Islamic Terrorists Strike at Heart of London:Muslims allowed to walk the streets now?

[krsna]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm

 

Will any muslim be not under suspicion now in the UK?

 

Muslims act as a 5th column for their greater plan to convert EUROPE into EURABIA.

[Guest guest]

If Brits panic and attack Muslims, then the terrorists win. It is important to maintain restraint at this point and not play blame games. There is no evidence that muslims are involved, but they've become a convenient excuse for racist parties like BNP. By attacking Muslims, Brits will fall into the BNP's trap.

 

They've gotta be very careful and remember that terrorism is the result of UK's diabolical foreign policy. So instead of readily blaming innocent muslims, Brits should change their policies and treat Muslims fairly. Since Muslims have suffered years and years of oppression at the hands of westerners, they are resorting to these desperate acts. Brits should realize this and change for the better.

 

Haribol!

[Kulapavana]

It looks like Scotland Yard had advanced warning before the attack and even informed the Israelis about it. See the story here:

 

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=122098120&p=yzzx987xx

[Guest guest]

It's possible that Scotland Yard conducted the attack to justify the invasion of Iran under the pretext of 'war on terror.' These attacks will give not only the opportunity but the sympathy from international community.

[Kulapavana]

if anything, it looks a lot more like MI5 job than Scotland Yard...

 

possibly not so much that they did it themselves, but either knew about it and let it happen, or got some Arabs to do it for them, by pretending to be "alkaida" organizers. Entrapment is their favourite game: they will pretend to be alkaida to see if somebody will be willing to engage in terrorism - sometimes they will then arrest them, claiming to the stupid public: we have caught some terrorists!, and sometimes they will just let the plot be carried out...

 

anyway... who knows?

[krsna]

Report: Islamic Group Claims London Blasts

Thursday, July 07, 2005

 

 

•Terrorists Strike London With Series of Blasts•Witnesses: People 'Covered in Blood, Soot'•Blair Returns to London

 

— A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe" has posted a claim of responsibility for the series of blasts in London, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The statement was published on a Web site popular with Islamic militants, according to Der Spiegel magazine in Berlin, which republished the text on its own Web site.

 

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan," said the statement, which was translated by The Associated Press in Cairo.

 

The authenticity of the message could not be immediately confirmed.

 

"The heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west," the statement said.

 

"We warned the British government repeated. We have carried out our promise and carried out a military attack in Britain after great efforts by the heroic mujahedeen over a long period to ensure its success."

 

"We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," the statement went on.

 

It was signed: "The Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe."

 

 

[gHari]

Where have you been for the last 1500 years?

 

Don't accept the bull spewed by the terror machine. This has been their lifestyle for over a thousand years. Wake up.

Soon every Muslim will be shipped back to the desert. They will have to rape and murder one another.

 

[Kulapavana]

"A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe"

 

oh, suuuuure that is sooo believable... LOL!

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

After 911 a bunch of kooks and weirdos were claiming Muslims didn't fly the planes into the World Trade Center. Then even after Osama Bin Laden videotaped himself and said he did it, these nutcases still said "That is just a CIA cover. They had an actor put on a wig and beard"

 

In Iraq, when the Al Zarqawi's guys were decapitating civilians, these same weirdos were claiming it was the U.S. military trying to make the insurgents look bad. Of course, when Al Zarqawi takes credit for it, and did it repeatedly, and continues to kidnap (like the Egyptian diplomat recently) these wack jobs still have some conspiracy.

 

Occam's Razor - the simplest answer is usually correct.

 

If a bunch of nutjob Islamic crazies declare war on the West, if a bunch of trains subsequently blow up, if these Muslim psychos then say they did it and post it on a known radical Muslim website - GUESS WHAT??? It wasn't Scotland Yard killing its own people. Its called crazy Muslims killing English people. Its simple.

[gHari]

Very observant. For the last while they have been the ones killing Muslims in Iraq. Total basket cases. Their jihad preachers even publish papers about how killing innocent Muslim believers is allowed under jihad rules. I cannot even imagine what kind of evil demon could accept this garbage as religious doctrine, much less preach it. Their god is so impotent that he needs little children to blow themselves up with dynamite to defeat the infidels. Morons!

 

But then their kingdom of god was ruled by murderous cut-throats like Sodamn Insane, so what can we expect from such a gullible people. Sodamn bows down, says a coupla Hail Mary's and the whole country loves him, the great servant of Allah. Morons!

