Link featuring video of the cops & crowd beating up captured gunman:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Mumbai-Terror-Attacks-Suspect-Ajmal-Qasab-Captured-And-Beaten-Following-Massacre-In-Indian-City/Video/200812115168164?lpos=video_News_in_Video_Home_Region_0&lid=VIDEO_15168164_Mumbai_Terror_Attacks%3A_Suspect_Ajmal_Qasab_Captured_And_Beaten_Following_Massacre_In_Indian_City

Posted by: sanman at December 1, 2008 8:59 AM

Of course it's going to happen.

The Barbarians don't hold up signs outside the Finsbury Mosque that say "UK YOUR 9/11 IS COMING" for nothing, you know.

Just a question of when. And now that the lunatic English "leaders" are importing 5,000 more Mohammedan males (the "Halal Butchers"), UK's "9/11" is more likely to happen sooner than later.

Islam won't be blamed, of course.

Posted by: darcy at December 1, 2008 9:09 AM

Islamic terrorist 'planned Mumbai-style massacre in Britain,'" by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, December 1

Not an "Asian" terrorist, but an "Islamic" one; maybe the MSM is starting to understand things.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 1, 2008 9:13 AM

Police also accept that, had he succeeded in buying the weapons, it would have been difficult to stop a massacre on a similar scale to India.

Indeed, and for the same reason: British-style gun laws that leave ordinary citizens disarmed and defenseless. That is also a reason why New York City was apparently the target of an operation of this sort.

All in accordance -- pre-emptively -- with the Pact of Umar:

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at December 1, 2008 9:15 AM

Not an "Asian" terrorist, but an "Islamic" one; maybe the MSM is starting to understand things.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 1, 2008 9:13 AM

Yes. It's wonderful to actually see the phrase "Islamic Terrorist" used instead of (generic) "terrorist."

Next: "Jihadist"

Posted by: darcy at December 1, 2008 9:20 AM

No doubt when it happens in the UK we will have the usual human rights activists defending the Muslims due to we in the West "oppressing" them.

Never any mention of the oppression of Jews and Christians in Muslim countries though, eh?

Posted by: VampireJack at December 1, 2008 9:23 AM

Some Vital Statistics and Facts on the Pakistani Terrorist Machinery Aimed at Kashmir

Number of Terrorist Camps in Pakistan: 37
Number of Terrorist Camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir: 49
Number of Pakistani-run Terrorist Camps in Afghanistan: 22
Total Number of Hardcore Terrorists Operating in Jammu and Kashmir: 2300
Total Number of Foreign Mercenaries Operating in Jammu and Kashmir: 900
Number of Pakistani terrorists killed by Indian security forces: 291
Number of Pakistani terrorists in Indian jails: 125
Number of Indian civilians killed by Pakistani terrorists: over 29,000
Number of firearms recovered from Pakistan-trained terrorists in India: 47,000
Amount of explosives recovered from Pakistan-trained terrorists in India: 60 tons (30,000 kg)
Number of explosions carried out by Pakistan-trained terrorists in India: 4,730
Nationalities of Foreign Mercenaries Operating in Jammu and Kashmir:
Pakistan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Afghanistan,
Egypt, Sudan, Yemen,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq
Deadliest Pakistani Terrorist Groups Active in Jammu and Kashmir:
Harkat-ul-Ansar (recently renamed Harkat-ul-Mujaheedin)
Headquarters: Muzaffarabad (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir)
Lashkar-e-Toiba
Headquarters: Muridke (Pakistan)
Hizbul Mujahideen
Peak time of annual infiltration of terrorists into India:
Summer months, when the snows have melted, under cover of Pakistani Army firing (Washington Post, Oct. 15, 1998).
Number of people in Jammu and Kashmir killed in violence waged by Pakistan-supported terrorists over the last decade: over 20,000.
Ethnic Cleansing in Kashmir: Nearly 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits (original Hindu inhabitants of Kashmir valley) driven out of their ancestral homeland by Pakistan-supported terrorists.
Pakistan's response to charges of terrorism support: "It only provides diplomatic and moral support to the terrorists". To see through this outright lie, read about the "credible reports of official Pakistani support to Kashmiri terrorist groups..." in the US State Department 1997 report on global terrorism.
The US Tomahawk missiles killed Pakistani terrorists belonging to Harkat-ul-Ansar in the Khost camps in Afghanistan this year. These terrorists were training to fight in Kashmir.
The Harkat-ul-Ansar and the Lashkar-e-Toiba threatened US citizens recently in open news conferences in major cities in Pakistan (Kashmir Chronicle, Vol. 1, No. 6). The Pakistani government makes no attempt to shut down any of these groups.
Most recent recruits to Pakistani terrorist camps: Kashmiri Muslim children as young as 12 years old, coerced into a dead-end career by Pakistani terrorist groups(CNN Online, Oct. 8, 1998).
Why is the Pakistani economy in shambles? 70% of its budget goes to the military plus its debt payments, much of the military spending being on sustaining the Kashmiri terror (NY Times, Aug. 30, 1998, The Tribune, Oct. 10, 1998).

