money talks. the only question is how much of it is genuine arab petro-dollars recycled for conversion/fundamentalism and how much of it is grade A counterfeit rupees printed in pakistan.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: A P J
From: A P J
columns by b raman and rajiv dogra
but i wonder why b raman as yet does not recognise that it is islam which is responsible for pak's attitude and not... Because of the distorted interpretations of Islam in Pakistan
----- Original Message -----
From: S. Kalyanaraman
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:12 AM
Subject: Aman ki asha or Sharm el-sheikh? Who's prompting TOI?
TOI-Jang bhai, bhai
What is the reason?
Not Kashmir.
Not Balochistan.
Not the Lashksar-e-Toiba and the myriad terrorist organizations to which the State and civil society of Pakistan have given birth.
Barring China, no other country in the world thinks and talks well of Pakistan and its people.
No other country in the world triggers more negative vibrations in the hearts and minds of people than Pakistan.
There are various reasons for it.
Because of the distorted interpretations of Islam in Pakistan ever since it was born in 1947. One does not come across such distorted interpretations anywhere else in the Ummah.
Because of the cruelty and barbarity which have come to be associated with Islam in Pakistan. One does not come across such cruelty and barbarity anywhere else in the Ummah.
Because of the perfidious nature of the Pakistani statecraft.
Because of so many other reasons.
Why all the jihadi terrorists of the world flock to Pakistan?
Not merely because of its sanctuaries.
Not merely because of the sponsorship of the ISI.
It is also because irrational individuals with a distorted mindset find themselves more comfortable in Pakistan than anywhere else in the Ummah.
One must call a spade a spade.
One must face the truth.
To point out all this does not mean one wishes ill of Pakistan and wants it to perish.
Quite the contrary.
The real well-wishers of Pakistan and its people are those who have the honesty and courage to draw attention to the negative features of Pakistan and call on the Pakistani society to rid themselves of these features.
We all want good relations with Pakistan and its people.
The TOI-Jang Bhai Bhai is not the way of doing it.
It has to be done through honest debate promoted and moderated by people, who will not be suspected of having any ulterior interest in their sudden-found leave for Aman between the two countries.( 1-1-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Not at the nation's cost
Rajiv Dogra, Monday, January 11, 2010, Pioneer
It is nobody's case that there should be friction in India-Pakistan relations. But let us not be taken for fools. Let us not walk into an even bigger disaster than Sharm el-Sheikh. Our history is littered with bilateral agreements which were honoured by Pakistan only to the extent it suited them
The year gone by has proved conclusively that as a nation we catch a cold if anyone so much as sneezes elsewhere. We are hardly an export-dependent economy like China. Yet we spent most of last year agonising over the economic disasters that lay ahead because the US was in a financial meltdown. All this while China was reinforcing its newly dominant position as US's equal on the world stage. And throughout the year it resisted with resolute firmness the US demand that it revalues its currency. We, on the other hand, found ourselves fully in agreement with the American proposals at the G-20 meetings, including those that involve an international oversight over the domestic financial institutions.
It is not just the US that instills a sense of foreboding in our governing psyche. Pakistan does so routinely, and in multiple forms.
Look at the way Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone terrorist caught alive in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, mocked a nation of 1.2 billion from the court room, hogging unnecessarily the front pages of newspapers and the 24X7 television screens at will. Then, as if in celebration of the turn of the year, three convicted Pakistani terrorists walked away whimsically to their freedom after sharing a leisurely lunch at a restaurant with a police officer.
Yet we spent most of last year shaking our collective fists at Pakistan and threatening that never again would we tolerate another attack.
It is, of course, another matter that Pakistan has long since got tired of such resolves. Of late, it has begun to ignore these fulminations as mere threats; just empty words in air. As a matter of fact its crowning achievement last year was to diplomatically deflect India's accusing finger away from it. Sharm el-Sheikh would long be remembered as a self-goal by India, when it turned that accusing finger towards itself. With that reference in the joint text to Balochistan we agreed to become a co-accused with Pakistan in that deadly game of terror.
Meanwhile, 26/11 continues to bewilder us. David Coleman Headley may spill unpalatable beans and it might emerge that serving Pakistani officers were involved in the planning and execution of the 26/11 massacre. But even then, and regardless of all our resolves of not initiating the dialogue with Pakistan till the perpetrators of 26/11 have been brought to justice, we will find some way of making an adjustment. Just as we have done so many times in the past.