 

[Guest guest]

Be calm. Brits are not angels, are they? They have raped and destroyed many nations and cultures, including the nation where your Vaishnavam was born. Millions of people have died at the hands of Brits, they've accumulated a lot of bad karma. And now, it's all coming back to them.

 

So there is no point in blaming Muslims when Brits have been acting like terrorists for centuries. What you call terrorism is just an effect, the root cause of all this chaos is western imperialism. Stop western imperialism and so-called terrorism will vanish of its own accord.

[Guest guest]

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe"****

 

Sorry but ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I couldn't help it. Looks like the *secret* organization is good at public relations.lol.

[Guest guest]

Then even after Osama Bin Laden videotaped himself***

 

Yes, we must all believe that Bin Laden not only attacked US but also went through the trouble of videotaping himself praising the attack, PLUS LEAVING IT IN A NICE LITTLE HUT WHERE US SOLDIERS COULD SEIZE IT!

 

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

[gHari]

That will all vanish? The bloody history of jihad in India before 1492, before the Crusades - that will vanish too? No doubt the answer lies somewhere in between the noble defence of a motherland and the psychotic quest for virgins in heaven and tons of booty in the here and now.

 

But then when I read the Jihadist's papers about how they will fight jihad in India until every Indian is dead or bows to Allah, I just want to kill 'em all. Yes, curse them all to hell to death. Right now.

 

 

[krsna]

 

 

Opinion: London Bombings

 

by

 

Krishna Dharma Dasa

The London attacks are a terrible tragedy and our hearts and prayers go out to all affected.

 

Such atrocities are becoming all too common all around the world. Often it is done in the name of religion, and indeed there are “religious groups” claiming responsibility for this latest wave of attacks.

 

Such groups are generally marked by an unswerving certainty that they are doing God’s will. They therefore feel that they are doing no wrong; after all, God, by any definition, is all-good, and his will must surely mean the good of all beings.

 

But how do we know the divine will? Many times it has been invoked in order to justify war. The first crusaders who attacked Jerusalem a thousand years ago were promised salvation by Pope Urban II, while the defending Muslims believed the Lord was with them.

 

More recently, in the Gulf War, President Bush and Saddam Hussein each declared that he had God on his side. And now the Muslims who die in what they see as their jihad believe they will go to Paradise and enjoy everlasting pleasures.

 

Quite a conundrum for God, it seems. How can he support everyone?

 

What is his definition of good and bad? It might be handy to know before we embark on any fierce campaigns.

 

Well, a good place to start looking is scripture, but that of course is often the root of disagreement. Opposing parties have their different scriptures from which they quote in order to establish that followers of any other scripture are godless barbarians. I once walked into a shop in my priestly robes and the shopkeeper immediately exclaimed,

"Your book is wrong!" (at which I beat a hasty retreat).

 

So, whose book is right? Who is actually on God's side, doing his will? Perhaps Christ's instruction to judge a tree by its fruits is helpful. If a person is actually approaching God, which is the aim of all religion, then he or she should become godly — tolerant, humble, kind, merciful, and non-violent are a few definitions of goodness given in Bhagavad-gita.

 

Of course, these good qualities can be developed by anyone from any faith background. They are not the exclusive preserve of any religion, for we find genuine saints in all traditions.

 

Religion is a process that aims to please God, thereby taking the practitioner closer to him. This may manifest in different forms and rituals following different scriptures, but if the essential aim is to please the Lord, then why squabble? If I am actually trying to please a person I love, then how1 can I hate others trying to please the same person, even if they are doing it in a different way to me?

 

Hating others in the name of God defeats its own purpose of pleasing God. Rather than pleasure it would more likely give the Lord pain. Is a father pained when he sees his sons fight? And if I hold such hatred, it seems to be evidence that I myself am not actually coming close to God.

 

Is there ever any justification for a holy war? How about rooting out unbelievers? Surely that must please God? And clearly some self-styled holy warriors see things in those terms, believing they are purging the earth of its scourge of atheists.

 

But can that please the Lord? If my brother turns away from my father and I therefore kill him, would that make my father happy?

The real war then is against ignorance, first of all in ourselves. This is the actual triumph of good over evil — gaining knowledge of who we really are, and of God, and of how to reach him.

 

If we really do want good to prevail, then we should come together with a desire to know and satisfy the Supreme, peacefully discussing how that can best be done. We should recognise the integrity of other people's faiths, and see that they too are children of the same God we are trying to worship, equally loved by him. And those without faith should be loved too, even if at present they choose to turn away from him. After all, has not the Lord himself given us that free choice?

