| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
An update on this story. "Mosque besieged in Kashmir," from CNN:
SRINAGAR, Indian-controlled Kashmir (CNN) -- A standoff at a mosque in the disputed territory of Kashmir is continuing with three militants holding a pair of hostages, police told CNN.
Indian security forces are outside the mosque in the southern Kashmir village of Palnu, 80 kilometers (50 miles) south of Srinagar, the capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir.
Kashmir has long been an object of dispute between nuclear rivals and neighbors India and Pakistan, and militants fighting for Kashmir's separation from India have been carrying out attacks against the Indian security forces in Kashmir for 18 years.
This siege began Sunday, when Indian army and police surrounded the mosque after receiving a tip that militants from a Kashmiri militant group were hiding inside.
Security forces were fired upon as they worked to cordon the area, and a trooper and a civilian were injured.
Five civilians who took shelter inside the mosque to escape the crossfire were seized by the holed-up militants. Three of the five eventually managed to leave the mosque.
"Two of the civilians held hostage by the holed-up militants were allowed by them to leave the mosque to hold talks with officials and carry back some food into the mosque for the hostages," a senior police officer told CNN.
"The third hostage managed to escape by running away from the mosque. The three holed-up militants belonging to Hizbul Mujaheedin group are still holding two hostages inside the mosque with them."
Military operations have been suspended until Tuesday and police say the first priority is to secure the freedom of the remaining two hostages.
Militants have been taking shelter inside mosques and shrines in Kashmir throughout the past 18 years of armed violence.
Posted by Marisol at December 25, 2007 12:04 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
SRINAGAR, Indian-controlled Kashmir (CNN) -- A standoff at a mosque in the disputed territory of Kashmir is continuing with three militants holding a pair of hostages, police told CNN.Ah, so hostages now come in pairs? Like pairs of shoes, pairs of socks, pair of earrings?
What's more - CNN comes up with this terminology?
Posted by: Infidel Pride![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 25, 2007 12:10 AM
Hmmm... let me get this straight, the Mohammedan Murders beging firing from the Mosque as the police arrived. These five "fled" into the Mosque to get away from the gun fire coming from the Mosque?!?!
Straight up... since the "hostages" fled towards a Mosque (a Mohammedan Armory and Barracks)when the shooting started would it be safe to assume the are actually sympatizers and Mohammedan themselves. So, it stands to reason, there are no "hostages" only enablers and the Mohammedan Murders in the Mosque.
Posted by: senor doeboy at December 25, 2007 1:13 AM
Militants have been taking shelter inside mosques and shrines in Kashmir throughout the past 18 years of armed violence.
In the Islamic ideology a mosque is no different than any other building except that it is conveniently laid out to perform the prayer rituals and to gather to hear vitriolic hate speech delivered each Friday by Islamic "scholars". They are used to meet and plot guerrilla war operations and to amass and distribute weaponry. There is nothing "sacred" or "holy" about these structures to the Muslims themselves so why do non-Muslims pussyfoot around them?
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at December 25, 2007 11:13 AM
"Kashmir has long been an object of dispute between nuclear rivals and neighbors India and Pakistan, and militants fighting for Kashmir's separation from India have been carrying out attacks against the Indian security forces in Kashmir for 18 years."
They've been carrying out attacks on more than just Indian security forces, since the 7th century, slightly longer than the 18 years listed above.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at December 25, 2007 2:36 PM
They are used to meet and plot guerrilla war operations and to amass and distribute weaponry. There is nothing "sacred" or "holy" about these structures to the Muslims themselves so why do non-Muslims pussyfoot around them?
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at December 25, 2007 11:13 AM
How can a masque not be the center of violence and hostility? Islam's fifth pillar Jihad, makes it mandatory upon muslims to vage violence (sold as 'Peace') against non-muslims. And what better cover to plot plan and arm an attack than the prayer center of 'Relition of Peace'?
Posted by: Alert at December 25, 2007 7:24 PM
"....Indian army and police surrounded the mosque after receiving a tip that militants from a Kashmiri militant group were hiding inside...."
......hmmmm,militants hiding in a mosque, not a rare occurance...and yet the stupid infidels continue to allow mosques to be constructed on their lands....stupid infidels....
....Ban Muslim Immigration....
at December 26, 2007 6:42 AM
The Main Stream Media have stated repeatedly that Musharraf is unpopular because his soldiers stormed the Red Mosque in Pakistan. They fail to mention the large stockpile of weapons that were held in the Red Mosque or the persecution of non-Muslims by their followers.
--
CT Yank
at December 26, 2007 12:04 PM
Behold Islam's "Reformation": the religion of peace has now evolved from being 97% evil to 100% evil.
Happy new year everybody.
Posted by: pythagoras at December 27, 2007 7:25 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)