That is why Pakistan does not take our threats seriously. Nor does it buckle under rhetorical posturing of the type during Operation Parakram.
It knows that we lack the spine and the national resolve. It also knows that we are amenable to pressure from other, greater sources. Pakistan is expectantly hoping that this time, under the garb of its engagement in Afghanistan, pressure will mount to such an extent that India may be pushed into making a concession on Kashmir.
Such things are possible only in India. Otherwise, is there any other example in the world where a country ignores repeated acts of terror against it and hope that forgiveness will prevent the perpetrators from striking again?
As a matter of fact most other countries will pursue and destroy the terrorists regardless of the costs, just as the large Nato coalition is doing in Afghanistan, or as Russia and China have done in their respective trouble spots. Recently, China was successful in getting the Uighur terrorists repatriated to it from Pakistan, providing a stark contrast to the stone walling our requests receive.
It is possible that we are being goaded into taking this path on the advice of the big brother. If that is so, it would only be natural because the manoeuvering for the next presidential term would start in a year. A disaster in the AfPak region would not be good news for Mr Barack Obama's new campaign. On the other hand, if India appeases and pleases Pakistan the chances are that Pakistan may deliver just enough for Mr Obama to withdraw with some honour from Afghanistan.
It may or may not play out that way in Afghanistan eventually, but in the meanwhile India might have been cajoled into offering the sacrifice. That this may be so is also aided by the fact that the US may be misreading Pakistan, just as its intelligence agents are misreading the local people. In a recent report the deputy chief of US intelligence in Afghanistan maintained that US intelligence officials were "ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the power workers are and how they might be influenced…and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers."
But such misguidance is not all. An even greater surprise awaited us on the morning of the New Year. Many would have rubbed their bleary eyes in disbelief that a thing such as the one staring them in the face was actually happening.
Who doesn't want peace? All right-thinking people do. But can peace be achieved under a sword of terror? It is only the naïve who think that the gentility of appeasement can overwhelm the roar of 26/11-type attacks. But even the naïve had wept for the dead of Mumbai. They are the ones who had come out to affirm that never again would we let ourselves be lulled by false promises of Pakistan.
Yet on January 1, The Times of India teamed up with the Jang of Pakistan to usher in what they jointly call, 'Aman ki Asha'. If 'Aman' was truly the intent then the paper had missed the irony in the name and the record of its Pakistani partner.
It is said that in so far as India is concerned the daily effort of the Jang is to live up to its name.
Moreover, is it the right time? After all, the threat of terror has not receded. The Interior Minister of Pakistan continues unhindered with his bellicose statements. Moreover, would any commitment made by the Zardari Government be honoured by its successor?
The history of India-Pakistan relations is littered with bilateral agreements which were honoured by Pakistan only to the extent it suited them. What has since changed for us to trust an establishment which has refused so far to return the massive Rupee loan it had taken immediately after the partition?
Indeed the fundamental premise of the 'Aman ki Asha' exercise is suspect. It maintains that a poll was conducted in six Indian cities and with respondents in eight Pakistani cities and 36 villages. In this exercise 66 per cent of those polled in India and 72 per cent in Pakistan said they desire peaceful relations. If this is so then this desire must be a closely held secret.
Look at the evidence coming in from elsewhere. A paranoid America has selected Pakistan for racial profiling, even though the terrorist in the recent airline incident was a Nigerian. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown misses no opportunity to assert that 2/3 of all terrorist attacks in the UK originate in Pakistan. Closer home in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai blames Pakistan bluntly for his country's misfortunes.
A recent poll conducted in Afghanistan by International Republican Institute revealed that as many as 72 per cent of Afghans view Pakistan unfavourably. Amazingly, even the Taliban don't fare as badly. As against 72 per cent in case of Pakistan, 67 per cent Afghans viewed the Taliban negatively. And far more revealingly only 5 per cent of the Afghans polled wanted good relations with Pakistan! Contrast this with the figure of 66 per cent allegedly concerning Indians!
It is no one's case that there should be friction and bickering in bilateral relations. But let us not be taken for fools. Let us not walk into an even bigger disaster than Sharm el-Sheikh.
Even a Nobel Peace Prize would not be worth it.
-- The writer is a former Ambassador. http://www.dailypioneer.com/228336/Not-at-the-nation's-cost.html
B.RAMAN Jan. 1, 2010
There is a Tamil saying: "chozhiyan kudumi summa aadathu."