 

The ultimate definition of good must be that which is conducive to the permanent happiness of all beings. Only God has that vision, and thus our highest good lies in approaching Him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[krsna]

 

 

This statement is issued on behalf of ISKCON Communications, 7 July 2005.

 

The 7 July attack on London was cruel and senseless. Devotees of Krishna worldwide share in the horror of what appears to have been murder done in God's name.

 

We share in the feelings of sorrow and sympathy for the dead and their families, and for those injured physically and emotionally. Many ISKCON members live in London and many more have close ties with it and share, in a very direct way, the turmoil resulting from these terrible acts.

 

This is a crime against humanity in the truest sense. Those attacked had been de-humanised by their attackers — they were no longer seen as individuals with lives, and cares, and souls of their own, but as targets in a political struggle. We object to that behaviour at all times.

 

We also sympathise with our Muslim friends, many of whom will in turn be de-humanised and subject to equally senseless tit-for-tat attacks in the UK and in other countries.

 

This is a sad time for all sincere religionists, whatever tradition they belong to — to see the antithesis of Godly behaviour touted as an example of what religion stands for is very sad.

 

We pray that all afflicted find comfort in this dark time and that our societies can begin to find a way out of this violence.

 

 

 

[Kulapavana]

ONLY when you become equally outraged at 50 innocent people killed by US forces in Iraq and 50 innocent people killed in London by terrorists you can claim objectivity and justice in your judgement. Otherwise, you are just another deluded fool, used by these demons on both sides for their own evil schemes.

[krsna]

Timers 'set off London blasts'

July 8, 2005 - 8:20PM

 

Timers, not suicide bombers, set off the four blasts on the London underground and a bus that killed at least 52 people on Thursday, the New York Times reported on Friday.

 

Without citing its sources, the newspaper also said the device which ripped the top off a red double-decker bus might have been intended for a different target. London police said they received no warning of the attacks which the government said bore the hallmarks of the Islamic militant al-Qaeda network. London Mayor Ken Livingstone hinted on Wednesday that suicide bombers may have been involved.

 

British police have found nothing to suggest the attacks were caused by suicide bombs, the city's police chief Sir Ian Blair said.

 

Investigators scrambled to hunt down suspected al-Qaeda bombers who killed dozens of people in rush-hour London and to keep them from striking again.

 

The Metropolitan Police have confirmed there are "more than 50 fatalities". At a press conference convened in London, Specialist Operations AC Andy Hayman confirmed the existence of four devices, each carrying less than ten pounds of explosives.

 

There were difficulties in giving precise casualty figures, as bodies were still being recovered at two of the blast sites.

 

A day after four bombs tore through three underground trains and a red double-decker bus, commuters headed to work again on London's battered transport network, some fearful, some defiant.

 

"My granddad called me last night and told me I had to go to work today," said Sally Higson, 36. "He's 89. He lived through the war and said it was important to carry on as normal."

 

The attacks - which ministers said bore the hallmarks of the Islamic militant al-Qaeda network - were London's deadliest in peacetime and coincided with a summit of the Group of Eight (G8) top industrialised countries in Gleneagles, Scotland.

 

Police said they received no warning. Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the blasts "came completely out of the blue".

 

Cabinet ministers said forensic teams were hunting for clues on who carried out the bombings and whether suicide attackers were involved. The New York Times said timing devices rather than suicide bombers set off the explosions.

 

Fears of more attacks kept commuters and markets jittery.

 

"We have to have ... maximum consideration of the risk of another attack and that's why our total effort today is focused on identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice," Clarke told BBC radio. He said investigators were examining a statement from the "Secret Group of al-Qaeda's Jihad in Europe".

 

The e-mail statement by the previously unknown group said: "Our mujahideen have carried out a blessed invasion in London and here is Britain now burning with fear and terror ... We have repeatedly warned Britain and have kept our promise."

 

Clarke said: "We monitor now very intensively a wide range of Web sites ... and this one and their claim is something we certainly take seriously."

 

Britain backed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and London had been on high alert since al-Qaeda's Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

 

Police gave a provisional death toll of 37 from Thursday's blasts but Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he was told 52 people were killed.

 

The attacks wounded 700 people and battered financial markets. Oil prices recovered to near $61 on Friday as analysts said the attacks were expected to have a limited impact on the global economy and oil demand, but sterling slid to a fresh 19-month low against the dollar.

