They captured one of them so they will have a pretty good idea who did what in short order. If they were smart, they would systematically hunt down the leaders of the group responsible and make them disappear without a trace until the training camps have been dismantled. No public display of violence, no indiscrimate killing.
What religious war was that? What country did we declare jihad on? What country have we tried to convert to Christianity? Every country we’ve successfully waged war on has an independent government that is democratically elected by it’s citizens.
You certainly enjoy the freedom to express your opinion yet you somehow feel it necessary to defend an ideology that tries to suppress that. When Islamic zealots aren’t trying to kill people they’re worrying about such things as Muslim women only displaying one eye, lest it tempt the men.
People have claimed poverty and pride as a reason for this madness. I think it’s just a bunch of sexually frustrated men looking for 72 reasons to leave town in a hurry and we’re the collective bus ticket.
Are you talking about Vietnam? Chile? Argentina? Nicaragua? Cuba? Please be more specific.
Where do you get the notion that these attacks were trying to convert anyone to anything? They were Pakistanis attacking India and Indian interests. You are making stuff up. They were not trying to convert anybody and you know it.
Will that satisfy the people? They are politicians after all.To satisfy the angry people with a response will help a pol for a long time. Defender of freedom and protector of the people and all that.
I already posted this about the organization involved from WIKI:
Objective
The LeT’s professed ideology goes beyond merely challenging India’s sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar’s agenda, as outlined in a pamphlet titled “Why are we waging jihad”, includes the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of South Asia, Russia and even China.
Your original point taken. Yes, they will demand a pound of flesh.
Oh, please; Iraq is hardly an independent country. And electing people they don’t know under threat of death if they don’t is hardly democratic. And the desire kill Muslims and protect Israel in accordance with Christian prophecy was part of the reason we attacked Iraq; it was in part a holy war.
I see little difference in spreading Islam by the sword or in spreading western culture and democracy by the sword. They are both equally horrendous to me.
But, again, these attacks were not done to convert anyone but to harm India. Or the obvious question is how many people have actually converted as a result of these attacks?
That’s not the point. Not every action is done to gain converts but to spread Islam. One theory I have heard for the attacks was to cause conflict between India and Pakistan in order to hamper the American effort on the western border.
Jihad and Dawah work in tandem. Jihad weakens the power of the Kaffir, and Dawah proselytizes.
Do you mean it is not done to gain converts but it is done to spread Islam? I should think they would be the same thing.
That’s the checkers version.
The chess version is that one move facilitates the next.
So that these guys are from Kashmir, which Pakistan and India are disputing, and that there is such enmity between Pakistan and India is all irrelevant and of no consequence. But the truth is that these people are only concerned with spreading Islam. Even if by killing Muslims.
Oh.
OK.
Makes perfect sense.
There’s really no point in responding to you, is there? For you appear to (mis)interpret not just what is written here but also distort any reference provided to make whatever point it is you are trying to make.
For instance, as the very subheading shows, the cited article highlights precisely the point sailor was making. To wit:
– my highlights.
Seriously, what in the world are you on about and what does it have to do with “debating”?
Do you need to oversimplify things in order to give them order in your mind?
Muslims refuse to bury militants
- good for them. The corpses should be destroyed and disposed of at an undisclosed place.
well, please explain your interpretation. How do you expand Islam by killing Muslims? And why is it that it is such a coincidence that these guys appear to have other motives for their deeds?
Why are the Muslims in Malaysia or many other places not killing Muslims in order to expand Islam?
(This is just getting surreal)
Why don’t we just take their word for it? If they give a religious reason for their attacks, then that is probably the reason. If they give some other reason, then that is most likely it. 20th century history should have taught us by now that murdering bastards often say right up front what it is they want and why they kill.
Ineffectively I would assume, but that doesn’t stop people generally. People who believe they have the right interepretation of Islam will kill other Muslims to help their sect become ascendant, just as the Catholic church burned heretics.
Because I am speaking of radical Islamists, of the kind that carry out terror attacks, not all Muslims.
Only because you won’t let go of your straw man. I am not talking about all Muslims, but radical Islamic terrorists. Many of such organizations have released manifestos outlining their strategy goals in plain language.
I see, so the fact of Pakistan’s confrontation with India over Kashmir and other issues is just a cover, an excuse, for the expansion of Islam? It is not real at all? These guys are so devious!
This is wonderful news. I’m proud to be (sort of) Indian today.