Roughly paraphrased, it means: " If one finds a Brahmin's tuft moving up and down, one should not presume it must be due to the breeze. There could be a hidden reason for it. One should look deeper."
I was reminded of this saying on New Year's Day as I noticed that the Times of India has started an Indians-Pakistanis bhai bhai ( Indians and Pakistanis Are Brothers) campaign under the theme "Aman Ki Asha" ( The Desire For Peace) in association with the Jang group of Pakistan.
The desire for peace one can understand.
The desire for closer people-to-people contacts one can equally understand , but the sudden love of the Times of India for the Jang group one cannot.
If the TOI had joined hands with the Dawn group of Karachi, that would have made some sense. No other media group of Pakistan enjoys as much respect among the people of Pakistan and in the international community as the Dawn group does.
But, no other media group of Pakistan has been as much controversial and as money-minded as the Jang group has been over the years.
And no other media group of Pakistan has been more opportunistic in its editorial policies than the Jang group.
It is alleged in Pakistan: Look where the money is. One will find Jang there.
The sudden love of the TOI for Pakistan and the Jang group is as mysterious as the sudden love of L.K.Advani for Mohammad Ali Jinnah some years ago and as the sudden admiration of Jaswant Singh for Jinnah last year.
Nobody can question the ardent wish of the TOI leadership for peace with Pakistan.
We all want peace with Pakistan.
We all like the people of Pakistan---- whether they are Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochs, Seraikis or Pashtuns.
As I had pointed out in an article on India's relations with Pakistan and China sometime ago, the civil societies of India and Pakistan have greater positive vibrations for each other than the civil societies of India and China.
And yet there has never been genuine peace between India and Pakistan.
There is a Tamil saying: "chozhiyan kudumi summa aadathu."
Roughly paraphrased, it means: " If one finds a Brahmin's tuft moving up and down, one should not presume it must be due to the breeze. There could be a hidden reason for it. One should look deeper."
I was reminded of this saying on New Year's Day as I noticed that the Times of India has started an Indians-Pakistanis bhai bhai ( Indians and Pakistanis Are Brothers) campaign under the theme "Aman Ki Asha" ( The Desire For Peace) in association with the Jang group of Pakistan.
The desire for peace one can understand.
The desire for closer people-to-people contacts one can equally understand , but the sudden love of the Times of India for the Jang group one cannot.
If the TOI had joined hands with the Dawn group of Karachi, that would have made some sense. No other media group of Pakistan enjoys as much respect among the people of Pakistan and in the international community as the Dawn group does.
But, no other media group of Pakistan has been as much controversial and as money-minded as the Jang group has been over the years.
And no other media group of Pakistan has been more opportunistic in its editorial policies than the Jang group.
It is alleged in Pakistan: Look where the money is. One will find Jang there.
The sudden love of the TOI for Pakistan and the Jang group is as mysterious as the sudden love of L.K.Advani for Mohammad Ali Jinnah some years ago and as the sudden admiration of Jaswant Singh for Jinnah last year.
Nobody can question the ardent wish of the TOI leadership for peace with Pakistan.
We all want peace with Pakistan.
We all like the people of Pakistan---- whether they are Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochs, Seraikis or Pashtuns.
As I had pointed out in an article on India's relations with Pakistan and China sometime ago, the civil societies of India and Pakistan have greater positive vibrations for each other than the civil societies of India and China.
And yet there has never been genuine peace between India and Pakistan.
What is the reason?
Not Kashmir.
Not Balochistan.
Not the Lashksar-e-Toiba and the myriad terrorist organizations to which the State and civil society of Pakistan have given birth.
Barring China, no other country in the world thinks and talks well of Pakistan and its people.
No other country in the world triggers more negative vibrations in the hearts and minds of people than Pakistan.
There are various reasons for it.
Because of the distorted interpretations of Islam in Pakistan ever since it was born in 1947. One does not come across such distorted interpretations anywhere else in the Ummah.
Because of the cruelty and barbarity which have come to be associated with Islam in Pakistan. One does not come across such cruelty and barbarity anywhere else in the Ummah.
Because of the perfidious nature of the Pakistani statecraft.
Because of so many other reasons.
Why all the jihadi terrorists of the world flock to Pakistan?
