Apparently, India is so inept in dealing with Jihad that even Bangladeshis feel emboldened enough to send their Jihadis into India. The Indo-Bangladesh border is one that would make the US-Mexico border look like the Great Wall of China, if not the Berlin Wall.

Another major achievement of the Leftist alliance that runs India.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 13, 2008 1:13 PM

Here's the link to an updated news report

http://timesnow.tv/Newsdtls.aspx?NewsID=8324

Posted by: kafir-harbi at May 13, 2008 1:22 PM

These Jihadis keep attacking India and Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and look at the economies of these UMMAH countries. No tourism, poverty, and all they do is bring misery and death to everyone else. They destroy everything that is beautiful and created to uplift humanity. Islam creates death and ugliness it demeans human value and it promotes violence slavery, robbing raping murder and sickness.

Posted by: savsiv at May 13, 2008 1:26 PM

I was on a radio show promoting culturism yesterday. The host asked me if, other than 9/11, there had been any reasons to fear Muslims.

I paused at his easy dismissal of 9/11. Only a small risk? I mentioned the over 11,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 and the Dutch cartoons. The host had to admit there might be a risk and attack me from another angle.

I wish more Americans used alternative sources for news. Even this recent Indian blast is not being reported as Islamic in the MSM. We need to wake up and see the pattern. I hope that websites like this one and radio shows on culturism can wake people up.

If my host was any indication, not even 9/11 made a lasting impression on some people.

www.culturism.us

Posted by: culturist at May 13, 2008 2:18 PM

Culturist,

I just checked out your web site at http://www.culturism.us/. It is excellent. The new vocabulary you are proposing is well thought out and will be extremely useful in the countering mindless and destructive multiculturalism embraced by the Left.

From your site:

"Racism, as you know, is used to silence all of those who would talk about the negative parts of cultural diversity. There is merit to concerns about racism. But we need a word that addresses cultural diversity and clearly does not refer to race. We must use the word culturism in order to have polite, meaningful, and rational policy discussions again.

"Multiculturalists say they believe in diversity; culturists don't think they take it seriously enough. At heart multiculturalists think all cultures are interchangeable and only refer to food, festivals and fashion. Culturism, the book, looks at the Aztecs and headhunters to show how diverse cultures can be. But 9/11 should have put us on notice that all cultures do not prize democracy, individualism, the Protestant work ethic, female rights, the separation of church and state or other parts of Western culture. The word culturism indicates a person who thinks culture and cultural diversity are real and significant.

"Individualism is the third word. Culturism seeks to promote individualism realistically. If our culture does not survive, individualism and individual rights will be discontinued. Individual rights being used to protect anti-social behavior can go to destructive extremes. The culturism chapter on U.S. history shows that morally guiding and safeguarding our society is a tradition of ours. Our safety is enhanced by remembering our culturist traditions.

"Culturism's definition holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. Islamic and Asian nations already do. The question here is if Western cultures have the right to define, protect and promote themselves."

Posted by: Eastview at May 13, 2008 2:45 PM

"It looks at this point as if the coordinated blasts that have killed almost 50 people in India were indeed jihad attacks."
From the post.

Is anyone surprised by this? And is anyone surprised this is not being reported in the MSM as yet another instance of Islamic terrorism? Oh, I forgot. We must be careful not to lump all Muslims with terrorists because it might hurt their delicate feelings.

Posted by: Eastview at May 13, 2008 2:58 PM

I flew recently and stopped at a counter for sunglasses at the Airport and the store clerk at this shop was Pakistani. She started telling me she lies to people and says she is Hindu or Buddhists. So Taqqiya is well and alive here in the United States.

What makes me mad is that at a University I got into discussing Islamic Jihad. This fool tells me he wants proof and blames the US for the problem. I told him this has been going on well before the United States even existed.

As mentioned above from other posters...yes we should be proud of our values and make alliance with nations that value democracy, human rights and freedom and liberty. Unfortunately the reality is that we are not. We are foolishly think that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and some other UMMAH nations as our Allies. The fact will always be they will never ever be our allies they may in the surface but underneath we are infidels...kafirs.

Posted by: savsiv at May 13, 2008 3:08 PM

I like Ed Morrissey's coverage of this with Robert right now - he seems to be very familiar with India and Pakistan.

As for his question about Hindu-Muslim enemity, you covered it well. Interestingly, until 1700, the single largest people who prevented India from Islamizing were the people of Rajastan - the Rajputs. Fortunately, there aren't too many Mohammedans in Rajastan.

And Robert, you did well to point out that Bhutto plugged the Taliban when she was PM. I hate people thinking that there are any Muslim groups in Pakistan (or Bangladesh) that will oppose Jihad.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 13, 2008 3:57 PM

About the Sikh militants angle, Sikh separatists have been dormant since the 90's, since their ambitions largely centered around Punjab. Also, when the Khalistan movement was at its peak, they generally targeted either actual Indian officials like Indira Gandhi and various other government ministers, Congress partymen or generals, and their attacks on civilians were generally restricted to Punjab (with the exception of the Air India flight from Canada that got blown up near Ireland).