Posted by: DesiGyrl at December 1, 2008 9:33 AM

x posted

One problem, which India has with Pakistan, is the vocabulary and how we deal with them. For starters, we should officially agree to stop acknowledging that there is a Pakistani State next to us. It is a land under control of the Pakistani Establishment.

Zardari is a weak part of that Establishment, and that is exactly how he should be treated. There is no reason to have any further peace dialogue with the puppets from Islamabad, with their various Ministers. They don't represent anything. Their status is similar to that of White House Spokesman. They say what they are asked to, but they don't make policy and they don't implement policy. That is done by the Pakistani Establishment, the main constituents being the Core Commanders, and ISI.

We should simply ignore that Pakistan has a Government, because being a failed state, their Government has no effective say in the matters anyway.

Pakistan has no President, simply a somewhat influential Feudal by the name of Zardari.
Pakistan has no Prime Minister.
Pakistan has no Foreign Minister.

This should become the official state policy of India.

That is the first change, I would like to see!

Posted by: infidel_hindu at December 1, 2008 9:44 AM

Europeans look down on Americans who love their guns. How is it that people in Europe are able to lay their hands on grenades, to say nothing of machine guns?

Another question: if it is known that someone travels to the Middle East or Pakistan or anywhere else to train with Islamic terrorists then why is he allowed back into the country?

infidel_hindu:
You spoke of differences in vocabulary. Is there much difference in language between India and Pakistan and Bangladesh, given that all three once comprised a single country? Thanks.

Posted by: PMK at December 1, 2008 9:59 AM

PMK

The language in Pakistan is Urdu.
The language in Bangladesh is Bengali.

India has 16+ major languages, of which Hindi is generally the most widely spoken. Hindi and Urdu are very similar, except that Urdu is a mix between Hindi and Islamic terminology, and lobs of Arabic and Farsi thrown in.

If this is what you are wondering, Paki and Bangladeshi jihadis cannot pull off in India what they can in the West i.e. say one thing in English and another in Urdu/Arabic/Bengali/whatever. They'd be caught right away. India's problem is different - refusing to recognize that Mohammedans are the problem, and thereby, unable to identify home grown jihadis from SIMI and Indian Mujahideen.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 1, 2008 10:32 AM

"He was arrested in a sting operation as he tried to buy three Uzi submachine guns and 3,000 rounds of ammunition."

We call this multicultural enrichment in Britain.

Posted by: michael calvert at December 1, 2008 10:53 AM

DesiGyrl

Great post.

Where did you get all those facts from?

Apart from that, look at the UK, pre 9/11 Londonistan was the breeding ground and the place of exile for jihadists worldwide.

Unfortunately, Pakistan's civil order is hanging by a thread. Pakistan is already engaged in a bloody war on the NW frontier. If they expand this then civil war will break out and we will lose a major ally in this region, if you can call them an ally. But better the devil you know.

