Oh, those wacky Muslims:
At Least 20 Dead In Bombay Train Blasts
"All of India's major cities were reportedly on high alert following the attacks, which came hours after a series of grenade attacks by Islamic extremists (vanilla-fied AP code word for "terrorists") killed eight people in the main city of India's part of Kashmir."
And to think, if only we'd pull out of Iraq and Israel out of Gaza (oh wait, they already did that) this wouldn't have happened.
8 comments:
There you and the Associated Press go jumping to conclusions about who launched this attack.
Meanwhile, your government supports the military dictatorship of Pakistan that is accused of arming and training the Kashmiri miltants. This is the same Pakistani government that is accused of harboring Taleban leaders from Afghanistan.
Why does the US support a miltary dictator? Because he is such a "valuable ally in the war against terror."
If you want to blame the Muslims, blame your own so-called Christian president who funds this sort of terrorism.
You guys are such hypocrites.
Six: In Nadir's world, either Bush cuts support for and attacks every dictator on earth, or he is a detestable hypocrit for attacking or otherwise not supporting only a few. Meanwhile, no attrocity that can't be somehow traced back to the evil US he has nothing but excuses for.
I offer no sympathy or support for terrorists of any stripe. Not even the ones that are funded by the US.
The Indian government has been accused of atrocities in Kashmir as well.
The truth is the Kashmiris simply want independence from Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. Their struggle is political and has nothing to do with religion.
Put that in your Muslim-hating pipes and smoke it.
The Islami-KKKers are trying to execute Musarif, so he might not be so bad. When it comes to anything having to do with the US, the Nadirs of the world require 100% absolute perfection, ie, requiring that Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln be Radical Republican Abolitionists, or else they are despised racists no different than John C. Cahlhoon or John Wilkes Booth. Meanwhile, the decapitating gangsters and Islami-KKKers are "freedom fighters" whom Nadir respects.
I don't understand how Nadir can comprehend from the writings of Six and mine that we are "muslim haters." We hate tyrants, including those who impose islam onto people who would otherwise have freedom to select another religion, no religion, or even anti-religion. We don't merely hate white tyrants like the nazis or the KKKers. We even hate non-white tyrants!
If "the Kashmiris" (may we assume that they speak with a single voice?) want "independance", and by the means of targetted bombing of civilians, or want "independance" as Castro, Mihn, Robert E. Lee, Halli Salasi, Bonaparte, or the founders of Liberia did (in order to replace one tyrany with another), they earn my enmity, and I hope they fail.
I am far from 100% confident that the neo cons and Chris Hitchens are correct that the only way to protect ourselves from the Islami-KKKers is to invade Iraq; neither am I 100% confident that Tom, Nadir, and Patty Buch are correct that the way to answer 911 is to withdraw all military bases from those countries and support for Isreal.
But I know that the US invaded Germany, Italy, and Japan, imposed democracies there, and has maintained military bases in those countries, and in surrounding countries, for decades. What has happened in those countries? Have they become looted pauperies ruled by tyranical US puppets? No: They have developed into fiercely independant democracies with flourishing economies, spawning no violent attacks against the US, though of course verbal US-bashing is quite popular.
South Korea and Tiewan have similar relationships with the US.
We also know that Chamberlain and Stalin appeased much to Hitler, and that so did France's Committe on Public Safety to Bonoparte, and we see how those appeasements played out. Then there's Isreal, acceding all sorts of land to the non-Jewish Arabs, only to have that land used as launching pads for terror strikes.
And from 1800 to 1860, northern state comprimisers acceded to a procession of demands by KKKer legislatures (including the Fugitive Slave Act), rejecting calls by abolitionists. Did the state of slavery improve? Or worsen?
Nadir: Are suffer a mis-impression that "the Kashmiris" are in any way unified in what they want. Here are the facts. There are three main groups:
- Muslims who want all of Kashmir to join Pakistan in an islamic theocracy. Only this population produces terrorism. There are such people even in the Inian portion of Kashmir.
- Hindus who want all of Kashmir to join India in a secular democracy tolerant of various religions. They adamantly believe that they need India's protection to enjoy these freedoms, due to violent islamic totalitarianist so nearby. Very few Hindus reside in the Pakistani portion of Kashmir, due to the violent fananticism of islam practiced by Pakistanis.
- A mixture of Hindus and non-retarded muslims who want an independant, democratic state. This may be the largest group, but they do not constitute a simple majority in the entire region known as Kashmir.
Post a Comment