 

"There's still a bit of a terrorist risk premium in the market," said a strategist at a London bank. "It would make a difference if we knew for sure that these were suicide bombers, rather than an active cell on the loose."

 

Police urged commuters to consider whether to come to work on Friday to avoid burdening the transport system.

 

The Islamic Human Rights Commission warned London Muslims to stay at home, fearing a backlash against the community. The Muslim Council of Britain, which represents 1.6 million Muslims, called for prayers for the victims.

 

"We know that these people act in the name of Islam," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Thursday. He declined to speculate who was behind the attacks.

 

Thursday's scenes of shocked and bloodied commuters were in stark contrast to the jubilant crowds who took to the streets on Wednesday after London was awarded the 2012 Olympic Games.

 

Britain's Guardian newspaper said intelligence chiefs had reduced the threat level from al-Qaeda only last month.

 

A senior U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be identified, said the United States had detected no indication an attack had been imminent in London.

 

[krsna]

In the 52nd chapter of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon posed one of the great counterfactual questions of history: If the French had failed to defeat an invading Muslim army at the Battle of Poitiers in AD 732, would all of Western Europe have succumbed to Islam?

 

“Perhaps,” speculated Gibbon with his inimitable irony, “the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

 

When those words were published in 1788, the idea of a Muslim Oxford could scarcely have seemed more fanciful. The last Muslim forces had been driven from Spain in 1492; the Ottoman advance through Eastern Europe had been decisively halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

 

Today, however, the idea seems somewhat less risible. The French historian Alain Besancon is one of a number of European intellectuals who detect a significant threat to the continent’s traditional Christian culture. The Egyptian-born writer Bat Yeor has for some years referred to the rise of a new “Eurabia” that is hostile in equal measure to the United States and Israel. Two years ago, Pat Buchanan published an apocalyptic book, titled The Death of the West, prophesying that declining European fertility and immigration from Muslim countries could turn “the cradle of Western civilization” into “its grave.”

 

Such Spenglerian talk has gained credibility since 9/11. The 3/11 bombings in Madrid confirm that terrorists sympathetic to Osama bin Laden continue to operate with comparative freedom in European cities. Some American commentators suspect Europeans of wanting to appease radical Islam. Others detect in sporadic manifestations of anti-Semitism a sinister conjunction of old fascism and new fundamentalism.

 

Most European Muslims are, of course, law-abiding citizens with little sympathy for terrorist attacks on European cities. Moreover, they are drawn from a wide range of countries and Islamic traditions, few of them close to Arabian Wahhabism. Nevertheless, there is no question that the continent is experiencing fundamental demographic and cultural changes whose long-term consequences no one can foresee.

 

To begin with, consider the extraordinary prospect of European demographic decline. A hundred years ago—when Europe’s surplus population was still crossing the oceans to populate America and Australasia—the countries that make up today’s European Union accounted for around 14 percent of the world’s population. Today that figure is down to around 6 percent, and by 2050, according to a United Nations forecast, it will be just over 4 percent. The decline is absolute as well as relative. Even allowing for immigration, the United Nations projects that the population of the current European Union members will fall by around 7.5 million over the next 45 years. There has not been such a sustained reduction in the European population since the Black Death of the fourteenth century. (By contrast, the United States population is projected to grow by 44 percent between 2000 and 2050.)

 

With the median age of Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards projected to exceed 50 by 2050—roughly one in three people will be 65 or over—the welfare states created in the wake of World War II plainly require drastic reform. Either today’s newborn Europeans will spend their working lives paying 75 percent tax rates or retirement and “free” health care will simply have to be abolished. Alternatively (or additionally), Europeans will have to tolerate more legal immigration.

 

But where will the new immigrants come from? It seems very likely that a high proportion will come from neighboring countries, and Europe’s fastest-growing neighbors today are predominantly if not wholly Muslim. A youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a senescent Europe.

 

This prospect is all the more significant when considered alongside the decline of European Christianity. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark today, fewer than 1 in 10 people now attend church once a month or more. Some 52 percent of Norwegians and 55 percent of Swedes say that God does not matter to them at all. Although the social and sexual freedoms that matter to such societies are antithetical to Muslim fundamentalism, their religious tolerance leaves these societies weak in the face of fanaticism.