Posted by: michael calvert at December 1, 2008 10:57 AM

This is exactly why we should stop giving them money and get the hell out. It's been on the brink of Balkanization for 15 years and the only thing that's prevented it is the US. They wouldn't have the energy or resources for them to try to take over India or Kashmir if we just let the internal forces cannibalize it and let the Taliban take over in the NW. The Fitzgerald Doctrine is particularly appropriate in Pakistan and the pervasiveness of Sunni Islam should serve as a shining example to all the world of how and why no Islamic state can ever survive without infidels to parasitize. At least Egypt has decent leadership. Pakistan can never so much as hope for even that. Let them choke. The last worthwhile thing to come out of Pakistan was Ibn Warraq. They are of no more use to us. Screw 'em.

Posted by: jdamn at December 1, 2008 11:59 AM

" What will keep this from happening one day -- particularly since honest discussion of the jihad ideology is increasingly forbidden, not by statute (yet) but by the stifling fog of political correctness?"

Yesterday at Pajamas Media blog there was a post about Bush's legacy. In my comment I opined that Bush will be remembered for failing to name the enemy correctly and for his blissful ignorance of the the violent ideology found in the so called "Religion of Peace"- and that pretty much paraphrases the way I wrote it- I didn't mention I-s-l-a-m once. I stated that Bush misunderstand or ignored the jihadist imperative. My comment was held back the moderator for review, and now today, it is gone.

There was nothing hateful or inciting about it. My point was the GWB failed to name the enemy correctly as is discussed in many places here at JW.

We know the left's obsession with multiculturalism prevents any critical analysis or linkage between Islam and violence. But, at least on the right, many so called conservative's realize the dangers of the MC/PC paradigm.

Here (PM) is what's supposed to be a new media outlet for conservative writers, thinkers and readers and they will not allow even mention of violence and the "religion" of peace in the same sentence.

The ignorance of the left is to be expected somewhat, but this absolute refusal of the right to even allow discussion of jihadist ldeology in public forums is numbing.

It is at times like this that I am inclined to wish for some cataclysmic event to occur here in the U.S. brought on by jihadist because it seems it is the only thing that provokes people to take the next step and look into the core reasons for the jihadists motivations. But, I cannot wish and hope for the death of more innocents just becuase so many of my fellow citizens wish to also remain in a state of blissful ignorance.

Posted by: USorThem at December 1, 2008 12:18 PM

USorThem, that your comment was blocked is not surprising. I have been blocked from leaving comments at Atlas Shrugs for several weeks now and I can't for the life of me understand why. I haven't tried to leave comments at PJM before, so no experience there. I had a comment blocked at Dhimmi Watch also. I edited out the part I thought might be the cause and was able to post.

I don't know if such censorship on DW is automatic, triggered by keywords or phrases. It's hard to believe there are enough moderators to be screening the comments real-time.

Sure the conservative blogs profess to champion free speach. I find this position to be a bit hypocritical. I suppose it's easy enough to describe a comment that isn't in line with the bloggers point of view as off-topic, but that's a cop-out.

Posted by: Richard at December 1, 2008 12:56 PM

FYI, the comment that was censored at DW was one that drew a large number of parallels between how Muhammad formed his cult and how Joseph Smith created his.

Posted by: Richard at December 1, 2008 1:00 PM

Richard

I have no issue with comment policy here at JW/DW, Atlas or GOV. In fact, all of those 3 are very consistent and fair in posting policies.

My issue is with other so called conservatives (such as many at LGF but I don't mean to turn this into another LGF bashing session, as much as I enjoy them). How does one identify the enemy when one cannot even mention what ideology they share? If someone disagrees with my post then they should tell me why I am wrong. It should not be up to the blog's administrator to decide what is a proper topic for civil discussion when the adminstrator seems to be soliciting comments in the first place. Mine was a fair observation- Bush did not define the enemy. And instead of allowing someone to tell me why I was wrong, they deleted the post so that no one could reply or even allow anyone to think about awhat I had suggested. We expect mind/thought control from the left- not from the right.

Posted by: USorThem at December 1, 2008 1:21 PM

Infidel Pride,

Thank you for the info. I didn't realize just how many languages were spoken in India.
I think my question was partly owing to the partition. Those who left India for Pakistan had to have grown up speaking local Indian languages.
It wasn't so much a matter of saying the same thing in two languages as it was do they ascribe different meanings or subtext to the same words or ideas? The meaning of a word can change over time and distance. If you or I speak of tolerance of Islam do they hear submission to Islam?

