 2007 6:34 PM

Would it be entirely wrong on my part to suggest that what happened in the years after the ghazi were "bitched slapped" back out of Europe, could best be explained as the actions of a traumatized people? I think it's worth noting here that this is a problem we are going to have to face in the near future, particularly in the case of Europe and its coming doom. If we are to have faith in ourselves and believe that, if push-comes-to-shove, we'll be able to liberate lands conquered by the Jihad, we're going to eventually have to deal with a basket case of a country torn apart by jihad. It'll look a lot like Spain did at the beginning of the 16th century. As we all know, the Al-Andalus years were anything but pleasant for the peoples of Spain. Countless rebellions and massacres, seized properties and pogroms against Jews and Christians. Just as it is laid out in the Qur'an and confirmed by the Ulema. The golden days of Malikism.

As to the jihad in Xinjiang, my best friend used to live in Urumqi, and his wife (the product of an affair between a Sichuan girl and a defected Red Army company commander) is from Xinjiang. The word on the Chinese street is very strong these days, I can remember bringing this up in several discussions, but there's a lot of talk about what's going on up there (I lived in the southwest foothill province of Yunnan). Ghazi, as agents of the the jihad, are definitely active in the province, although there is a strong nationalist current to the conflict on the part of the native Uyghurs peoples. The jihad simply isn't going well along the "new frontier" as the Chinese are remarkably strong-handed in dealing with the jihad. Small-scale attacks on the part of the Turkic Muslims occur infrequently, and there are several thousand PLA a troops in the province, protecting the Han and oil interests in and around Urumqi. I've seen video and pictures of the troops in action. Wish the Americans, Israelis, and Europeans were that determined. Ismail Semed, founder of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, was executed two days before my birthday this year, on February 9th. Somebody's birthday wish came true.

Posted by: TheDiggler at August 24, 2007 10:12 PM

TheDiggler,

Excellent point about the traumatization wrought by jihad. But won't we find the Muslims themselves playing the victim card, saying that they weren't in favor of what was done in their name?
When the Mullahs fall in Iran, the entire country will be crying: not me! I didn't support this regime! I was forced to cry death to Israel and death to America! I didn't really believe it. I love the West!
And if the Mullahs are brought down BY the West, as an answer to Iranian aggression, you'll see the entire country once again crying that it isn't treated with respect by the evil infidel.
How do we deal with the remnants, because Islam will not go away and its practitioners are expert at painting themselves victims even as they bring a society to its knees.
Do we have the will and the fortitude to remain eternally vigilant, because that is what it will take.

Posted by: PMK at August 24, 2007 10:56 PM

My question is why is it that a jihad armed group...armed to the teeth no doubt...only manage to take out two Tamils. Why, here in America, we have had many individuals take out more than that, with few weapons and much ammunition. Percentage wise, they far exceed the jihadists in Iraq with their IED's and vehicles filled with explosives.

I am confused. I know they practice asymmetrical warfare and all they can manage to eradicate are two poor souls perhaps who may have been in the wrong place at the right time; or wrong time.

Many of them seem to lack coherent thinking. Perhaps, their fanaticism clouds their thinking. Of course it does. That goes without saying. With the Tamils, I think they have bit off more than they can chew.

Git 'em, Tamils.

Posted by: breezy55 at August 25, 2007 12:38 AM

From the article:

a group calling themselves the "Jihad" – a armed group mainly of the Muslims in the Eastern Province.

"Mainly" the Muslims? Some of the group called "Jihad" are not Muslims? Let me guess, they have some Presbyterian members.

Posted by: special_guest at August 25, 2007 1:40 AM

"We know what happened to those who remained conquered. They were killed"

....Exactly, and it is better to go down fighting than to be subjected to Islam...

Ban Muslim Immigration now...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 25, 2007 10:27 AM

Indeed, Muslims immigration needs to be banned immediately. Our two cultures are completely from opposite ends of the spectrum. If you permit a Muslim community to dwell with-in your borders you then must solemnly take on the responsibilities of defending yourself and your own people from the eventual jihad. There are two aspects to every minority Islamic community; the peaceful, inane legal tax paying immigrants, few of whom actually and truly assimilate to the host culture, and the second traditional minority community who continue to live life as if they were back in their homeland. It is in this community that jihad grows and where jihad will ALWAYS REMAIN, to some degree or another. Factors which influence the growth of jihad in these communities include Arab influence, Saudi financing, and the cultural socio-economic, and much larger, host society and its attitudes towards Islam (we can all see on a daily basis how successful we, the host society are in dealing with Islam). For infidels dealing with minority Islamic communities, the question is, "to what degree or another is this person a Muslim?". I call this gambling.

Posted by: TheDiggler at August 25, 2007 12:15 PM