Not merely because of its sanctuaries.
Not merely because of the sponsorship of the ISI.
It is also because irrational individuals with a distorted mindset find themselves more comfortable in Pakistan than anywhere else in the Ummah.
One must call a spade a spade.
One must face the truth.
To point out all this does not mean one wishes ill of Pakistan and wants it to perish.
Quite the contrary.
The real well-wishers of Pakistan and its people are those who have the honesty and courage to draw attention to the negative features of Pakistan and call on the Pakistani society to rid themselves of these features.
We all want good relations with Pakistan and its people.
The TOI-Jang Bhai Bhai is not the way of doing it.
It has to be done through honest debate promoted and moderated by people, who will not be suspected of having any ulterior interest in their sudden-found leave for Aman between the two countries.( 1-1-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Not at the nation's cost
Rajiv Dogra, Monday, January 11, 2010, Pioneer
It is nobody's case that there should be friction in India-Pakistan relations. But let us not be taken for fools. Let us not walk into an even bigger disaster than Sharm el-Sheikh. Our history is littered with bilateral agreements which were honoured by Pakistan only to the extent it suited them
The year gone by has proved conclusively that as a nation we catch a cold if anyone so much as sneezes elsewhere. We are hardly an export-dependent economy like China. Yet we spent most of last year agonising over the economic disasters that lay ahead because the US was in a financial meltdown. All this while China was reinforcing its newly dominant position as US's equal on the world stage. And throughout the year it resisted with resolute firmness the US demand that it revalues its currency. We, on the other hand, found ourselves fully in agreement with the American proposals at the G-20 meetings, including those that involve an international oversight over the domestic financial institutions.
It is not just the US that instills a sense of foreboding in our governing psyche. Pakistan does so routinely, and in multiple forms.
Look at the way Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone terrorist caught alive in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, mocked a nation of 1.2 billion from the court room, hogging unnecessarily the front pages of newspapers and the 24X7 television screens at will. Then, as if in celebration of the turn of the year, three convicted Pakistani terrorists walked away whimsically to their freedom after sharing a leisurely lunch at a restaurant with a police officer.
Yet we spent most of last year shaking our collective fists at Pakistan and threatening that never again would we tolerate another attack.
It is, of course, another matter that Pakistan has long since got tired of such resolves. Of late, it has begun to ignore these fulminations as mere threats; just empty words in air. As a matter of fact its crowning achievement last year was to diplomatically deflect India's accusing finger away from it. Sharm el-Sheikh would long be remembered as a self-goal by India, when it turned that accusing finger towards itself. With that reference in the joint text to Balochistan we agreed to become a co-accused with Pakistan in that deadly game of terror.
Meanwhile, 26/11 continues to bewilder us. David Coleman Headley may spill unpalatable beans and it might emerge that serving Pakistani officers were involved in the planning and execution of the 26/11 massacre. But even then, and regardless of all our resolves of not initiating the dialogue with Pakistan till the perpetrators of 26/11 have been brought to justice, we will find some way of making an adjustment. Just as we have done so many times in the past.
That is why Pakistan does not take our threats seriously. Nor does it buckle under rhetorical posturing of the type during Operation Parakram.
It knows that we lack the spine and the national resolve. It also knows that we are amenable to pressure from other, greater sources. Pakistan is expectantly hoping that this time, under the garb of its engagement in Afghanistan, pressure will mount to such an extent that India may be pushed into making a concession on Kashmir.
Such things are possible only in India. Otherwise, is there any other example in the world where a country ignores repeated acts of terror against it and hope that forgiveness will prevent the perpetrators from striking again?
As a matter of fact most other countries will pursue and destroy the terrorists regardless of the costs, just as the large Nato coalition is doing in Afghanistan, or as Russia and China have done in their respective trouble spots. Recently, China was successful in getting the Uighur terrorists repatriated to it from Pakistan, providing a stark contrast to the stone walling our requests receive.
It is possible that we are being goaded into taking this path on the advice of the big brother. If that is so, it would only be natural because the manoeuvering for the next presidential term would start in a year. A disaster in the AfPak region would not be good news for Mr Barack Obama's new campaign. On the other hand, if India appeases and pleases Pakistan the chances are that Pakistan may deliver just enough for Mr Obama to withdraw with some honour from Afghanistan.