(typepad is becoming a nuisance!)

Posted by: PMK at December 1, 2008 4:16 PM

Okay PMK, now I get your question. Answer is that Muslims predominantly speak Urdu, although there are a sizable number who speak their various state languages (Sindi, Punjabi, Baluchi and Pashtun: same is true about Mohammedans in India). In fact, Mohammedans aren't always married to linguistic supremacy the way they are on religion: the 1971 Bangladesh agitation started on the basis of language, and escalated into a full scale independence war.

The difference in the meanings of words does vary with who's using them. Some words, such as shahid (martyr), are standard terms now used by both Hindus and Mohammedans. Although, when Hindus use it, they are more often than not talking about those who sacrifice their lives in the call of duty, like the army personnel that were killed in action, whereas Mohammedan usage of this word in India is not different from its usage by Mohammedans elsewhere. I personally loathe the usage of this ugly word 'shahid' to denote sacrifices that are in fact noble, but the fact remains that there is no noun that describes a martyr in Hindi if one were determined to strip all Islamic-sounding terminology.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 1, 2008 4:42 PM

Mumbai Terrorists Trained by Renegade Westerners?

Mumbai killers’ tactics raise chilling prospect

LONDON — Agents for Britain’s MI5 intelligence service have concluded tactics used by the Mumbai terrorists have raised the chilling prospect that they were trained by someone who had acquired his skills in Western special forces — or had obtained its secret manuals on how to launch a full-scale surprise attack against one of the world’s largest cities, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

“We cannot rule out that the training of the killers could have been done by Muslims who had served in the Army, U.S. Special Forces or the Russian Spesnaz,” said an intelligence source.

While MI5 agents try to pin down if Britons actually were involved in the attack, a specialist team is working with the Ministry of Defense to comb the records of all those who served in the army and underwent specialist training.

—

OT story

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084702/BBC-Radio-host-sacked-taxi-firm-requesting-non-Asian-driver.html

BBC host sacked for requesting Non-asian taxi driver for young daughter riding alone for fear of 'asian taxi rapists".

Posted by: Borg at December 1, 2008 8:06 PM

Richard, I think I know what's up with Atlas and it has nothing to do with Pamela. She's watching her back because Google is screwing her. They have messed with their searches that pull up her blog, messed with the Google search within the blog, and are embezzling her profits:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/sandboxed-black.html

Pajamas' policy is more arbitrary.

As for JW/DW, you probably posted too many links. If you post more than two it usually holds them.

Posted by: jdamn at December 2, 2008 1:31 AM

Jdamn, I'm aware of the trouble Pamela is having with google. I've read about how she is needing to enlist IT support to unravel (or undo) the censorship the search engine is exercising. I've also seen where she posted her day-to-day income that went to absolute zero and stayed there at a point. I see where she put out the tin cup asking for donations; I think her cred would be better served if she raised funds by being a highly sought after paid speaker or maybe wrote a best seller or two. It's a damn shame what's happening to her blog though. Her criticism of Obama at times borders on compulsive/hysterical and so she has become sort of a lightening rod for such an attack. In one article she implied that Obama is really the son of Malcom X - which I thought was a stretch.

Google has nothing to do with my inability to post comments at Atlas. It could be a TypePad issue but my comments have been blocked since prior to the switch from TypeKey. It could be related to Atlas' blog host. It could be either human intervention or a glitch in the software, but I am blocked from commenting there.

As for my blocked post on DW, it had one link. I quoted a speech Joseph Smith made where he likened himself to Muhammad so I linked to my source for the text of the speech. It seems that an objective inspection of how similar the early Mormon church was to Islam was placed off-limits. The point was not an attack on Mormons, the point was that over time the Mormons have re-written their book to be more widely acceptable, they have given up polygamy, and evolved from conducting bloody raiding parties that extracted booty from those who refused to convert to performing truly charitable works. The contrast being that Islam thinks it got it down perfectly initially and will change no aspect of its ideology.

Posted by: Richard at December 2, 2008 1:42 PM