 

What the consequences of these changes will be is very difficult to say. A creeping Islamicization of a decadent Christendom is one conceivable result: While the old Europeans get even older and their religious faith weaker, the Muslim colonies within their cities get larger and more overt in their religious observance. A backlash against immigration by the economically Neanderthal Right is another: Aging electorates turn to demagogues who offer sealed borders without explaining who exactly is going to pay for the pensions and health care. Nor can we rule out the possibility of a happy fusion between rapidly secularized second-generation Muslims and their post-Christian neighbors. Indeed, we may conceivably end up with all three: situation 1 in France, situation 2 in Austria, and situation 3 in Britain.

 

Still, it is hard not to be reminded of Gibbon—especially now that his old university’s Center for Islamic Studies has almost completed work on its new premises. In addition to the traditional Oxford quadrangle, the building is expected to feature “a prayer hall with traditional dome and minaret tower.”

 

When I first glimpsed a model of that minaret, I confess, the phrase that sprang to mind was indeed “decline and fall.”

 

 

--

 

This essay appeared in the New York Times on April 4, 2004.

 

[Guest guest]

The countries that you mentioned were raped by Westerners over and over again, read some history. It is nothing new. If you accuse Muslims of invading nations in the name of religion, the Muslim too can accuse the westerners of genocide, invasions etc. How will you react to that?

 

Point being, all religions have blood on their hands. And for a westerner to accuse the Muslim is very hypocritical, especially with too many skeletons in your closet.

 

Regarding your desire to kill every Muslim who's threatening India, why do you have so much hatred? Probably, the people in India lack spiritual values (which explains why they're in this state)and the Muslims want to convert them for their own good? Who knows, maybe, Islam is the solution for India's spiritual darkness.

[Guest guest]

A human life is precious, be it american or muslim or whoever. But the hypocrisy of the western christian is that they only care about their lives, nation and so on, and hate muslims. This makes the Muslim hate them in return, and thus the violence continues.

 

The only solution is for the christians to give up their 'crusading' attitude and focus on being friendly with teh muslims with whom they have so much in common. Unless western christians drop their imperialistic ambitions, so-called islamic terrorism will continue.

[Guest guest]

Yes, I believe Bin Laden did it because he has admitted doing it. There have been multiple videos of Bin Laden taking credit played on Al Jazeera. Proof positive you and your type are insane. When an attack occurs you say its justified. When we say its a Muslim you say "No, it was America attacking itself." You're a nut.

[Kulapavana]

during the war with the Russians in Afghanistan Binladen was working for the CIA. Who knows, maybe he still is... they have "black" operations inside their "black" operations... Look, thanks to him, Haliburton and other companies with ties to the rulers of America are sucking billions of dollars every month out of US Treasury.

[Guest guest]

The British may react very differently than the Spanish did after Madrid — by doing nothing rather than by retreating from Iraq.

 

In the corrupt West these days, that is something.

 

We all know the score of this war now in the near four years since September 11. The London bombings should remind us how the old tired game works.

 

 

Causes

Failed states in the Middle East — autocratic, statist, unfree, intolerant of women and other religions — blame the West for their self-inflicted miseries. Sometimes they are theocratic, like the late Taliban or the current Iranian mullahs. But more often they are dictatorial like the Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, or Egyptians, who all, in varying degrees and in lieu of reform, have come to accommodations with the terrorists to shift popular anguish onto the West and the Jews.

 

That is the Petri dish of Islamic fascism, an evil that will only disappear when the dictatorships that allow it or nourish it do as well. Whether the jihadists are in Iraq, the United States, or Europe, they all share a sick notion that someone else (the decadent Western oppressor and unbeliever) is responsible for their own poverty and backwardness rather than the fundamentalism, corruption, bias, and intolerance endemic to the Middle East.

 

 

Propaganda

In WWII we didn’t care much whether in fighting Bushido some thought we were in a war against Buddhists. We weren’t, and that was enough.

 

We knew the enemy were Nazis, not simply Germans, and didn’t froth and whine to prove that distinction.

 

But not now.

 

To criticize Islamic fascism is supposedly to be unfair to Islam, so we allow on our own shores mullahs and madrassas to spread hatred and intolerance, as part of our illiberal acceptance of “not offending Islam.”

 

It is not that we don’t believe in Western values as much as we don’t even know what they are anymore. The London bombings were only a reification of what goes on daily with impunity blocks away in the mosques and Islamist schools of London.

 

The enemy knows that and thrives on it. That refuge in religion is why imams shout that “Islam doesn’t condone such things” — even as bin Laden has become a folk hero on the Arab Street. Jihadists sense that even here at home more Americans are more concerned about a flushed Koran at Guantanamo Bay than five Americans fighting for the Iraqi jihadists or Taliban sympathizers in Lodi, California.