It may or may not play out that way in Afghanistan eventually, but in the meanwhile India might have been cajoled into offering the sacrifice. That this may be so is also aided by the fact that the US may be misreading Pakistan, just as its intelligence agents are misreading the local people. In a recent report the deputy chief of US intelligence in Afghanistan maintained that US intelligence officials were "ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the power workers are and how they might be influenced…and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers."
But such misguidance is not all. An even greater surprise awaited us on the morning of the New Year. Many would have rubbed their bleary eyes in disbelief that a thing such as the one staring them in the face was actually happening.
Who doesn't want peace? All right-thinking people do. But can peace be achieved under a sword of terror? It is only the naïve who think that the gentility of appeasement can overwhelm the roar of 26/11-type attacks. But even the naïve had wept for the dead of Mumbai. They are the ones who had come out to affirm that never again would we let ourselves be lulled by false promises of Pakistan.
Yet on January 1, The Times of India teamed up with the Jang of Pakistan to usher in what they jointly call, 'Aman ki Asha'. If 'Aman' was truly the intent then the paper had missed the irony in the name and the record of its Pakistani partner.
It is said that in so far as India is concerned the daily effort of the Jang is to live up to its name.
Moreover, is it the right time? After all, the threat of terror has not receded. The Interior Minister of Pakistan continues unhindered with his bellicose statements. Moreover, would any commitment made by the Zardari Government be honoured by its successor?
The history of India-Pakistan relations is littered with bilateral agreements which were honoured by Pakistan only to the extent it suited them. What has since changed for us to trust an establishment which has refused so far to return the massive Rupee loan it had taken immediately after the partition?
Indeed the fundamental premise of the 'Aman ki Asha' exercise is suspect. It maintains that a poll was conducted in six Indian cities and with respondents in eight Pakistani cities and 36 villages. In this exercise 66 per cent of those polled in India and 72 per cent in Pakistan said they desire peaceful relations. If this is so then this desire must be a closely held secret.
Look at the evidence coming in from elsewhere. A paranoid America has selected Pakistan for racial profiling, even though the terrorist in the recent airline incident was a Nigerian. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown misses no opportunity to assert that 2/3 of all terrorist attacks in the UK originate in Pakistan. Closer home in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai blames Pakistan bluntly for his country's misfortunes.
A recent poll conducted in Afghanistan by International Republican Institute revealed that as many as 72 per cent of Afghans view Pakistan unfavourably. Amazingly, even the Taliban don't fare as badly. As against 72 per cent in case of Pakistan, 67 per cent Afghans viewed the Taliban negatively. And far more revealingly only 5 per cent of the Afghans polled wanted good relations with Pakistan! Contrast this with the figure of 66 per cent allegedly concerning Indians!
It is no one's case that there should be friction and bickering in bilateral relations. But let us not be taken for fools. Let us not walk into an even bigger disaster than Sharm el-Sheikh.
Even a Nobel Peace Prize would not be worth it.
-- The writer is a former Ambassador. http://www.dailypioneer.com/228336/Not-at-the-nation's-cost.html
10 comments:
"but i wonder why b raman as yet does not recognise that it is islam which is responsible for pak's attitude and not... Because of the distorted interpretations of Islam in Pakistan"
B Raman is a worthless dhimmi chutia no 1. Recently he commented that BRF forums have become open ground for NRI hindutva people. And this lead to massive purging and banning of the people from its forums.
Now you can't criticize Islam on BRF. Only thing you are allowed is singing "Sarre jahan se ...." and similar secular lullaby s.
Its real fun to read BRF nowdays where pakistan is mocked but its progenitor Islam is praised.
>but i wonder why b raman as yet >does not recognise that it is >islam which is responsible for >pak's attitude and not...
because then there can be no solution to the issue. we have to work with what we have ie islam. as a responsible journalist he cannot simply keep thrashing islam like some hindus do.
>>>"because then there can be no solution to the issue. we have to work with what we have ie islam. as a responsible journalist he cannot simply keep thrashing islam like some hindus do."
In short, effort must be on to turn the tiger into a vegetarian!
Till the cows come home.
What do you mean by thrashing islam? Hindus have been very passive against islam. Look at what happened in Pakistan, Bangladesh and even in India now. If anything islam is so bold now that it is not only thrashing hindus in India, but also ironically the christians that support the pseudo-secular government. Eventually even the christians will realize that they form a smaller voting block than the muslims, although considering christian ideology and their experiences in other countries with islam that will most likely be too late for them.