This is not to condone them, but rather to point out the difference in scope between Jihadi terrorists, for whom the entire world is their oyster, vs others who have much restricted ambitions. Incidentally, although Rajastan is a neighboring state to Punjab, even at the height of Khalistani terrorism, Rajastan was pretty much unaffected by it all. So don't get sidetracked with any discussion about Sikhs - this is a plain Jihadi attack by Muslims - nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 13, 2008 4:12 PM

This group is banned in India and it is operating from Bangladesh. Is India's border with Bangladesh open to all who wish to enter or is India fighting infiltrators on two fronts? Bangladesh is a long way from Pakistan.

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 4:13 PM

Is India's border with Bangladesh open to all who wish to enter or is India fighting infiltrators on two fronts?

India's border with Pakistan is pretty well sealed, although infiltrators do come in through Kashmir. However, Bangladesh is open like a sieve, and so Jihadis in Bangladesh have no problems sneaking into India, then moving to wherever in India they'd like to operate (Hyderabad, Mumbai, Bangalore, Jaipur, et al) and act when ready. The distance from Bangladesh to these spots are irrelevant - once they are in India, they have all the time in the world to do whatever they're up to.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 13, 2008 4:22 PM

dang, there goes my theory about the militant methodists..

Posted by: pulsar182 at May 13, 2008 6:55 PM

"Among the 80 dead were a 10-year-old boy at the Hanuman temple, a bride in a bright red saree and a young man covered in blood who was left hanging over the twisted wreckage of a bicycle rickshaw, the Press Trust of India said."
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\05\14\story_14-5-2008_pg1_1

Posted by: TS at May 13, 2008 8:20 PM

A question for Mr Spencer: the title of the group suspected to be responsible - Harkat-ul-Jehadi Islamia - appears to be Arabic.

Can we have a translation, please?

Jehadi and Islamia are obviously about 'Jihad' and 'Islam' but what is 'harkat'?

Horrible, isn't it? - a bunch of Bangladeshis, whose ancestors would undoubtedly have been ethnic Indians, so brainwashed by the invading and alien creed, the Arab Imperial Religion, generation after generation, that they take an Arabic name and under it, commit mass murder against their own Indian relatives to punish said relatives for the 'crime' of having kept their own native Indian Hindu identity rather than submitting to the alien Arab imperial agenda.

Whenever a Muslim group with a high-falutin Arabic name appears in a news story, we need to translate the names into plain English; if necessary, there should be an explanation of any significant historical association.

More generally: if a Muslim jihadi or jihad preacher has a 'nom de guerre' in Arabic, I think we should also be given a translation of same. This should be particularly important for converts to Islam, who have chosen or been given a name 'with intent'.

The names chosen for mosques, in the Infidel lands, and particularly in the West, should be translated and any historic associations explained. For example - in Australia there is a mosque called 'the Gallipoli mosque'. Although the place, Gallipoli, is associated with the heroism of the ANZACs, it is *also* associated with defeat - Australian, non-Muslim soldiers fought Turkish Muslims there and were ultimately forced to retreat - thus, the name of the mosque implies a supremacist agenda. I very much doubt whether any group of Muslims in Australia would ever call their mosque 'Beersheba' - because *there* the Aussies beat the Turks.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 13, 2008 9:47 PM

Can anyone tell me what possible good these murderous cowards hoped to accomplish, or is it enough for Allah that "infidel" men, women and children are killed at any time, at any place, and by any means?

Posted by: Lex at May 13, 2008 9:52 PM

Infidel Pride,

Thanks. It leaves open the question: why is India letting anyone in from Bangladesh?

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 10:39 PM

It would be good to know as to "Who the Drivers of Pakistan and Bangladesh Are ?". They are poor economies and can hardly afford these kind of gory and 'expensive games'. There are Rich Islamic Lobbies funding these things through all means including 'charities' and 'clerics'. To name a few would be , Saudi Arabia , Iran and disgruntled remnants of PLO et al( Ha-mas Wamas etc ). Pakistan and Bangladesh are just "Fronts" of this 'Trio'to take the BLAME. There job is to keep the International Community confused and engaged by their wishy washy double talk/taqckia and carry on implementing with their nefarious agenda contained in their Quran . International Community is being Blackmailed. The forecast is not 'good'.

Posted by: Kash225 at May 13, 2008 11:03 PM

"Jehadi and Islamia are obviously about 'Jihad' and 'Islam' but what is 'harkat'?"

Dumbledoresarmy,
The word 'harkat' is urdu and the literal translation is "movement".

Thanks. It leaves open the question: why is India letting anyone in from Bangladesh?

Posted by: PMK

Three of our states have a border with bangladesh. The ummah over there walks in freely and goes to the nearby mosques for further direction and help with settling. One of the states that has a border with bangladesh is West Bengal. It has been ruled by communistis (Yes, we have communist parties, hammer sickle and all) who actually welcome these people and add their names to the voter list. All the muslims vote for the communist parties. The ummah helps the left stay in power, in fact the communists have been ruling West Bengal for decades. However, the ummah does not limit itself to WB but moves freely throughout the country. They are distinguished from our homegrown ummah because they are even more derelict than your run of the mill average muslim of India. In the year 2006 the security agencies estimated that there are more than 20 million bangladeshi illegals in India. Their sheer numbers make the politicians blink and that is why the problem is compounding. Hope this answers your question.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 15, 2008 1:50 AM