 

As long as there is not any price to be paid for Islamism, either by governments abroad or purveyors of its hatred in the West, the propaganda works and the killing will go on. But when a renegade Saudi Prince, Pakistani general, London imam, or Lodi mosque leader screams out to the jihadist, “Stop that before those crazy Americans really do go to war,” the war, in fact, will be over and won.

 

 

Methods

Terror is the signature of the Islamist: hit, back off; hit, back off — hoping in a few years to erode the will and nerve of affluent and leisured Western countries.

 

Bin Laden has so far only made one mistake: He took down the entire World Trade Center rather than the top floors, and had the misfortune of having George Bush as president. Thus he lost Afghanistan and ended up with democratic reform from Iraq and Lebanon to the Gulf and Egypt. Train bombings in Madrid and bus explosions in London, like the carnage in Iraq, are preferable, since they are enough to terrify and demoralize the Westerner but not quite enough to knock sense into him that only military resistance and victory will save his civilization.

 

So the attacks will never quite be of such a stature to convince Western voters that one more such explosion will destroy their societies. The trick is instead to wage war insidiously, incrementally, and stealthily to avoid an overwhelming response. A cooling-off period in between 9/11 and 7/7 in which Western apologists, pacifists, and Islamist sympathizers go to work is essential for the terror to continue.

 

Second, the denial of culpability is equally critical: a Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia must always be able to profess that it deplores terrorism, and that to its knowledge no jihadists are in transit on its territory; bin Laden & co. are not in its country; and its royal family are not funding killers. Within Europe itself, a madrassa that indoctrinates directionless youth, or an imam who shouts hatred to his audience, must always simultaneously when called upon “condemn” terrorism, and then seek victimhood when the rare scrutiny of an outraged public nears.

 

Finally Western self-loathing and guilt is essential: A fascist agenda of the jihadist — religious persecution, gender apartheid, racism, militarist autocracy, and xenophobia — all that must be embedded deeply within the postmodern landscape of the oppressed. A non-Christian and non-Western “other” can mask his venom only through victim status, grafting his cause to the same exploited groups that seek from Western society benefaction and compensation.

 

 

Aims

The jihadists expect that Westerners will slink out of the Middle East, allowing fascist fundamentalists to gain control of half the world’s oil and thus buy enough weapons to blackmail their way back to the caliphate.

 

Destroying Israel, killing Christians in Africa, running Westerners out of the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, or Bali, all that is mere relish. In Europe, the goal for the unhinged is the creation of another al Andalus; for the more calculating it is enough intimidation and terror to carve out zones of Muslim sanctuary, where millions can live parasite-like, within the largess of Western society, but without its bothersome liberal agenda of freedom and equality, in hopes of implanting the universal law of sharia.

 

So here we are. Even though the killers profess revenge equally for Afghanistan (the so-called “right” war), they expect Westerners to scream “Iraq.”

 

Even though such bombings are predicated on infiltration, careful stealthy reconnaissance, and long sojourns within London, expect cries of anguish and worrying about the stereotyping of Middle Eastern males.

 

Look for the same scripted crocodile tears and “concern” from the Middle East’s illegitimate leaders, even as much of the Islamic Street takes a secret delight in the daring of the jihadists, and the governments sense relief that the target was Westerners and not themselves.

 

Anticipate Western leaders condemning the terrorists in the same breadth as they call for “eliminating poverty” and “bringing them to justice” — as if the jihadists and their patrons are mere wayward and impoverished felons.

 

In the short term, Bush and Blair will appear as islands in the storm amid an angry and anguished public. But as 7/7 fades, as did 9/11, expect them to become even more unpopular, as the voices of appeasement assure us that if they just go away, maybe so will the terrorists.

 

It is our task, each of us according to our station, to speak the truth to all these falsehoods, and remember that we did not inherit a wonderful civilization just to lose it to the Dark Ages.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Regarding your desire to kill every Muslim who's threatening India, why do you have so much hatred? Probably, the people in India lack spiritual values (which explains why they're in this state)and the Muslims want to convert them for their own good? Who knows, maybe, Islam is the solution for India's spiritual darkness.

 

 

The cause of islamic terrorism is not western imperialism or crusade. These muslims have been doing it since the founding of this insane religion. They attacked India before Hindus attacked them from 700 AD.

 

When are you guys going to learn the truth about their religion. Their religion teaches them to slaughter Kafirs. Any non-muslim is by definition a Kafir. Read their Hadeeths and Quran and try to know the truth.