Islam is an ideology, it provides a constitution and a mentality for all who submit to it. Just read the koran. All infidels are expendable for allah's holy war. The koran never talks about peace with other religions as the liberals would have it, but it talks about how other religions should first submit to islam and then gradually be indoctrinated under dhimmi law. Where dhimmis will have limited rights, under the supervision of islam. Where islam is free to criticize all other religions, and prevent non-islamic houses of worship from being built, while at the same time sending in jihadists to destroy the older houses of worship of non-islamic faiths. That has been the history of islam and always will be, far from a "religion of peace".
>In short, effort must be on to >turn the tiger into a vegetarian
not necessarily. just to keep the tiger leashed and chained and keep subverting its mental process till it loses its fundamental nature. maybe it might not work with a tiger but it can with humans. if brainwashing can make people fanatics, likewise the same can make them non-fanatic too.
just to keep repeating that they are fanatic is not going to solve anything.
What will work is acting against the fanatics. That is how Hinduism survived, it was not through ahisma. Look at pakistan bangladesh, and central asia today, they were all once buddhist majority states, they were not able to fight off the islamic plague.
The islamists recruited and kidnapped the children of indian hindus and buddhists (paks and bangladeshis were indians then) and raised them as muslims. The only way to defeat the abrahamic plague once and for all is by force, that is the only language these abraham cult followers understand. If you want to brainwash a muslim, first you have to destroy the image of islam in their eyes.
>>>"keep the tiger leashed and chained and keep subverting its mental process till it loses its fundamental nature. maybe it might not work with a tiger but it can with humans. "
some producer in bollywood is probably missing a fantasy script writer.
I rather should have stated that an islamist should be de-programmed ,it is not as if one could possibly be more brainwashed anyway.
what you say about violent protest is true in a sense. but those were other times when hindus were not united and islam was dominant. but today that is not true (atleast in certain senses). today we can lay greater emphasis on psychological protest/activism than mere violence. violence today will only breed more violence - and that is exactly what the radical islamists are looking for to rouse the average muslim against the kafir. as the great bruce lee once said "the art of fighting without fighting" is more effective in todays circumstances. btw by this i do not mean ahimsa against violent extremists and fanatics - those need to be tackled by by the gun. but the average muslim can be made to see reason in many other ways. constant condemnation of association with terrorism has made many muslim leaders and organizations to come publicly against terrorist attacks. even mass non-cooperation as seen in gujarat is not a bad idea to force certain issues. but violence of majority against minority will only lead to civil war which will devastate us. and that is not really necessary.
The only language that the islamists understand and will ever understand is violence. The islamists are still dominant in certain parts of india such as bangladesh and pakistan which they have forcibly stolen. The operation for the islamists has never ended they are simply recuperating. Hindus are still not united today, the marxists, christians and muslims maybe united, but certainly not by any means hindus. Islam or any abrahamic religion only really understands brute force. The reason islam was stopped in India, Europe, etc was due to the infidel's willingness to fight back. That is what the muslims understand, violence. They do not want to overplay their hand and be decimated by a much greater willing power, but at the same time they are plenty willing to attack enemies that they feel would be less powerful or in the case of the US and India less willing. The only way to defeat islam is to use islamic tactics on islam, this is how the hans and islam have an alliance, they understand force-politics very clearly. The average muslim can never be made to reason, unless you infiltrate their institutions by force. This is exactly what the russians and then the soviets had to do in central asia in order to secularize the central asian muslims. Islam itself supports the spread of islam by whatever means necessary, those so-called moderate muslims are not allowed to speak out against jihad, if they do are considered to be apostates and will be rejected as they reject the concept of holy war a central tenet of islam. What are you talking about? Since the seventh century all of islam has practically spread through deceit, violence and bribery, and will continue to spread until it is put down. Islam is political, the koran presents a constitution, that all muslims must accept. Of course turkey is an exception, as the army still holds on to ataturk's ideals and is preventing the islamists from taking over for the time being. The muslims will fight to the death in jihad for islam. You have already seen that happen with bangladesh and pakistan, both were and are still apart of India, the so-called minority will never stop until becomes a majority. Even look at Lebanon, which was once a christian nation until recently when christianity's abrahamic twin of islam took over, they will never stop, they will create their own civil war eventually if need be. It is absolutely necessary according to them.
Post a Comment